The thanksgiving of the free grace of God through the sacrificial offering of the Son of God should cause thanksgiving in the hearts of those who claim to be Christians. This helps us understand why the Macedonian disciples, who were at the time new in the faith (At 16:12), gave so sacrificially when opportunities arose to abound in the grace of God, and thus, freely give. Because they had discovered the power of the gospel of grace, Paul used them as an example to a church with some stingy disciples in Corinth who would not be caused to give in thanksgiving for the grace of God that was revealed to them. We have the Macedonian disciples as an example in Holy Scripture today because their sacrificial giving was a true testimony of people abounding in the grace of God.

A. Overcoming stingy behavior:
Paul wrote to the stingy Corinthians the following grace-responsive example of the disciples in Macedonia: “We make known to you the grace of God that has been given to the churches of Macedonia” (2 Co 8:1)—one does not know if he or she is abounding in the grace of God until he or she is freely giving to others out of a thankful heart. Notice in Paul’s preceding statement that he referred first to the “grace of God” that was given to and received by the Macedonian disciples. They received through Paul a message of God’s gospel of grace. But their free reception of the grace did not stop with saying “amen” to Paul’s sermon. On the contrary, “in a great trial of affliction, and the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty, abounded in the riches of their liberality” (2 Co 8:2).

We must keep in mind why the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, about which Jesus referred in Matthew 10:15, will receive more consideration in the final judgment than stingy Christians, some of whom were in the Corinthian church. If the sacrificial response to grace of the Macedonian disciples teaches any clear lesson, it is that even if one is in deep poverty, he or she is still obligated to abound in living the grace of God. Poverty is no excuse for not giving in a thankful response for the free grace of God. There are no poverty-stricken grace-purchased Christians. Even a poor Jewish widow in Jerusalem gave her last two coins, and this before the revelation of the whole gospel (Lk 21:1-3).

So Paul continued to shame the Corinthians: “For I testify that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability they gave of their own accord” (2 Co 8:3). Paul did not beg the Macedonians to give. On the contrary, they were cheerful givers because they had freely received and comprehended the free grace of God. Those who truly understand the grace of God do not have to be asked to give blessings to others who are in need. They need only to be directed toward opportunities to give. It is for this reason that legally motivated givers often become grudging givers. On the other hand, grace-responsive givers are always cheerful givers, always looking for some need upon which they can release their sincere gratitude for the grace they received freely through Jesus (2 Co 9:6-9). And once the opportunities are made known to grace-driven disciples, they do as Paul testified of the poverty-stricken Macedonians, “. . . begging us with much urgency that we would receive the gift [of their contribution] and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints [in famine in Judea]” (2 Co 8:4).

B. Learning to beg to give:
It is this last statement of Paul that shames so many today who continue to be colonial minded in reference to their behavior as Christians. They function the opposite of how the Macedonian disciples functioned in reference to giving money in order to relieve the famine victims of Judea, the occasion (opportunity) for making the contribution. And—this is important—in order to be in fellowship with all grace-motivated Christians around the world, the Macedonians begged Paul to receive their contribution. They understood that if they did not freely give, then they would not be in fellowship with the universal church of Christ. Colonial-minded disciples, therefore, can never be in fellowship with the universal church of Christ simply because they persist in being takers and not givers.

The Macedonians “begged” to give; they did not beg to receive. This is what grace does to one’s heart. If a Christian continues to beg to receive, then he or she is masquerading as a Christian, having either forgotten or never understood the motivating power of the gospel of God’s grace. Maybe such a person never really understood the nature of the gospel, and thus was baptized only legally in following a command to be baptized. We must keep in mind that if one legally does down into the water, he or she will often come forth from the water and behave as a legal-oriented disciple. He or she may be a good law keeper, but not so much a grace-motivated disciple.

On the other hand, those who are grace-responsive to the gospel are seeking opportunities to freely give as they had freely received the grace of God. If we desire to be a colonial nation in which we may find ourselves today, that in the past some foreign government built all our roads, schools and hospitals, even supported the government officials, then the adoption of this foreign dependency culture will cripple the church, even as it continues to do so in some places today. The disciples who live in former colonial possessions are often cursed with a sense of colonial dependency that cripples their willingness to give freely.

We had to smile when we recently listened to a BBC broadcast out of London that was made by a reporter who was in the former colonial possession of England. The setting for the broadcast was that Jamaica was following the example of the island West Indian country of Barbados. (Keep in mind that these countries are near to our hearts, for during the 1970s and early 1980s we lived and worked in the West Indies.) But now some of these island nations are seeking to leave the trade relationship of the British Commonwealth in order to be totally on their own as a republic, which is a good thing.

