12. The Church

THE CHURCH What is the Church’s relation to Christ and to the world? The Church is the body of Christ and also His bride. In Ephesians 2:10 the Church is called His workmanship, His masterpiece, His poem (Gr. poiema). It is a wonderful statement. The Church is God’s masterpiece, His handiwork. In it He has fully expressed Himself; into it He has poured Himself; to it He has devoted Himself; and when it is finished, His glory shall be upon it. In the meantime we are “created in Christ Jesus” for a purpose which is “unto good works.” And good works are those works “which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” Children of God are engaged in a good work only when they are walking in the path which he has before ordained (afore prepared, R.V.) that we might walk in it. To do any other work is to be doing an evil work. The mission of the Church in the world is one of the most misunderstood of subjects. Most people suppose that the Church is in the world to reform it and improve it and to “make the world a better place to live in.” Such an idea is foreign to the Biblical conception of God’s purpose in putting the Church into the world. The Church’s business in the world is to complete itself. At first thought, that seems to be far from the truth for it appears to present a selfish program which must of necessity be contrary to the mind of God. But when it is remembered that in order for the Church to complete itself it must win from the world and bring to God those who are to be members of the Church which is the body of Christ, it is seen that the mission of the Church is not selfish after all but, rather, most unselfish. The mission of the Church is set forth briefly in Ephesians 4:12 where it is declared that the purpose of the risen Lord’s ministry gifts is “for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” But we must read this verse with care. It is not, as is so often said of it, a threefold statement. It is not for the perfecting of the saints; then, for the work of the ministry; and, finally, for the edifying of the body of Christ. It is rather a single statement. Christ’s purpose in the bestowal of His gifts is, in a word, the edifying of His body, the church; and in order to achieve this end He must have ministry, that saints must be perfected, or trained; and, in order that the saints may be perfected or trained, certain men have been gifted by the Holy Spirit, and then they themselves have been given by the risen Christ to His Church. The Revision is a great improvement: “For the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering”; and so is the 1911 Bible: “For the perfecting of the saints unto the doing of service.” And always with this end in view: the edifying (that is, the building up, the upbuilding, the completion) of the body of Christ, which is the Church.

According to the 13th verse all this is to go on “till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect Man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

“Unto perfect manhood,” or “unto perfect womanhood” is not at all the meaning of the phrase. It is this: God is now at work making a Man. How long it took to make the first man we may not know; but for nearly two thousand years He has been at work making the new Man. That Man is Christ. His body is the Church. Whenever a sinner is converted to Him, a new member is added to His body, and the body is that much nearer completion. This work is to go on until the last sinner to be converted in this dispensation is turned unto God, and then the perfect Man will be complete having arrived at “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” The Man-child is not yet fully born; the moment he is fully born he will be “caught up unto God, and to His throne” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18; Revelation 12:5). In several of your addresses which I have heard and in your writings, commenting uponEphesians 4:23, you have said that “God is now making a Man.” This has reference to the church which is Christ’s body, and commonly called also His bride. How can the Church be a Man, and it still be a bride? or do you believe that the new Jerusalem is the bride, and the present-day church the body? The new Jerusalem is the appointed abode of the glorified church (Ephesians 5; Revelation 21). I have at no time said, whether in public address or in my writings, that the Man now in process of making is the church. This Man is made up of the church as a body and Christ Himself as the Head. The church is His body, and also His bride, as taught clearly in Ephesians 5:25-26. The matter is explained by the quotation in Ephesians 5:30-31 of the words of Adam in Genesis 2:23-24. Adam was not complete in his body without Eve, who was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh. And yet she was also his bride. The church is Eve’s antitype.

I notice that the Revised Version omits the word “broken” from1 Corinthians 11:24, making it read, “This is my body which is for you.” Please tell us if this is the correct rendering.

Yes, it is the correct rendering, and it is much to be preferred. The Holy Spirit of Truth, both in plain teaching and in type, has been careful throughout the Scriptures to preserve the unity of the body of Christ. The passover lamb in Exodus 12, of course, was a type of the Lamb of God which takes away the sin of the world. The lamb’s body was not permitted to be broken, so far as its bones were concerned. The flesh was to be eaten, and “if the household be too little for the lamb” the flesh might be shared with the neighbors; but “in one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof (verses 4,46).

Again, as our Lord’s body hung on the cross, it was another type of the Church which is His body (Ephesians 1:22-23); therefore it was not suffered that any bone of that body should be broken (John 19:31-37).

Thus it appears that the word “broken” should not be used in connection with the Lord’s Supper. The body was given for us, but it was not broken. In Ephesians 5:30 we are told that we who are born again are “members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.” How good it is to know that “He keepeth all his bones, not one of them is broken” (Psalms 34:20).

