The Purpose of Religion

Jesus tended to religious matters.   He attended feast days like Passover and the Feast of Dedication (now commonly called Hanukkah).  He met in the synagogues and read and taught from the Scriptures there.  He sang hymns with his apostles.  Something Jesus never did, however, was become so focused on religious observance that He lost sight of the purpose for religious observance.

Jesus’ life is dotted with stories of His participation in religious matters, but the real story is what Jesus did between those moments.  He was primarily externally focused, not internally focused.  We should be the same.

“Yes”, we might say, “but He was Jesus.  He had a special mission!”  But is Jesus mission so drastically different from ours?

Jesus announced, “the kingdom of Heaven is at hand!“  This expression is a nutshell summation of His entire three years of ministry.  He came to make that Kingdom a reality in His own life, and He went around telling stories to illustrate on a basic, human level what the coming of this “Kingdom” would look like in others – His disciples.  Evan Bassett did a beautiful job reminding of this point in his lesson on January 9.  You can listen to his lesson on our online sermons page.

Bringing the Kingdom into this world means love, compassion, generosity, hospitality – not more pious religious excellence (the very thing the Pharisees strove for the most).   This why Jesus repeatedly said that Kingdom righteousness must exceed that of the  scribes and Pharisees.  His Kingdom would look like this through the people who made up the Kingdom.

Throughout His ministry Jesus chastised the Pharisees for strict observance of prayers, fasting, alms-giving and Sabbath law but a simultaneous lack of obedience to God.   Jesus’ warning about crying “Lord, Lord” in Matthew 7 wasn’t a warning about getting the details of religious observance wrong, but just the opposite.  It was a warning that some might do all kinds of things right and lose their souls because their primary focus was on themselves and their own piety to the exclusion of turning their hearts toward the good of others.

In other words, if they focused all their time perfecting adherence to laws and outward shows of religion (no matter how good and wonderful those might be), they would neglect adhering to the greatest law of all – to love God and neighbor.  Really driving this point home in Matthew 25, Jesus gave a graphic story about how God in judgment would tell those who had failed to tend to the sick or imprisoned or hungry or naked that they had never tended to Him either.

This is challenging to me personally.  I have spent much time in study and prayer and other such practices of my religion but relatively little time reaching out to the larger world outside my own little world with compassion and the gospel.

Religious observances are a good and necessary part of the Christian existence, but only if they meet their intended purpose.  They are designed to center us on our Lord, to edify and motivate us.   From there, we must let our focus be ever outward, not merely inward to these things.  Let us seek out the sick, the needy, the dirty, the poor, the lost and let us reach out to them with the compassion of Christ, drawing them to Him and His cross just as we were.

If we become truly engaged in these works we will have little time for allowing ourselves to become “spotted by the world” (James 1:27).  Then and only then will our religious observances be worthwhile – pure and undefiled.

Now That’s a Good Answer: Which was a Neighbor?

Jesus often answered questions with another question.  In Luke 10, an expert in the Jewish law approached Jesus and asked Him what he must to do inherit eternal life.

²⁷He answered: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’^[c]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’^[d]” Luke 10:27

But the text says the man “wanted to justify himself”, so he asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbor?”

This man was trying to get Jesus to define God’s terms in such a way that he could claim to be meeting them.  Jesus answer no doubt shocked, confounded and convicted the man.

Jesus proceeds to tell the well-known story of the “Good Samaritan” – the man who sacrificed his own time and money to aid another man who had been robbed, beaten up, and left for dead on the side of the road.  A priest and a Levite (the Jewish holy elite) had passed by the man without helping.  The Samaritans were a race hated by the Jews, and for the hero of the story to be a Samaritan made the point hit home even harder.

After telling this very compelling story, Jesus responds to the man’s question with this question:

³⁶“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” Luke 10:36

Notice that Jesus turned the question around.  Instead of “who is my neighbor?”, the question became, “Whose neighbor are you?”

³⁷The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

In this article, we have two good answers to consider – Jesus’ answer and the man’s answer to Jesus’ answer/question.

Jesus answered by defining terms in a way unexpected by the law expert.  This man was accustomed to reading the law in a way that served his own sense of personal justification.   Now, instead of centering the command “Love your neighbor as yourself” on the “neighbor”, Jesus put the emphasis back squarely on “you”.

Jesus teaches us here that we shouldn’t attempt to define the commands of God in a way that makes them easily attainable by us.  The expert was looking around at others as pawns in his game of self-righteousness.  If he could narrowly define a neighbor in a way that he considered attainable, he might claim his own life to be perfectly within the law.  However, if  “neighbor”  was defined by his own heart, that would be an entirely different matter.

The command to love our neighbor is not a call for us to define neighbor, but to define love.  It is not our place to judge the worthiness of others in receiving our love.  Our responsibility is to look inwardly at our own hearts and motives to judge whether our outward actions reflect a real change by God on the inside or mere outward observance of “the law”.

We might say, “But Jesus told the man to go and do likewise!  Isn’t that Jesus laying down a law to be followed in order to attain our salvation?  Jesus even told the man in verse 38 that if he kept the commandments he would live!”