So the BCC reporter was out on the streets of Jamaica, interviewing residents concerning Jamaica’s move to be a republic and not a part of the Commonwealth. One old Jamaican resident responded to the reporter, “They [England] never gave us anything; we might as well be a republic on our own.” This is a laughable statement in view of the fact that when we visited Jamaica on several occasions while living in the West Indies, we drove down England-built roads; we met in England-built schools, having passed by numerous England-built hospitals. We bought countless articles in the market that were imported duty-free as a result of the country being a colonial possession in the past and now a part of the Commonwealth. We even spoke English, a blessing from England. And for this particular person to say that England had never given them anything, was simply a failure to remember and appreciate the past history of Jamaica.

Jamaica is a good example of the colonial arrangement of those nations that were created as a part of the world Empire of England. At one time, one third of the world was a part of this Empire. But during the 1950s and 1960s, and under the queenship of Queen Elizabeth, the Empire disengaged from its former colonial possessions. We lived in the West Indies when many of these island nations were informed by England that they were being given their independence. They were thus instructed to get their constitutional and financial house in order for they had to stand on their own. England would not longer hand out free roads, free schools, free hospitals, etc.
Jamaica was released to be a free nation on August 6, 1962. There was no revolutionary war where the Jamaicans fought for their independence. After England had given her resources to the country for over a century and a half during the post-slavery era, it was time to truly release the slaves. The people were subsequently freely given their independence. By the grace of England, these island nations of the West Indies, after being granted independence, were allowed to remain in the free-trading arrangement of the British Commonwealth in order to continue to receive duty-free imports from England and other Commonwealth member nations. So England was expected to continue to give, but the now independent nations were not expected to give anything back to England in return.

(For those of you who might be interested in this matter of history, BCC reporter Jeremy Paxman recorded a five-segment TV series from 2015 to 2020, which TV series was first broadcasted on the BCC network. The name of the series was entitled, Empire. The entire series is now online. At the end of the magnificent series, notice carefully what Paxman stated in summation in about two sentences at the end of segment five. His statement will help Western minds to understand better the nonsense of the statement that was made by the old Jamaican gentleman in the previous BBC comment, as well as the colonial mentality of many of those older Christians who continue to hinder grace-motivated giving in the present church in all the former British colonial possessions.)

Nevertheless, throughout the years we have had the privilege of working with some very dedicated free givers in Africa. They have overcome their culture of colonial dependency by responding to the grace of God. We have found it interesting that as the poor Macedonians, those who qualify themselves to accept the free gift of God’s grace have no fear of impoverishing themselves further in the matter of giving because they are often already poor. For example, we recently sat down on a Sunday here in South Africa and turned on our TV to a channel that was dedicated to religious broadcasting. And there for the next thirty minutes was a second generation brother on the other side of South Africa whom we had known for over forty years. The “poor” churches in his area had scrapped together enough funds to support him on a live TV broadcast. This is the Macedonian marvel in action.

This was a case where Macedonian like-minded Christians had discovered the joy of grace-motivated giving. As the Judean church in the beginning of the gospel had sent out of Jewish missionaries who ministered the gospel to the Gentiles in Macedonia and Achaia, so those who obeyed the gospel in Macedonia in turn contributed to minister the gospel to a greater audience in their own region and beyond. It was as Paul wrote of them, “And you [Macedonian Christians, specifically, you in Thessalonian] became imitators of us . . . so that you were examples to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. For the word of the Lord was sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has spread abroad” (1 Th 1:6-9).

We must never underestimate the power of grace to motivate “poor” Christians who are highly motivated by the grace of God. It is because of the Macedonian church example that a principle is taught that no Christian can ever give an excuse of poverty in reference to giving to the preaching of the gospel. It is for this reason that whenever a supposedly Christian group says, “Give us something because we are poor,” we immediately turn away from them. We do so as Jesus instructed His first missionaries when He sent them out during His earthly ministry. He instructed His missionaries that if they were not received by a particular individual or village that would give them bread and a bed, then they were to turn away and shake off the dust of their feet in rejection of that individual or village. If people do not reveal through sacrificial giving that their hearts are fertile soil for the gospel of grace, regardless of how poor they may be, then they have disqualified themselves to be worthy of the offering of the incarnate Son of God, who, though in the form of God, emptied Himself into the poverty of a fleshly body in order to go to the death of a cross (See Ph 2:5-11). Anyone who does not sacrificially give in response to his eternal sacrifice cannot truly understand the grace of God.

But in reference to the grace of God that should cause thanksgiving in our hearts, this grace is contrary to colonial thinking and behavior. Grace moves us to look for opportunities where we can give, not get. It was for this reason that Jesus warned and cautioned those who would seek to be His disciples: “For which one of you, intending to build a tower [become My disciple], does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it” (Lk 14:28).