How can the Church be the bride of Christ if she is His body (Ephesians 1:22-23)?

It is easier to ask “how” than to answer “how.” These are not matters to be explained by human reasoning, but rather matters to be received by faith. They are not matters of logic, but rather matters of revelation. That the Church is both the body and bride of Christ is the plain teaching of Ephesians 5:25-33, where, in verse 31 there is a reference to Genesis 2:24, comparing the Church to Eve as a type. Eve was taken out of Adam, and therefore they were one flesh. His body was not complete without her, and she was also his bride. A friend of ours is quite certain that Israel is the bride of Christ, while I believe that the church is His bride. She thinks that the bride will go through the Great Tribulation, but that the church will not. In talking with her I should like to be a little clearer on a few things myself.Revelation 21:9-10says that the New Jerusalem is the bride, andHebrews 12:22-23states that the church and the New Jerusalem are the same. Why do the twelve gates of the New Jerusalem bear the names of the twelve tribes of Israel? The bride of Christ is the church (Ephesians 5:25-33); this passage settles the question for me. It is true that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), and therefore it is quite fitting that the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem should bear the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Then, too, we are never to be allowed to forget that “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22), and therefore the names of the twelve tribes of Israel are associated with the gates of the eternal city. The church, which is the bride, will not pass through the Great Tribulation, for she is delivered from the wrath to come (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10). Can you show me what Bible difference there is between sun worship and Sunday worship?

I am not sure that I understand your question. I do not know of anyone who practices such a thing as Sunday worship. Sun worship consists in the worship of the sun, but what you call Sunday worship is the worship of God on Sunday. There is a vast difference between worshiping a day and worshiping on a day.

What Scriptural ground is there for the “ordination” of preachers?

There are four New Testament passages referring to laying on of hands in connection with an action corresponding to ordination. The word itself in its ecclesiastical sense does not occur in the New Testament. “Ordained” in Acts 14:23 should read “elected” or “appointed,” as in the Revised Version. In Acts 6 it is shown that the seven deacons after being chosen by the multitude were appointed to office by the apostles with prayer and the laying on of hands. The “prophets and teachers” at Antioch set apart Barnabas and Saul for their missionary work by laying their hands on them with fasting and prayer (Acts 13). In 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6 the gracious gift which was in Timothy is said to have come with the laying on of hands of the presbytery (that is, a body of elders), with which Paul himself seems to have been associated. The words, “Lay hands suddenly on no man,” of 1 Timothy 5:22 are also supposed by many to refer to the act of ordination. Can no one but an ordained minister serve at the communion table? The Scripture makes no such regulation or restriction. Man “has sought out many inventions,” and one of the worst of these is the distinction between so-called clergy and laity. The Bible knows nothing of this.

I recently heard of a woman preacher who said that Paul was “a crusty old bachelor” and that this was the reason he objected to woman’s leadership in the church. Was she right?

No. To begin with, Paul was probably not a bachelor but a widower; for while he had not a wife during his apostolic ministry, it is evident that he had previously been a member of the Sanhedrin, and its membership was confined to married men. But whether Paul was a bachelor or not is relatively unimportant The vital point to remember is that Paul was a fully authorized aposde of Christ, and folks who talk about disagreeing with Paul’s teaching in the New Testament Epistles should remind themselves that those Episdes are God’s own Word. Their controversy, therefore, is not with Paul, but with God Himself. Take heed how you hear, and what you do about it! Every Christian woman should be eternally grateful for the position to which she is elevated in the New Testament Church, and she ought to be careful not to seek the position of leadership denied her, lest she grieve and quench the Spirit of God.

Just what is the business of a preacher? I mean, what is he supposed to do who is set apart for the office or work of a pastor? Being myself a pastor, I am sometimes confused, when I see what is expected of me by my church and by the community in which I am located. Just what is my job?

It is little wonder that you are confused, for there is a very general misconception of what the preacher’s duties really are. But if you are subject to the Word of God there need be no confusion concerning your “job,” as you put it. Let me commend to you the preacher’s program, as given by the risen Lord to His servant Paul when He Himself “ordained” him. You will find it in Acts 26:16-18 : “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee, delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.”

I can think of no higher appointment than this, and it is the appointment of every minister of Christ. Let him apply himself, first and last and all the time, to this mighty task, and he will find himself fully occupied.

Yesterday I was thrust through with the accusation of modernism because, forsooth, I said that our present act of ordination had nothing to do with the administration of the ordinances; that it was purely a matter of denominational order, and not of New Testament legislation. I should greatly value your exposition of this controverted question.