Yes, but Jesus had something else in mind besides outward conformity to the written law.  The command was grounded in “love the Lord your God with all your heart”.  That’s not good a work you can do at a single point in time.  It’s a state of being.  Later, when Jesus said, “Go and do”, he had already made this point.  This story was designed to so turn upside down the man’s understanding of things, that it convicted him inwardly to repentance.  Repentance is fundamentally about a change of heart, not a mere change in action.  This is why Paul repeatedly teaches we are save by faith not works.

Like all Jesus’ stories, this one focuses on the reality that the Kingdom of God is about the heart.  The priests and Levites were responsible for sacrifices on behalf of the nation.  Perhaps these men were on their way to tend to that business (on the road between Jericho and Jerusalem) when they passed by the wounded man.

Does this describe our hearts?  Are we so quick to observe the most obvious outward trappings of our religion that we overlook the real opportunities to live out the gospel?  Are we likely to speed by a stranded motorist on the interstate because we’re late for church?  Think about it.

Jesus made this point powerfully in his earthly ministry.  In Matthew 19, He said this:

¹³But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’

The Good Samaritan story also brings to light the universal nature of the Kingdom.  In this story, the non-Jew was following God’s law in a way the Jews (even the Jewish priesthood) were not.  These Jews clearly rejected Jesus in His earthly ministry.  The story illustrates how the Kingdom of God is made up of all - Jew and Gentile – who truly have their hearts turned by the love of God.

Furthermore, in his death, burial and resurrection, Jesus was about to give the world the ultimate Good Samaritan story of love and selfless sacrifice and show what loving our neighbor was really about.  Believing in its saving power, the gospel is what really changes us and empowers us to love the way God wills.

³⁶Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers? ³⁷The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.

Now that’s a good answer!

Now That’s a Good Answer: Certainly Not!

In Romans 5, Paul spent a lot of time and ink explaining how we are saved by the grace of God.   The chapter break ends this way:

²⁰The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, ²¹so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 5:20-21

Whenever grace is emphasized someone invariably makes that charge: “Hey, if it’s by God’s grace that we are saved and not by works, why should we be concerned about living righteously?”

Paul anticipates this question in Romans 6:1

¹ What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? ² Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

Paul’s answer is terse.  The KJV reads “God forbid!”  That is a poor translation, since no Greek word for “God” is found in the original text.  Paul is simply saying “no” in the strongest way in the Greek.   Paul then asks a question of his own -  a profound thought-question for Christians:

How could we?

Why is this a thought-provoking question?  It’s packed with significance.  Let’s unpack it.

To begin, Paul didn’t say, “Certainly not, because God’s law requires you do x, y & z!”  He could have said it that way, but he didn’t.  He simply said, “How could we possibly keep sinning who have died to sin through the grace I’ve been expounding?”

Let’s notice, then, that the attitude of a believer should not be one of a moral obligation to God, but one of gratitude to God.  It’s always been this way.

When Potiphar’s wife tempted Joseph with adultery he cried out, “How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” Gen. 39:9

This is the same question Paul asked.  When you look at the context of the Genesis passage, Joseph is really saying, “How could I, who have received so much from God, do such a wicked thing and sin against God?“  It’s gratitude, not fear.  This doesn’t mean we should not fear God – just that fear is not God’s primary method of motivating His people.

This question remains for the believer today.  Yet for the Christian, it’s even more significant than for Joseph because we have Christ’s completed work acting in us.  Unlike Joseph’s spiritual state, Paul carefully explains the state we are in.

We died to sin (v. 1)

We were therefore buried with him (v.4)

If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. (v.5)

because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. (v.7)

Paul says these things have happened – past tense – to those who believe, who have been united with Christ in the symbol of his death, burial and resurrection (baptism, v.3).  The resurrection Paul speaks of here is not the bodily resurrection at the end of time, but the resurrected life of the believer in this world.  New people act like new people, not like the old people.  This doesn’t mean we won’t struggle with the flesh from day to day, but overall our course is set.  It is not a course of sinless perfection.  It is a course of faith.

Let’s make one final point.  We may be thinking, “Then how do we encourage virtuous living?  How do we exhort people to moral behavior?”  Let’s look at how Paul does it.  Paul doesn’t use the “God said it, so you must do it” approach.   So what approach does he use?

He appeals to them with the gospel.

This is the only biblical way to move closer to God in your daily walk.  Self-determination to “follow the rules” isn’t going to get it.  Drawing from your inner-strength isn’t going to achieve it.  Positive thinking isn’t going to do it.  Pressure from other people around you isn’t going to work either.

Only understanding the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ is going to give us the power to truly change.  This is why we must constantly immerse ourselves in the gospel message.

How does this play out practically?  When you feel tempted by sin, don’t run to the passage that says, “don’t do this” or “don’t do that” and try to bend your will to the command.  Simply reading the direct commands of  scripture (and there are many) without seeing them in the proper context of the gospel will lead you down a road of failure and disappointment.

On the other hand, daily reminders of our acceptance through faith in Jesus Christ will give us the motivation and the power to truly overcome the sin in our lives – not just conform outwardly to a set of rules.

Should we presumptuously take advantage of God’s grace, then?  Should we continue in sin that grace may abound?

Certainly not!  How can we who died to sin live any longer in it?

Now that’s a good answer.

Good Answer: You are the Christ!