Colonial-minded people often seek to be takers, whereas grace-driven disciples seek opportunities by which they can freely give the gospel of grace to the world through their free-will support of evangelists or materials to be sent to those who are yet to hear the gospel. So in order to shame the stingy “takers” of the Corinthian church, Paul again reminded them of the grace-motivated givers of Macedonia:

:Have I committed an offense in humbling myself [while in your presence by supporting myself through making tents] so that you might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God without charge [your support]? I robbed other churches [who supported me], taking wages from them, in order to serve you [freely]. And when I was present with you and in need [of support], I was not a [financial] burden to anyone [in Corinth], for what I lacked [in funds] the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied [my needs]. And in all things I have kept myself from being [financially] burdensome to you, and so I will keep myself” (2 Co 11:7-9).

There were some among the Corinthians who were taking financial support for themselves. But Paul said of these charlatan apostles, “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Co 11:13). Deceitful workers who would use the church as an opportunity to receive financial gain, are false. The church must financially support those who preach the gospel to the lost (1 Co 9:13,14). However, the church must not become the occasion for support by masquerading takers.

It was for this reason that Paul did not pass through the Corinthian church immediately, but instead wrote a letter of warning in advance of his coming. He did not go immediately to the church in Corinth in order “to spare you, I did not return to Corinth” (2 Co 1:2). In other words, and according to the authority that was given to the Christ-sent apostles to keep the church pure of financial beggars and deceivers, inflict physical punishment on them, as did Peter and the other Christ-sent apostles upon Ananias and Sapphira many years before (See At 5:1-11; 3 Jn 9,10). Paul thus spared the Corinthian church from being disciplined because some of the members had involved themselves in using the church as an opportunity for financial gain (See 1 Co 4:21).

On the other hand, those who would impoverish themselves in order to freely give the gospel to others, are true and sincere (See 3 Jn 1-6). Paul impoverished himself for both the Corinthians and Macedonians. The Macedonians discovered the blessing of life-changing grace. And for this reason, when he went on from Macedonian, the Philippian disciples sent support once and again to him, even when he was in Corinth (Ph 4:16).

---

Research: The Godly Giver, Book 57, Biblical Research Library, africainternational.org

Raj (Kunal Nayyar), on the Big Bang Theory TV series, once said to someone during one episode from whom he had asked something, “Please, don’t’ make me beg. I grew up in _ , and I know how to beg.” (You can guess the country.)

As a world evangelist for several decades, we also could say the same. We grew up as evangelists, and we too know how to beg, for there is a little begging in every evangelist.

It seems that in the past we were always asking (begging) someone for something to support somewhere. But those days are long gone for us. We terminated “most” of our begging, finally concluding that if the Lord wanted it done, then He would provide the funds. Nevertheless, we still have a little begging left in us. We cannot help but beg on behalf of so many lost souls throughout the world.

Therefore, we continue to beg the Lord on behalf of others, especially those evangelists—we really do not care what the nationality of their passport is—who are worthy of our support (1 Tm 5:18). Since we have wandered the world for fifty years, we would consider ourselves “foreigners” in reference to our origins in America. Only our passports indicate that we are “American.” But in reference to culture, we are as mongrel dogs straight off the world streets.

Unfortunately, it is the culture of the world to ask. Local poverty-stricken folks have a hard time supporting their evangelists, both in reality, and in mentality. There is a historical reason for this. In the nineteenth century, the colonial nations of Europe ventured throughout the world and built schools, hospitals, roads, and then supported for almost two centuries the administration of the government networks that they had set up in their various colonial “possessions.”

For example, in the scramble for African territory during the nineteenth century there developed a sociological culture that did not exist before the coming of all the well-meaning humanitarian western folks. Most of the colonial arrivals had forgotten that for centuries Africans had existed, doing their own thing and presiding over their own survival. Unfortunately, the colonialist moved independent thinking locals aside in order to teach a “civilization” that would make them dependent on foreign support and control. The self-confidence, or arrogance, of the foreign visitor sometimes moved him to assume control of the local situation.

Of course all the do-goodness of the colonials would filter into the church. The building of schools, hospitals, church buildings, and the supporting of national preachers who lectured western sermons to an assembly of western-nurtured dependents, produced a dependent thinking in the minds and behavior of local folks.