I agree with you perfectly that there is no connection whatever between “our present act of ordination” and “the administration of the ordinances.” Perhaps I will go even further than you and say that it is not even “a matter of denominational order” any more than it is one “of New Testament legislation.” I consider it an impertinence for any denomination to set barriers about “the administration of the ordinances,” and to say who may and who may not administer the Lord’s Supper or baptism. It is perfectly clear to me that any believer has a right to baptize another believer and to minister the bread and wine at the Lord’s table. Would you say that there is no difference in God’s sight between a group of believers who gather together as simple members of the body of Christ, with no humanly chosen head, but who seek to allow the Holy Spirit to minister through whom He will; and another group of believers who appoint a man to minister to them and call themselves by some other name than simply “church” or “gathering?” Where does God authorize men to appoint a man to minister to them? Have we not then clergy and laity (Nicolaitanism), which God says He hates (Revelation 2:15).

There should be no such thing in the church as clergy and laity. We teach, and hold tenaciously to, the doctrine that all the born-again ones, wherever they may be, are a common brotherhood of priests unto God. We do recognize the office of bishop (or pastor, or elder) and also that of deacon which is according to the New Testament; and it is contrary to the New Testament for any group of believers to ignore these two offices in the Church. As for Nicolaitanism, there is just as much chance for it in the one meeting you speak of as in the other; and, indeed, I have seen very much of it in meetings which were said to be gatherings simply unto the Lord’s name. I thank God that I, too, with Him, hate Nicolaitanism; and if I am guilty of it in anyway, I do not know it.

What is your opinion of a vested choir and a gown on a minister? Would you wear one? If not, why not?

I am not enthusiastic over vestments in church services. But my objection to “a gown on a minister” is very much greater than my objection to “a vested choir.” You ask whether I would wear a pulpit gown, and if not, why not? My answer is that I would not, and the reason is that I object to anything that smacks of priestcraft and implies that the preacher is of a different class or order from other Christians. The distinction between “clergy” and “laity” is entirely unscriptural. The Church is made up of a common brotherhood of believers constituting one common priesthood. Therefore the preacher or pastor is no more a priest than any other member of the body of Christ. This is the basis of my objection to a gowned preacher. The matter of a vested choir is more a matter of personal taste, but in my judgment it is a relic of ritualism which ought to have no place in the New Testament Church. May I ask a triplicate question? Not that I am personally in doubt, but I want the clarifying influence of your knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures.

1. Is not the church the “body of Christ?” And if so, is there any consistency in the unregenerate “joining the church”?

2. Since, as we believe, there are many instances of individuals joining the church who show no valid evidence of new birth, who is to blame ?—the church, the individual joining, the pastor receiving him, or “all” of them?

3. Do such persons “actually” become “members” of the church (the body of Christ) by having their names enrolled on a church record?

1. The church of God is the body of Christ, made up of regenerate persons only, and it is an abomination for an unregenerate person to join even a local church.

2. To receive an unregenerate person into the membership of a local church is a crime against God, against the church universal, against the local church itself, and against the person thus received. The blame must rest upon the church receiving such a person, and the pastor who acts in behalf of the church, more than upon the person himself, for he is ignorant of the whole matter and therefore does not understand the nature of his act. Some people have a long score to settle in this regard.

3. Of course, no one can become a member of the church which is Christ’s body who is not born again. Enrollment on church records does not count unless one is also registered in Heaven.

Please explain why you sometimes say “church of Christ”? I cannot find it in the Bible. There is only one church spoken of in the Bible and that is the church of God. All other names are man’s make-up.

Maybe so. But it is difficult to understand why any one should object to calling the church by the name of Christ, since He is Head over all things unto it, and it is His body and bride. While it is true that the expression, “the church of Christ,” in that form, is not scriptural, yet in Romans 16:16, Paul uses it in the plural, saying, “The churches of Christ salute you.” And these are the same churches which, in 1 Corinthians 11:16; 1 Thessalonians 2:14 and 2 Thessalonians 1:4, he calls “the churches of God.”

What is meant inMatthew 18:18by the words, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”?

It is our Lord’s authorization of discipline in the then future church; verses 15-19 should be read together, and the same authorization is found in John 20:22-23. Under this authorization the church has a right to exclude a member who is living in sin and refusing to confess it and judge himself. In 1 Corinthians 5 the Apostle Paul insists upon the exercise of such discipline “in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (verses 4,5). The sinning member was a child of God, but he was out of fellowship and therefore must be excluded from the fellowship of the Lord’s people until he is brought to self-judgment (see 1 Corinthians 11:31-32). Our Lord’s words to Peter in Matthew 16:19 refer to a quite a different matter. The pronouns “thee” and “thou” are singular rather than plural as in the other passages, and here our Lord is delivering to Peter the keys which he used in Jerusalem (Acts 2), Samaria (Acts 8), and Caesarea (Acts 10), admitting Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles into the Kingdom of Heaven.