¹³When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

¹⁴They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

¹⁵“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

¹⁶Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,^[b] the Son of the living God.”

¹⁷Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. Matt. 16:13-17

In this text, Jesus asked a very direct question of His disciples.   He had made a major splash among the people throughout the whole region of Judea, and lots of people were talking about Jesus.

It is interesting to note that the superstitious Jews suspected Jesus might have been a resurrected prophet like John the Baptist, Jeremiah or Elijah.  These were men who came with displays of power and with the word of God.

But Peter would have none of that.  When Jesus asked His closest companions – the men who had really come to know Him – to identify Him, there was only one answer.

¹⁶Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ,^[b] the Son of the living God.”

What we are to take from the passage is that this is the answer.  With Jesus, there is no list of possibilities.  He is more than great prophet, great teacher, great leader.  Yes, He is all of those things, but He is more.  Jesus is the Christ.

What is the meaning of “the Christ”?

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). John 1:41

The term Christ is a Greek word meaning “anointed one”, which is translated from the Hebrew term “Messiah”.  The Messiah was understood by the Jews to be the great one anointed by God who would bring to a climax God’s redemptive work for Israel.  The days He would usher in were prophesied about in the most vivid of positive imagery:

⁶ The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling ^[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.

⁷ The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

⁸ The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest.

⁹ They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea. Is. 11:6-9

It’s like the line from that great song we hear so often during the Christmas season, O Little Town of Bethlehem:

O little town of Bethlehem, how still we see thee lie!
…
The hopes and fears of all the years are met in thee tonight.

The Christ would be the answer to every hope and fear of man.  Peter had seen Jesus’ miracles, had interacted with Him daily, heard His words, knew His heart.   He recognized Jesus for who He was and is.  Peter would later learn (in Acts 10) that this Messiah was the hope and redemption of all men, not just the Jews.  Today many of us bristle at the idea of needing a Christ.  Offending our modern sensibilities, the Bible makes the spectacular claim that Jesus is the answer to everything.  He is man’s only hope for redemption and peace.  He is the only way to have a relationship with the God of creation.   He is the Lord of all.  Everything was created by Him and for Him.  Every knee will bow to Him in the day He comes to judge men.-century Jews were a downtrodden lot, a defeated people living under the shadow of Roman domination.  We, on the other hand, are a free, independent, strong-willed, educated modern people.  Why do we need a savior?  Accepting Jesus as Christ in our modern world requires a radical change in thinking.  This is why so many reject Him today.

Do you say He is the Christ?

Peter also says Jesus is the “son of the living God”.  This was a startling revelation.  As the Son of the living God, Jesus was more than just “Christ”.  He was more than a great spiritual leader or earthly king.  He came directly from God Himself.  He was neither God’s human mouthpiece like one of the prophets nor His earthly representative like Moses, but the very presence and person of God.

This changed everything.  This enable Jesus to be savior.   It gave Him unprecedented authority and power.  Peter saw Jesus heal incurable diseases, break all the laws of physics, and proclaim people’s sins forgiven.  Only God can forgive sins, so this dumbfounded His critics.  Take this passage from Mark 2:

¹A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. ²So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. ³Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. ⁴Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. ⁵When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.”

⁶Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, ⁷“Why does this fellow talk like that? He’s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

This text displays Jesus miraculous power and His unique claim to authority over sin.  It made Him different than every other “Christ” who came before or after Him.

Do you say Jesus is the Son of God?

Finally, it is interesting that Jesus says “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you [Peter]” (KJV).  Recognizing Jesus as the Christ is not something we can come to by mere human reasoning and intellect or by some wisdom of men from the ages.  The Spirit of God reveals this to men.  Our eyes are opened by God to see it.  Paul emphasizes this, too, when he says:

¹⁴The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. I Cor. 2:14

The point of all this is to take the emphasis off men and put it all squarely on God.   Only God can save us – we cannot save ourselves.  We cannot use our human intellect to “figure out” how to redeem ourselves.  We need the Spirit of God to reveal it to us.

In other words, you cannot place your faith in yourself or in any man, but only in Jesus.  Who is Jesus?  He is the Christ, the son of the living God!

Now that’s a good answer!  Why?

⁹because, if^(A) you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and^(B) believe in your heart^(C) that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. ¹⁰For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. Rom. 10:9-10

I Corinthians 16

This final chapter to the Corinthians addresses one final, practical request of Paul and adds some personal greetings.

Here, Paul asks them to gather weekly contributions for the poor saints in Jerusalem.  Paul is planning to visit them to personally collect this gift.

¹Now about the collection for God’s people: Do what I told the Galatian churches to do. ²On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made. ³Then, when I arrive, I will give letters of introduction to the men you approve and send them with your gift to Jerusalem. ⁴If it seems advisable for me to go also, they will accompany me. I Cor. 16:1-4

This clearly applies to the Corinthians, but how does it apply to us?  Paul isn’t personally coming to collect our weekly contributions.  Should the church continue to give weekly contributions?  Must this occur exclusively on the first day of the week?

The simple answer is that, yes, the churches were expected to engage in acts of benevolence for other saints by giving money/goods.  Paul’s advice for them to do so on the first day of the week seems fairly obvious as well.  That’s when they met.