I should like to know your teaching on head covering (1 Corinthians 11). The teaching of the chapter referred to is that women ought not to attend the assembly with bare heads, and that men ought not to cover their heads when attending the assembly. It is purely a question of Christian order and whether the Lord’s people are willing to submit themselves to the Word of God. Headship in the assembly is vested in the man, and woman is given in the assembly a place of subjection. Christian women ought not to complain of this, for the same New Testament which gives them this place of subjection in the Church, has delivered them from social slavery wherever it has gone, and it has given them a place of exaltation unknown where the gospel has not been preached. Should gifts from the unsaved be received for the Lord’s work?

No. How can they be acceptable unto God when He so plainly declares that they that are in the flesh “cannot please God” (Romans 8:8)? How can an offering be acceptable to God coming from one “who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace” (Hebrews 10:29)? “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination” (Proverbs 21:27). In the beginning of the Church dispensation the gospel workers “went forth taking nothing of the Gentile” (3 John 1:7), and that is the only proper course for today. The words in1 Corinthians 5:5: “To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,” seem to me to be everything but clear as regards the action on the part of the church assembly at Corinth. What is the literal meaning? In other words, what did the assembly do when it did this?

It merely voted to exclude the offending member from fellowship in the assembly and at the Lord’s table until he should be brought to repentance and restored to fellowship with God. And from 2 Corinthians 2:5-11; 2 Corinthians 7:8-16 it would seem that precisely this result was brought about. It is a great pity that in our day church discipline is so generally a lost art.

I wish you would discuss the question, should women teach men or preach to them? Just what privileges should they have in the churches?1 Timothy 2:11-14;1 Corinthians 14:33-37. In answer to your question, I am passing on to you an article by Dr. Harry A. Ironside, who says: “It is very easy to become one-sided in regard to scriptural doctrines and principles. One would seek to preserve the golden mean and recognize the breadth of scripture as well as its clearly defined limitations. I do not see how anyone desiring to be subject to the Word of God can refuse the plain definite instruction in regard to woman’s place in the assembly as set forth in 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy 2. When the assembly is gathered together in a scriptural way then a woman’s place is one of silence so far as ministry is concerned, and also I take it so far as public prayer goes. She recognizes the headship of the man through whom Christ speaks to His Church, which is aptly pictured by the subject woman. This is no slight upon the woman. It is simply the recognition of her proper place in nature. In the new creation there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus. But this does not alter our natural standing as men and women living in this world. Outside of the assembly of God other conditions prevail which are not necessarily governed by the passages referred to. 1 Corinthians 11 is, to my mind, utterly unintelligible unless it indicates a sphere of more or less publicity where women in the company of men are at liberty under certain conditions to pray and prophesy. Such liberty, however, needs to be carefully guarded lest it develop into license and the woman aspire to a place which God in His wisdom would shield her from.

“The blatant feminism of the present day is one of the signs of the end-times. It is but one symptom of the lawlessness of the closing days of the dispensation. Christian women should be the last to encourage anything of this kind.

“As some have raised the question as to the right of a woman to teach a Bible class or instruct in a school where both sexes are present, I should say that this has nothing whatever to do with the prohibitions mentioned above. Such a class or school does not constitute an assembly of God. It is a voluntary arrangement in which people agree to go together for instruction and help. If they choose to sit under a woman teacher, she certainly could not be charged with usurping authority. Priscilla evidently took precedence over her husband in the instruction of Apollos, and he, though an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, was not too proud to learn from her. To teach in an authoritative way is forbidden the woman. To instruct in a class while maintaining her womanly character is quite in keeping with the doctrine of Scripture.

“There is another point, however, which it is well to keep in mind. When things had all gone wrong in Israel, and men had proven recreant to their trust, God raised up a woman judge and gave to Deborah a place quite contrary to the orderly condition of things. We need not be surprised if in the present confusion of Christendom (when men have failed so wretchedly to maintain the truth of God) He raises up a host of holy women to hold aloft the banner of truth which has fallen from the hands of unfaithful men.

“Some years ago, Dr. H. H. Snell, an English Bible teacher of repute, was walking along a busy street with a brother in the Lord, when their attention was attracted to two women who were conducting a street meeting, giving out the Gospel to a great throng of both sexes. The unnamed brother, a rigid stickler as to the letter of the Word, turned to the Doctor and said, ‘What a disgusting thing to see those women so forgetful of their place as to be preaching in public!’ The venerable Dr. Snell replied, ‘My brother, it is because you and I are not there that God is using them.’”

We also append herewith Dr. Scofield’s statement on the subject of woman’s ministry:

“There is no verse which says a woman must not preach. Three things are forbidden to women: (1) They must not interrupt meetings where the Holy Spirit is at work, by asking questions (1 Corinthians 14:23-35); (2) A woman must not ‘teach.’ The word didaskein here means, as defined by Thayer, ‘to deliver didactic discourses’—that is, to teach doctrinally by authority,—as we would say, dogmatically. It is the same word used by the apostle of himself in 1 Timothy 2:7. A woman must not set herself up as an authority in matters of doctrine, like an apostle (1 Timothy 2:12); (3) A woman must not be put in a place of authority in the church, such as the office of elder would be (1 Timothy 2:12-13). The ordination of women is an abomination. It should be remembered that two great principles govern the relation of subordination in marriage (Genesis 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:13). The second is like, but has special reference to marriage as a type. The wife is to be in subjection to her husband ‘as the church is unto Christ’ It is obvious that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, relates to married women, as also do 1 Timothy 2:12 and Ephesians 5:24. The prohibition to ‘teach’ is, however, general. ‘I suffer not a woman to teach (authoritatively)!’ So far all is negative. What a woman clearly may do is (1) to ‘prophesy’ (1 Corinthians 11:5; Acts 21:9). The gift of prophecy is not exclusively nor even chiefly foretelling, but forthtelling—speaking to edification, and exhortation, and comfort (1 Corinthians 14:3). Such speaking, therefore, is permissible to women. A word as to covering the head in 1 Corinthians 11:5 : Nothing could be more contrary to the whole spirit of this dispensation than to use the casual mention of an ancient custom in a Greek city as fastening a legal and, so to speak, Levitical ceremonial upon Christians in all ages. The point is that ‘the head of the woman is the man.’ It is the divine order. The angels know this. To them any inversion of that order would be disorder. In Corinth a shorn or ‘uncovered’ head in the presence of men was a badge of harlotry, and a harlot is not only a woman who sells her body, but she is a woman who has thrown off the restraints of subordination—of the divine order. In a mixed assembly, therefore, a spiritually-minded and Biblically-taught Christian woman who speaks or prays would do so in a modest and womanly manner, keeping her place in the divine order. It will be obvious, therefore, that, within the limits expressly fixed, and with the spirit of modesty and subordination, a Christian woman may exercise a wide and varied ministry. (2) She may teach, in any sense not involving dogmatic declaration of doctrine; (3) she may speak ‘to edification and comfort;’ (4) she may also pray (1 Corinthians 11:5); and, (5) since ‘him that heareth’ is commanded to say ‘Come,’ she may evangelize.”

If a Christian is in a peculiar place of financial distress and receives a gift of money to be used specifically for relief from that position, is it his duty to tithe that particular sum?

Tithing is an Old Testament law rather than a New Testament rule of giving. Under the Law the Israelites were commanded to give not merely one-tenth, but much more. First, there was the tithe (that is, one-tenth) of all produce as well as of all flocks and cattle, which was claimed by Jehovah, and which was paid in land, or if redeemed one-fifth of its value was added. The Levites received this tithe, and they in turn paid one-tenth of it to the High Priest. Then there was a second additional tithe of field produce alone, used for celebrating the sacred feasts each first and second year at Shiloh or Jerusalem, and every third year at home with a feast to the Levites, the stranger, the fatherless and the widows. Some writers claim that there was also a third tithe for the support of the poor, though this is denied by others, who hold that the second tithe on every third year was shared by the Levites with the poor.

All this tithing was required. It must be done to obey the Law. These tithes included the Israelite’s taxes. Whatever he desired to bring as freewill offerings must be added to these required offerings. The New Testament plan of giving is in 1 Corinthians 16:2 and 2 Corinthians 9:7 : “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him;” and “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful (Greek, ‘hilarious’) giver.”

It goes without saying that Christians should give as much under grace, or even more, than the Israelites were required to give under the Law. But it is always to be a matter of the heart—”according as he purposeth in his heart.” Otherwise the giving will be done “grudgingly, or of necessity,” which is hateful to God; for He “loveth a hilarious giver.”

All this is not to say that Christians ought to give in a haphazard and slipshod way: far from it! Our giving should be systematic, regular, proportionate—”as God hath prospered” us—and spontaneous, with a glad heart. Such giving brings delight to the heart of our Father. And He promises to remunerate us for our giving and in due proportion to our giving. What else can the words of 2 Corinthians 9:6; 2 Corinthians 9:8; 2 Corinthians 9:11 mean? “But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully . . . And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: . . . being enriched in everything to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.”