I don’t believe there is anything inherently virtuous about putting our money together on Sunday versus midweek, if that’s when we can do it.   Paul simply didn’t want a bunch of scrambling to get their money together when he came.  It’s just that simple.  I have no doubt if each believer at  Corinth could have wired Paul the money directly through Paypal, he would have said, please wire the funds to my Paypal account.   It was a simple matter of practicality.

In the 16th century, reformer John Calvin wrote this in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:

Luke relates in the Acts that this was the practice of the apostolic church, when he says that believers “. . .continued in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and in prayers” [Acts 2:42]. Thus it became the unvarying rule that no meeting of the church should take place without the Word, prayers, partaking of the Lord’s Supper and almsgiving.

This practice of “almsgiving” has continued from the first century to be a feature of the Christian church.  The Jews also took up alms for the poor, so the practice was not foreign to early believers.

The church continued to meet on the Lords’ Day as the early tradition began and, consequently, the giving of money for the poor continued to take place during the weekly assembly as Paul had started the tradition.  Thus, we have the practice to this very day – one I certainly believe we should continue.

Let’s not elevate this text to something it was never intended to be.  This is a not a command to every church for all time to gather funds on the first day of the week in some mere formulaic ritual.  If somebody brought their funds on Wednesday night or at both times, I suppose this would suffice as well.  I believe Paul’s command as to the first day was purely practical, not doctrinal.  It is, however, a lesson in one important function of the church.  The important question isn’t if or when but why does the church go about regularly gathering funds?

God’s heart has always been with the weak and helpless among his chosen people.  Throughout both the OT and NT, widows and orphans are singled out as a perpetually weak and needy class of persons with a special place in God’s heart.

Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Ps 82:3

A father of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows, is God in his holy habitation. Ps 68:5

Leave your orphans behind, I will keep them alive; and let your widows trust in Me.  Jer. 49:11

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.  Jas. 1:27

In Acts, Paul reminded the Ephesian elders that he provided for his own needs and for those who traveled with him and that he did not ask for financial help from them.  He said this was meant as a lesson to them that they should “support the weak”.  He then reminded them of Christ’s words, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35).  This tells us a lot about the heart of Paul.

Galatians 2 is also notable.  There, Paul recalled the time he and Barnabas met with the apostles at Jerusalem and convinced them that their ministry to the Gentiles was legitimate.  Paul says that as they were sent on their way, the apostles urged them to do one thing…”remember the poor”.  This tells us a lot about the heart of the apostles.

Clearly, God’s priority in giving is the relief of the weak and needy among his people.

Consistent with this principle, we have a few recorded examples of the first century Christians pooling their money like Paul’s direction here in 1 Corinthians chapter 16.  In every instance noted, the collection gathered by a local church is used to do one of the following:

Helping Needy Believers Within the Local Assembly

In Acts 2 and 5 the bible says the Christians in Jerusalem sold their belongings to help those among them who needed material assistance.  They brought this money to the apostles as a central collection point (Acts 5).

Acts 2 may imply that cash was distributed to those who were in need; however, it seems more likely that the money was used to purchase food (and maybe other staples), which could then be distributed to needy saints.  This seems to be what is happening in Acts 7 when the apostles turned over the business of the “daily distribution” for the widows (also called “serving tables” by the apostles) to seven men we commonly call the first deacons.

Of course Paul gives Timothy explicit instructions about the church providing regular aid to widows within the local assembly of believers at Ephesus.  The fact that Paul speaks of a “list” or “number” of widows meeting the criteria for support and not “burdening the church” with those who don’t meet certain criteria may suggest this involved pooled funds.  Again, this is in keeping with a collection of funds being used to relieve needy saints.

Even with the restrictions on such relief going to widows who are “truly” widows and who don’t have a family to care for her need not be a dogmatic letter-of-the-law rule.  If a widow has family (believers or unbelievers) that neglects her, should the church turn a legalistic blind-eye to this needy saint?  Certainly not.  Again, the church practice of benevolence is not about rules and regulations.  It is simply about meeting true needs.

Helping Needy Believers at Another Location

Throughout Acts, the believers in Judea (Jerusalem) continued to have serious need for material assistance – especially in light of famine conditions predicted by Agabus at Antioch (Acts 11).  As a result, the church at Antioch collected and delivered aid to those needy saints in Judea.

There are numerous references in Paul’s epistles to these instances of churches sending material aid to the needy saints in Jerusalem.

Because of this specific need in Jerusalem, Paul told the Corinthian believers to each put aside something from their earnings on the first day of the week so he could pick it up and take it to Jerusalem in response to the need of those brethren.

Paul told the churches in the Galatian region to engage in this same practice so their contributions would be ready for pick up when he (Paul) came to their cities.

Paul told the Roman church about the contribution of those in Macedonia and Achaia to the poor saints in Jerusalem in his letter to them (Romans 15).

Paul’s direction in this matter was regularly referred to as “the collection for the saints”.

There is no recorded biblical example of the church collecting and distributing funds for any other reason than to aid brethren in need of help or material support.

“Other” Uses for Funds Collected by the Church

With the last statement in the previous section hanging over us, let’s consider the following.

Supporting a local evangelist:

Paul mentions that evangelists (I Cor. 9) and elders who preach and teach (I Tim. 5) have the right to receive regular compensation from the church.  There are no stated examples of this in scripture – only directions in principle.