Touching the specific point raised in your question, no one can decide for you. All depends upon precisely what one may have promised to God in the matter of tithing. If one’s covenant with Him includes the tithing of gifts as well as of general funds, then one must fulfill one’s vow. But, even in such an event, it would be altogether too bad if he did it grudgingly or unwillingly. The heart is the thing. “For if there be first a willing heart, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not” (2 Corinthians 8:12).

How may I prove tithing belongs to the present dispensation of grace?

You cannot prove that tithing belongs to the grace dispensation for it does not so belong. It is a good thing to give proportionately as God prospers (1 Corinthians 16:2), and it certainly ought to be considered a high privilege to give to God under grace as much as His people were commanded to give under law; but tithing is not laid down in the New Testament as a Christian obligation. The doctrine of Christian giving is found clearly set forth in the 8th and 9th chapters of 2 Corinthians: (1) We must first give our own selves unto the Lord (8:5); (2) our giving proves the sincerity of our love (8:8); (3) we ought to give whatever we have promised to give (8:10,11); (4) if there be first a willing mind it is accepted according to what we have and not according to what we have not (8:12); (5) if we give sparingly we shall reap sparingly (9:6); (6) let us give as we purpose in our hearts, not grudgingly or of necessity: for God loves a cheerful giver (9:7); the Greek word for “cheerful” is hilarious; God loves a hilarious giver; (7) God takes account of our giving and is both able and willing to see that all grace shall abound toward us who give with willing hearts (8:8-11); and, finally, let it be remembered that we can never give beyond His giving (8:9; 9:15). Are tithes the limit of Christian giving? By no means. Tithing is not the principle of Christian giving at all, though many Christians practice tithing. The 8th and 9th chapters of 2 Corinthians contain the norm of the doctrine of Christian giving. Do you think I should be doing right to use part of my one-tenth in getting a better education? I should like to have a better education. I went only to sixth grade and had to quit at the age of 11 years. After I set aside the one-tenth I don’t have enough left for an education as there are four of us to support. The setting aside of the tithe is purely a matter of liberty, but after it is devoted to the Lord’s work specifically it is better to use it that way. Pray to your Heavenly Father for guidance as to whether He would have you use a part of the tithe to get a better education.

Please explain2 Corinthians 9:6: “He that soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.” Does this mean that if we give money for God’s work He will increase our financial income?

I do not believe so. It is true that in Luke 6:38 our Lord said: “Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.” But this word is found in connection with our Lord’s teaching concerning the kingdom which is to be set up in the earth on His return. In that day the King Himself will see to it that men shall treat each other equitably and righteously. We all know that it is not so today, and that no man may trust other men to treat him fairly just because he treats them fairly. I am reminded of a child of God who was famous for his liberal support of Christian missions. He endorsed another man’s paper for $150,000, and was robbed of it all. Such instances might be multiplied indefinitely. The children of God must await the setting up of the kingdom before they may expect righteous treatment from their fellow men. In the meantime, nevertheless, the law of agriculture applies in the matter of Christian giving. Paul was discussing Christian giving when he wrote, in Galatians 6:6-8, “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto (or, share with) him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.”

“Life everlasting.” This is the harvest Everlasting life is God’s free gift to the believer, but the believer, through his giving, may reap a rich harvest of everlasting life for others, who by his giving may hear the gospel and live by it. The harvest is a spiritual harvest; it is “of the Spirit.” But it is sure. It may be delayed. It may not be gathered here, but it will certainly be gathered there. Will you kindly give your belief and opinion of churches holding Sunday picnics and having stands at county fairs, etc., to raise money for the Church?

Any method employed to raise money for the Church is unscriptural which ignores the following principles laid down in the Word of God:

1. To be acceptable to God, the offering must come from His own people and not from the unsaved. The unsaved can do nothing to please God (Romans 8:8). “Without faith it is impossible to please him” (Hebrews 11:6; compare 2 Corinthians 8:5).

2. It must be a free-will offering (2 Corinthians 9:7).

3. It must be brought cheerfully. The Greek word for “cheerful” in 2 Corinthians 9:7 is “hilarious!”

4. It must be proportionate in view of the giver’s ability (1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 8:12).

It is a shameful thing for the bride of Christ to pose as a beggar before an ungodly world. Is it right to sell books in the church? And if so, should they be sold on Sunday? Is it not written, “Make not my Father’s house a house of merchandise,” and “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”?