Supporting missionaries abroad:

The only close example to this is when Paul mentions receiving material aid from the Philippians as he left Macedonia and on more than one occasion while he was in Thessalonica on his missionary journeys.

Again, there is neither example nor instruction given in the New Testament to gather funds for any other reason than to provide for needy saints and to pay evangelists and evangelistic elders.

Modern Approaches to a Church Treasury

Today, the collective funds of the church are typically referred to as a ‘treasury”.  This is  not a term found in scripture, but is a practical description used to describe what some might call the “official” collected funds of the church.  In many churches, the largest percentage of the treasury is typically used for four items in descending order:

1. Maintaining a building, equipment and supplies for meeting

Obviously the church needs a place to meet.  While meeting in homes was the first century practice, over the centuries the modern practice is for large congregations to meet in an owned or rented facility.  We typically call this a “necessary” expense or an “expedient” to fulfill our need to meet.  I see no inherent scriptural problem with this.

We should be willing to admit, however, that the New Testament does not give us any concrete reason to believe these first century saints collected funds to pay for a building.  Instead, we have numerous references to churches meeting in homes and collecting funds to help others.  There is an “upper room” mentioned in Acts, but there is reason to believe this was most likely part of a believer’s residence or a borrowed location.

We often talk about “good stewardship of the Lord’s money”.   Don’t misunderstand – we should not not condemn the idea of having a building in which to meet  (some people advocate exclusive home church arrangements).  The question is: is spending an exorbitant amount of money on a building and grounds the best use of the “collection for the saints”.  It’s not an easy question to ask, but one worth considering.

2. Paying the salary of a local evangelist

We have already seen that this is a scriptural use of the funds per 1 Cor. 9.  It is in keeping with the church paying a “laborer his wages” and providing for saints who need material assistance.

3. Assisting evangelists in other places

We see a reference by Paul in his letter to the Philippians that they sent him aid while on his missionary journeys.  This, again, supports the use of funds to help saints in need.

4. Helping needy saints

As has been shown, this is the only specific reason documented in the NT that the early church gathered funds, yet unfortunately may near the smallest percentage of an official church budget.

Conclusions

As stated above, the church needs a place to meet.  Given the cost of having a building and running the administrative side of the church, perhaps a large expense seems “unavoidable” in today’s society.   Yet, some have taken alternative approaches.

I recently met a woman who attended a large Christian denomination.  When a group from their congregation started a new church in another area, they made arrangements to rent a building space at a very low rate.  She commented that the money they now had available to support missionary work was overflowing.

Such arrangements are different from the common pattern of many churches, but they are worth considering as we look across the landscape of church arrangements today.  It is easy for growing churches to get in a tremendous rush to have their own building, saving up funds in reserve to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars or going into deep debt to achieve this end.  We see a trend towards bigger and bigger church “campuses” in mainstream Christianity today.

In all, no matter what arrangements we make for a place to worship, we should continue in Paul’s urging to give of our means regularly and to make the best use of the funds gathered for helping the needy.  I have always supposed heads would have rolled if the Corinthians told Paul when he arrived that they had used 90% of the funds they collected “for the saints” to purchase pews or a new sign for the meeting place.

Paul’s personal comments at the end of this great letter are simply worth reading from the text.  The obvious familiarity and warmness towards his fellow believers and fellow servants in Christ is striking.

He ends with a passage to note, underscoring the great personal effort he put into this letter and both the sternness and love expressed in it:

²¹I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand.

²²If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him. Come, O Lord^[b]!

²³The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.

²⁴My love to all of you in Christ Jesus. Amen.^[c]

I Corinthians 15

After all Paul has had to say to the Corinthian church, he wraps up with a reminder of the pure message of the gospel.  This not only serves as a capstone to all his urging for them love one another, but also addresses the final problem being face by the church.  Some had arisen who questioned the reality of the resurrection of Christ.

¹²But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? I Cor. 15:12

Paul first reviews the gospel message as he did in chapter 2.  The gospel is Jesus life, death, burial and resurrection.  All who believe on Him will be saved.  It’s that simple.

¹Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. ²By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.  ³For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance^[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, I Cor. 15:1-4a

He then gives details about the number of witnesses to the resurrection,  stating over 500 brethren saw the Lord in addition to the Apostles and himself.

Through the first portion of this chapter he makes it clear that without the resurrection of Christ, the Christian faith is meaningless and their lives and sacrifices are in vain.  Its reality is the cornerstone of the faith, for without it the life and work of Jesus also becomes vain.  He says that if we only have hope in this life (but not in a life after death), then we are “of all men the most pitiable” (v. 19).

On the subject of vanity, Paul pens a troublesome statement:

²⁹ Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they baptized for the dead?

The exact meaning of this passage is a mystery, but has been the subject of much speculation and even practice.  The Mormons allow baptisms on the behalf of dead, unbelieving souls.  Certainly this can’t be the meaning, as we read in Hebrews 9:27

And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

I believe a good paraphrase of this may be:

“If there is no resurrection, then why be baptized into the likeness of the death of Christ?  He remains dead.  Why baptized for the sake of a dead man?  Baptism itself is meaningless and vain.”

He continues to address other things that are vain if, in fact, the dead do not rise again – fighting beasts at Ephesus, enduring suffering for Christ.  All of this is to underscore the sweeping importance of the resurrection of Christ to all of Christianity.

Paul then answers those who doubt the resurrection because of ignorance about the kind of body we will have after the resurrection.  He uses nature to argue that something dies (like a seed body) in order for new life to appear (the plant coming from the seed) and argues that our own resurrection will be  a bodily resurrection.

We don’t often discuss our resurrected existence in such terms.  We tend to think of a ghostly “spiritual” existence, except the Bible is clear the God has prepared new bodies for us and the end of our earthly existence will usher in a new creation (Rev. 21).  Because we cannot envision it with our earthly eyes and imaginations does not make it any less real.

He ends with a rousing vision of our future glorification:

⁵⁰I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. ⁵¹Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— ⁵²in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. ⁵³For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. ⁵⁴When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”^[g]
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”^{[h] 56}The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. ⁵⁷But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. I Cor. 15:50-57

I Corinthians 14

Chapter 14 is another one of those watershed chapters among the epistles.  Here Paul addresses the modern-day controversial issues of tongue-speaking and women’s roles in the church.

This section continues the urging of Paul to “follow the way of love” (v. 1) and then desire spiritual gifts.  Among the spiritual gifts, he tells them to desire especially the prophesy.  Why?

The meaning of prophecy in this context is not simply foretelling future events, but simply revealing something from God.  It is revealing something previously unknown or not previously revealed by God.  During this time when the church did not have the written word of the NT, it would have been critical for the church to have this gift to explain the OT scriptures in light of the gospel.  It would have been necessary to have direction from the Holy Spirit for encouragement and for instruction in Christian ethics.  For this reason, prophecy was an especially important gift.  In essence, it was powerful preaching directly inspired by God.

O, that we had this gift today when so many would be teachers of the word!  James 3:1 states:

¹Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

God gave the gifts of prophecy and teaching to a few and continues to give gifts of discernment of the scriptures and expounding of them to men and women today.  We all must weigh carefully whether or not this gift (not simply a desire) is within us before undertaking such an enterprise.

Paul then addresses an important point about the gift of tongues.  If it has no interpreter, it is useless for encouraging the church.  Paul said he would rather speak five words that are understandable ten thousand in a foreign tongue.  As pointed out before, this flies in the face of what we typically see among charismatics today, where assemblies are dotted with unintelligible “tongues” offered with no interpretation or randomly interspersed in sentences of plain English.

The main point is not that people are amazed, but that people are edified.

²⁶What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has^(A) a hymn,^(B) a lesson,^(C) a revelation,^(D) a tongue, or^(E) an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. I Cor. 14:26

In keeping with this, he requires that people exercise their gifts in order in the assemblies of the church – not interrupting and talking over each other.  This is what is meant by decently and in order.

He then addresses the issue of women in the church.

As in all the churches of the saints, ³⁴ the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. I Cor. 14:33b-34

There is some disagreement over whether chapter 11 (the head-covering chapter) reveals that women frequently prayed or prophesied in the church assemblies and now Paul is saying they should be quiet.    This is a seeming contradiction.  Some argue that chapter 11 is not dealing with the “whole church” coming together, but in smaller sub-groups of the church.

I personally believe chapter 11 implies there were miraculous, Holy Spirit-inspired prayers and prophecies given by women in the church in those days.  Women would employ such gifts in the assembly of the church.

To me, Paul seems to restrict women from taking a leadership role in teaching and from engaging in dialogue/questioning of male teachers/leaders in the church during its assemblies.  A woman serving as a ‘teacher” seems to be a different emphasis than a woman receiving a special revelation from the Holy Spirit and exercising that (as in chapter 11).  One cannot read Paul in any context (1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy especially) and come away with the idea that Paul would have found it proper for women to stand up and teach in an assembly of the local church.

While unpopular and difficult by modern Western standards, this is the tradition of Christ’s church from the beginning and has not changed.

We could say much more about the invaluable role women play in the effective working of the church, but will reserve that discussion for another time.

1 Corinthians 13

This is a famous and perhaps overused chapter.  It is often referenced as the Bible’s “definition” of love.  Perhaps it could be used for that, but Paul’s purpose in writing this portion of his letter to the Corinthians was not to give them a good definition of love or for it to be used as a handy reference in weddings ceremonies.

Paul wrote this chapter to remind the Corinthians that the basis for their jealousies and problems associated with spiritual gifts was a lack of love.  In fact, this was the answer to every one of the problems spelled out from chapter 1 to this point in the letter.

He begins by stating that a person speaking in a tongue (the gift that seemed to be making them jealous of one another) without a loving heart or motive was like somebody beating aimlessly on a gong or a cymbal.  It was a cacophony, a useless thing, pure noise.  He says if he prophesied and revealed deep mysteries without love, it would be in vain.  If he gave himself as a martyr without love, this too would be of no use to him.

We discussed the question – how could somebody martyr himself and do it selfishly?  Is that possible?  It seems like an inherently selfless act.  Although martyrdom is an extreme example (perhaps Paul was using a bit of hyperbole to make his point…like Jesus and the plucking out the offending eye or cutting off the offending hand),  any “good work” done out of vanity or a sense of personal accomplishment or self-righteousness is not done with a heart for God.