It is so written. The former of these quotations comes from John 2:16, and the words were spoken by the Lord Jesus when He drove the sellers of sheep and oxen from the temple. The second quotation is from one of the ten commandments given to Israel at Sinai. The record is in Exodus 20, and the fourth commandment says: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: but the seventh day is the sabbath of Jehovah thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it” (verses 8-11).

It is so written. But what is written in these two Scriptures has nothing to do with selling books in a church building, nor with selling these books on Sunday.

1. The temple in Jerusalem was God’s appointed place for the worship of Israel. It was not a meeting-house, but rather a house where the people brought their offerings as provided by the law of Moses. It came to an end with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The New Testament church is not a building at all, but consists of the people of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ, and is free from the law. The meeting-house is not the church, but rather the people who meet from time to time, not forsaking the assembling of themselves together. In the meetinghouse the Word of God is preached, and the people contribute money to support the ministry of the Word. There is no more reason why they should not buy in the meetinghouse good books expounding the Word. Indeed, there is no better place for such sale than a Christian meeting-house.

2. Sunday is not the sabbath. There was never a sabbath but Saturday, the seventh day of the week; and the notion that the sabbath was changed by our Lord from Saturday to Sunday is utterly without foundation. The sabbath was a part of the law, which was in force only “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (Galatians 3:19), that is, from Moses to Christ, a period of about fifteen hundred years. The law was Israel’s schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, “that they might be justified by faith.” But after that faith is come, even Israel is no longer under a schoolmaster” (Galatians 3:25). The law was a ministration of condemnation and death, and is done away in Christ (2 Corinthians 3:7-11). The sabbath was never given to man until the law was issued from Sinai and then only to Israel (Nehemiah 9:13-14). The Gentiles have never had it (Romans 2:14). Under the law, all work was forbidden on the Sabbath, that is, on Saturday; and for picking up some sticks on that day a man was stoned to death by God’s command (Numbers 15:32-36). From all this it appears that to sell good Christian literature in a church building is perfectly acceptable, and that Sunday, when more Christians gather than on any other day, is the best day to sell it. In this connection it ought to be said that while Sunday is not a sabbath, it is nevertheless a precious day that ought to be carefully guarded by the Christian. It is not to be observed, like the sabbath, as a day of enforced idleness; but rather as a day of high privilege, presenting extraordinary opportunity to gather in the Lord’s name and to make Him known to others. It is well that by civil law the first day of the week is set aside for rest, for it has been clearly demonstrated that man needs to rest from his usual labors once a week, and that he can produce more in six days if he has such rest than in seven days without it. Is it scriptural for the church to construct buildings provided with modem appliances for amusement and recreation, for the purpose of interesting young folks in the church in order that they may become Christians and members of said church?

Enormous sums of money are expended for the construction of such buildings and the conduct of great “plants” to be employed as indirect means for reaching the masses and making them Christians. If one-half of the money expended in huge church “plants” were devoted to actual evangelization, the work of God would prosper in a much greater degree than under all the indirect methods invented by man. This applies also to the work of foreign missions where so frequently the efforts of the missionaries are toward extraneous by-products rather than the work of preaching the Gospel of grace. May God deliver us all from this grievous error! Does God want the mischief done by denominations continued under the name of interdenominations?

Certainly not, for God is not the author of mischief. How long He may allow the present state of things to continue is not revealed. We only know that the end of it all will be sure. Those who are truly His own by the new birth will be gathered to Him in the Rapture of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and the remaining mass of profession will be spewed out of His mouth (Revelation 3:14-16).

Give the distinction between the legalism of those who sought to put Gentile believers under the law of Moses, and those who were “of Christ.”

There is little or no relation between these two classes. The legalists in their ignorance of the gospel of the grace of God sought to set up the Law of Moses as the rule of the believer’s life. The sufficient answer to legalism is the epistle to the Galatians, and in that epistle the curse of God is pronounced upon any preacher who proclaims the false gospel of legalism.

Those who spoke of themselves as “of Christ” (1 Corinthians 1:12) were a faction in the Corinthian Church as truly as those who spoke of themselves as “of Paul,” or “of Apollos,” or “of Cephas.” They were all guilty of schism, and the “of Christ” party were as guilty as the others. Indeed, it may be that they were more guilty than the others for it is more than likely that through a professed adherence to Christ, they were seeking to set aside the apostolic authority of Paul. Frequent allusions to such objectors to his authority are found in both of the Corinthian epistles.