He then states what fruits such a loving attitude will bear:

⁴Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  ⁸Love never fails.  I Cor. 13:4-8a

Think about the problems we have studied in the Corinthian church and how these attributes would solve them (my emphasis added):

Love is Patient and Kind

²⁰When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, ²¹for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk.

³³So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for each other.  I Cor. 11:20,21, 33

Love Does not  Boast

¹¹My brothers, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. ¹²What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas^[a]“; still another, “I follow Christ.”

³¹Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord^.” 1 Cor. 1:11,12, 31

Love is not Proud

We know that we all possess knowledge.^[a] Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. ²The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know. ³But the man who loves God is known by God.

⁹Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak.  I Cor. 8:1-3, 9

Love is Not Self-Seeking or Easily Angered/Keeps No Record of Wrongs

¹If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?

⁷The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?  I Cor. 6:1, 7

Love Does Not Delight in Evil

¹It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. ²And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?

⁶Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough?  I Cor. 5:1-2, 6

So we can see clearly how Paul is summing up the answer to the problems within the Corinthian church.  It was an absence of genuine, agape love.  They were not allowing themselves to be led by the Spirit, but by the flesh.  Agape love is the only genuine, Spirit-filled response to God’s tremendous gift of salvation by His matchless grace.

Paul closes up with the argument that all the miraculous spiritual gifts will one day be done away with (verse 13).  For a discussion of that, see our previous post Questions and Answers.

The final verse of this chapter states that only three things remain:  faith, hope and love, but the greatest of these is love.  As he pointed out in verse 8, love never fails when all else does.

One day faith becomes sight and hope is realized in its fulfillment, but love endures eternally.

I Corinthians 12

Our class for this chapter centered around a discussion of the practice of spiritual gifts.  For a discussion about modern views about spiritual gifts, please refer to two previous blog posts.

Who is the Holy Spirit

and

Questions and Answers

In chapter 12, Paul discusses that the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon the church in the manifestation of a diversity of gifts and that no one gift is of more ultimate importance than another.

⁴There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. ⁵There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. ⁶There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men.  I Cor. 12:4-6

Among the various gifts, all these are not as visibly miraculous in form as speaking a foreign tongue or healing a disease in the name of the Lord.  For example, there is the gift of faith.  Some are blessed with the kind of faith that seems never-shaken, while others struggle with doubt.  Some have the gift of teaching, helping others or of administration.

²⁷Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. ²⁸And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.  I Cor. 12:27-28

Paul clearly states that every gift is important in its own way just the same way a body needs every part functioning properly to be effective and healthy.  He ends with the admonition that though they should desire great gifts like speaking in tongues, there is still “a more excellent way”.  It’s the way of agape - love.

I Corinthians 11

This chapter has caused a good bit of debate among believers over the years.  It deals with some principles that seem clear, but leave one wondering how all this applies today.

Paul begins with a simple statement of the roles of authority in God’s order of creation.

³Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

This statement alone so grates against the modern western sensibilities of sexual equality, that it is difficult to relate to at first glance.  Nevertheless, Paul says it.  God ordained a certain order to things.  In fact, some scholars interpret this (as in the ESV) word “gune” can be translated “woman” or “wife” depending on the context.  This would make this passage to talking about married women praying or prophesying being required to show honor to her husband.  Either way, the passage presents some questions.

In verses 8-11, he adds this little gem:

⁸For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

With this as a basis for what follows, Paul enters into a discussion of head coverings for those who pray and  prophesy.  This leads later in the chapter into a discussion of other practices for public worship, so the context could be Paul relating principles for worship when the church has assembled together.  However, prayer happens everywhere, and the text does not say this practice is limited to public assemblies.

The basic rule he lays down is this:  Men should not pray or prophesy with their head covered, but women should pray and/or prophesy with their head covered.

We should begin with the question: what kind of culture was the Corinthian church?  Jewish or gentile?  It seems clear it is a pagan, gentile culture.  In both cultures, it was common for women to have their heads covered in some way by their garments in religious settings.

Augustus’ wife Livia (50 BCE-29 CE) wearing a veil. The veils that were worn in Paul’s day by Greco-Roman women did not cover the face. The sculpture (cast; original in Madrid) dates from the first century (Rome) and is in Museum of Roman Civilization. Credit: Barbara McManus, 1982

He then says that the “natural” way men and women wear their hair is a symbol of this principle.   Men wear shorter hair (or shaved), women wear longer hair, and it is a disgrace (I read this as “not a common cultural norm”) for a woman to have a shaved head.

What in the world does this mean?  Our culture still abides by this head covering principle to some degree.  Men traditionally remove their hats when they are bowing their head in prayer.  I think we have all seen this.   Even in our society, it is a sign of respect for something more important than yourself  (prayer, moment of silence, national anthem, pledge of allegiance, etc).

The real question is, how does this apply to women today?

There are two sides to this issue.  One side says, “Yes, this applies today.  The principles are timeless”.  The other side generally says, “No, this is a 1st-century, Greco-Roman or Jewish cultural issue and does not apply to us today” or perhaps, “No, God has taken care of the need for a covering by giving a woman hair.”

The question might be raised:  If God expects a covering, what kind of covering?  The entire head?  Just the top?  Should the face be veiled?  It would seem critical to get this right, given the timeless, universal terms in which Paul states this matter.   On this, we have no direction.  So the proponents of this cannot rightly agree on whether a handkerchief, a simple hat, a full head-covering/veil or a doily is appropriate.

I am not sure what to make of this issue coming up in one place and one place only.  Either this was a given and didn’t need to be stated in the other epistles or the Corinthians had a special need or dispute going over this.  The latter seems to be more likely, since Paul states this:

¹⁶If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such practice—nor do the churches of God. (ESV)

The point could be that all the other “churches of God” were in compliance with this, but the Corinthians seemed to be experiencing some particular issue with it.

No one can deny that Paul seems to be emphatically making a case here that women should have their heads covered.  There is no way you can read this any other way.

As noted above, some have suggested that Paul makes a shift in his argument – that he lays out some principles of order but then argues somewhat to the contrary by saying, “However, in the Lord…”  in verse 11.

Some go on to state Paul is saying a woman’s hair is her covering and that it is a shame for her to have short/shaved hair.  In fact, Paul really only uses a woman’s hair as an illustration of his point.  He says (I paraphrase)  “Doesn’t nature even teach you this?  Women have longer hair than men – her hair is a natural covering in day to day life.  When it comes to he role in prophesying and praying, she should be further covered”.

Some have also suggested Paul negates all this when he says:

¹⁶If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no such practice—nor do the churches of God.  ESV

These suggest that Paul is saying if someone wants to argue about this point of women being covered, the church shouldn’t be contentious, so let’s just drop the whole thing.  Well that seems odd after Paul made such a strong case for this teaching.  To resolve this tension, the NIV reads we have no “other” custom.  However, the research I have done suggests “other” is a very unusual translation of the Greek.

The fundamental question is was this an issue restricted to the first century or not?

In the end, most churches have adopted an agree-to-disagree on this, with women both “covered” and “uncovered” worshiping side by side.   It is interesting to note that Christians can take this issue so tediously addressed by Paul and simply agree to disagree depending on the individual’s conscience.  Paul even goes so far as to appeal to God’s universal structural order of God-Christ-Man-Woman to make his case.   However, when it comes to other issues of external worship not nearly as carefully addressed by Paul (e.g. instrumental music), we often draw bold lines of division and accuse each other of not being “real” Christians, denying the authority of scripture and worse.  This begs further thought on the part of all of us as we seek to consistently apply what we read in the New Testament to our modern practices and attitudes.

Bible teacher John MacArthur suggests the Corinthians might have been going through somewhat of a “women’s liberation” movement, prompting the apostle to address both this concern and the issue of women speaking in the public assemblies of the church (chapter 14).  As a result, his conclusion is that Paul is laying down a principle that women of every day and time should conform to the societal customs (in dress and action) that make a woman distinctly feminine and display her submission to man in God’s order of things.

I personally tend to side with MacArthur.  I believe there is a 1st-century cultural element to this issue.    for one thing these women were engaging in prayer and prophesy.  I tend to believe this is referring to the exercising of a spiritual gift.  If a woman is not praying or prophesying in the spirit, then it seems this instruction is without meaning.  Additionally, while admitting that societal norms change by time and location, Christian women should not go beyond the cultural lines that identify men as men and women as women.  They should always show their submission to God’s authority placed in man as head.   This applies in day to day life as well as in the function of the body of the church.

Later in chapter 11 Paul addresses problem with the Corinthian observation of the Lord’s Supper.  In this case, there were some who weren’t “waiting” for the others and were eating ahead of them so that those who arrived afterward had nothing to eat.  He emphasizes his arguments with the famously quoted statements: ‘Have you not houses to eat and drink in?” and “If anyone is hungry, let him eat at home”.

This has started a firestorm of discussion about the propriety of eating common meals when the church comes together, leading some to conclude such is expressly being forbidden by the Apostle.  There are many positions on this, but it seems clear there was more than the morsel of dry cracker and sip of grape juice at play in the early church.  Many scholars believe the early church had a common meal in conjunction with their observance of the supper (the way Jesus and the Disciples ate a real meal during the last supper).  Each would bring something to share with the whole assembly.  Some would arrive early and begin to eat and drink and leave nothing for those who arrived later.

If this was the case (and I personally believe it was), a more common-sense rendering of these quotes addresses the immediate problem at hand (and the continuing problem the Corinthians had of not loving one another like they ought).  This rendering would read:

If you are so hungry that you can’t wait to eat with your brothers then eat some food at home before hand so that you can wait.

This seems to be the real meaning of what Paul is saying here, not “I forbid the churches to eat a common meal together”, but “You Corinthians are not treating each other right.  If this is the way you will behave, then just eat at home.”

Modern observance of the Lord’s Supper is likely a good bit different from the early church.  I don’t believe there is anything inherently wrong in the way we do it today except that we may have lost some of the community feel that was present in the original method of observing the supper.   This feeling of togetherness and sharing all things in common was  hallmark of the early believer and something that I believe the Lord’s Supper demonstrated well.

Some churches today have gone to a more “meal-like” Lord’s Supper setting.  Any way it is practiced, the purpose is to bring believers together in their common faith, not to divide them.  This is Paul’s point in writing the Corinthians on this matter.