“We discover,” says Dean Alford, “very plain signs of an influence antagonistic to the apostle having been at work in Corinth. Teachers had come, of Jewish extraction (2 Corinthians 11:22), bringing with them letters of recommendation from other churches (2 Corinthians 3:1), and had built on the foundation laid by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3:10-15) a worthless building on which they prided themselves. These teachers gave out themselves for apostles (2 Corinthians 11:13), rejecting the apostleship of Paul (1 Corinthians 9:2; 2 Corinthians 10:7-8), encouraging disobedience to his commands (2 Corinthians 10:1; 2 Corinthians 10:6), and disparaging in every way his character and work for the gospel. It is probable that these persons were excited to greater rage against St. Paul by the contents of the first Epistle; for we find the plainest mention of them in the second.” Does the Bride of Christ include the whole Church, or only “the overcomers”? The bride includes all those who are born again during this dispensation, and of course that means the whole church. It is unscriptural and mischievous to teach that the church will be divided in heaven, and that only a select company of particularly “holy” people will constitute the bride. It was not to such, but to the Corinthians (carnal, and yet Christians), that the Holy Spirit said, “I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2). The conclusive doctrine of the bride of Christ is found in Ephesians 5:25-33, and the words of verse 32 leave no ground for doubt on the point raised in your question: “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church”—not a part of the church, but “the church.” The whole church, therefore, constitutes the Bride of Christ. And who are “the overcomers”? They are simply believers; all believers are overcomers, all who are truly born again. “For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God” (1 John 5:4-5). These are the overcomers addressed in the letters to the churches in the second and third chapters of the Revelation. And how do they overcome? It is “by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony” (Revelation 12:11). The church of the living God is one, and its unity will be manifested in the ages to come, without faction or schism, without flaw or imperfection, “not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. . .. holy and without blemish” (Ephesians 5:27).

I find the following in “The Soul Winners’ Testament”: “Do not become confused by the many false teachings (2 Peter 2:1;Matthew 15:9;2 Timothy 3:13;2 Thessalonians 2:3). The true Church is composed of regenerated individuals who are born into Christ, being an organism and not an organization.” I should appreciate very much your explanation of the words “organism” and “organization,” also “the true Church.” The difference between an “organism” and an “organization” is the difference between life and death. Our own human bodies are organisms, but you would hardly call them organizations. Just so the church of God is not an organization like a lodge or club or society of individuals, but it is an organism, being the body of Christ; and all its members, that is to say, all who are truly born again, and only such, are members of the real church—members of Christ’s body, of His flesh and of His bones (Ephesians 5:30).

What is the difference a bishop, a pastor and an elder?

These tides are applied interchangeably to the same person in the New Testament churches. The word “bishop” (Greek, episcopos) means “overseer”; “elder” (presbuteros) meant originally an elder man. It refers to the man, while “bishop” refers to his office. Pastor, of course, means “shepherd.” See 1 Peter 5:1-5. Should we or should we not call a minister “Reverend”?

There are some ministers who like to be called “Reverend,” and there are other ministers, like myself, who prefer not to be called by that tide. The word “reverend” occurs only once in the Bible; in Psalms 111:9, speaking of God, it says: “Holy and reverend is his name”; and the meaning of the word, according to Strong’s Concordance, is “dreadful, frightful, terrible.” I should much prefer some other epidiet. Stricdy speaking, and in conformity with Scripture instead of common usage, the minister should be called “Pastor” or “Elder.” And, best of all, if he is born again, you may call him “Brother.” For one might become a minister, and be called Pastor, or Elder, or Bishop, or Reverend, even Doctor, without being saved at all; but in order to be a brother he must be born again. Will you please explain the meaning ofMark 16:15-18? Is this the Great Commission for the church?

Since this question is a confusing one to many readers, we gladly answer it here. First, let us quote the passage in full:

“15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

“16. He that believedi and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believedi not shall be damned.

“17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;

“18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.”

It is perfectly clear that “these signs” do not now “follow them that believe.” Mark’s gospel, like Matthew’s and Luke’s, is primarily a kingdom book, and I am satisfied that none of them contains the Church’s marching orders—not even the so-called “Great Commission” of Matthew 28:18-20. The fact that in the Acts all water baptism was in the name of the Lord Jesus and not that of the Trinity shows that the apostles were not working under the Matthew commission. To be sure, we are to preach the gospel to every creature but what gospel? The only gospel known to the synoptics was the gospel of the kingdom. Our gospel of the grace of God is found among the four evangelists only in John. The “Great Commission” of the church is in Acts 1:8, as amplified and exemplified by the apostolic practice as recorded in the whole book of Acts; as, for example, 10:47,48; 19:4,5 (compare Colossians 3:17). Doubtless the “Great Commissions” of Matthew and Mark will be fulfilled after the church is completed and removed, for then it is that “this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world” (Matthew 24:14).