We may have been innocently naive in our desire to clone the “Western Christian.” In doing so, we lost our independent thinking and behavior. As a result, we seem to have never weaned ourselves off the western source of financial benefits. And now, it is unfortunate that local evangelists often have to “beg” local members for support, though the local evangelists continue to faithfully sow the seed of the word freely for the local church. Too many of our faithful preachers have turned into “church thieves” because local brethren have not taken ownership of their responsibility to support them (Study 2 Co 11:7-11). The local church has forgotten that those who preach the gospel have a right to live of the gospel (1 Co 9:14).

We could conclude from the secular society that was groomed after colonialism that it would produce a “colonial church,” which church lives on today in many areas of the world. In other words, if something is needed, or to be done, then we lead ourselves to believe that we can look to an endless financial resource from the colonials in order to fulfill all our local needs, including the support of our preachers.

Since colonialism occurred over a period of centuries, we even now question why the colonial source would refuse our humble pleas (begging). Nevertheless, we continue to ask, though we often do not receive. But we want you (the West) to understand that we do not beg for ourselves, but for the ability to go forth in all our nation, paying bus bills, in order to evangelize our own people. So we beg in the name of Jesus for the mission of Jesus.

A good example is here in order to highlight some problems that have developed throughout the centuries. In our area, the church in America built a particular local church building. After thirty-five years, the roof of the building completely collapsed. (Thankfully, no one was in the building at the time of the fateful event.) Immediately after the collapse, however, the leaders of the small group of about twenty-five members met in order to determine how they would rebuild the roof.

The members met with one particular church leader who had contacts in America, but had never lost his independence. They were about to ask this one wise old member, “Could you go to America and raise funds for this building that the Americans built for us thirty-five years ago?” The wise brother abruptly interjected, “Don’t even think about asking me to do that. After all these years, we must ourselves take ownership of this building.” The wise brother was right. Unfortunately, since the local brethren refused to take ownership of the building over the thirty-five years of their “use” of the building, the building has remained a heap of rubble after all these years since the calamity of the collapse.

Social media now plays the role of making possible sources only a click away from what is believed to be a bottomless pit of money in the West. Whenever a church building is to be constructed—or repaired—emails, facebook and whatsapp accounts often light up. One of the most interesting pleas we received was from one good brother who emailed, “Because of the Covid pandemic, the government will not allow us to meet in the local government school. Therefore, it is necessary that we build our own building. Can you help?”

If we constructed a church building with funds that were contributed mostly by colonial sources, then it may be that the constructed building will never become “our own building,” even after having the keys to the building for thirty-five years. In these matters, it is best that the local folks and foreign folks go into some kind of percentage agreement where everyone is investing in the construction and support.

Nevertheless, we will continue to “beg,” especially for those evangelists of the world who must be supported full-time for the sake of the preaching of the gospel. It is simply right to support such men because they often live in very financially depressed economical environments. They are goodly men who should be supported in order that the gospel of the kingdom be preached in other areas. At least this was what the apostle Paul did in order to prepare the Roman disciples to support him when he passed by them on his way to Spain: “Whenever I make my journey into Spain, I hope to see you in my journey and TO BE [financially] SUPPORTED ON MY WAY THERE BY YOU” (See Rm 15:24). In other words, if you support a worthy evangelist, it makes little difference what the nationality of his passport indicates, as long as he has a passport and is on his journey, as Paul, somewhere to preach the gospel. The following statement is still a command of the Lord: “Even so the Lord has commanded that THOSE WHO PREACH THE GOSPEL SHOULD LIVE FROM THE GOSPEL” (1 Co 9:14).

Our purpose for writing the preceding is based on changes that are rapidly taking place in our world. Consider the fact that the pandemic has greatly minimized church budgets, particularly in the West. Inflation around the world is devastating the contributed dollar, that is, people have less to contribute. As inflation bites into the income of every Christian in the world, especially the West, contribution coffers are being greatly diminished.

Also consider the fact that the West is religiously changing into a nonreligious culture, just as Europe. Subsequently, the Western church is essentially minimizing the number of evangelists that is sent forth into all the world. Missionaries are becoming a rare breed.

Nevertheless, God’s work of gospel preaching should never be confined to contributions. We see contributions as a serendipity in reference to world evangelism. Therefore, we will be content with the widow’s mite that is given out of a dedicated heart. We will continue to beg of you, but we will preach the gospel regardless of whether were are supported.

Grace that is extended to us always results in our sacrifice for others. It is for this reason that grace is the definition of Christianity.

In the New Testament, casual reader discovers that the power of grace (gospel) worked in the hearts of the early disciples. Grace worked to the extent that it moved those first disciples into the realm of personal sacrifice. This nature of grace in the heart of the Christian is expressed in one short statement: “We love because He first loved us” (1 Jn 4:19).

As the grace of God permeated the hearts and lives of the early gospel-obedient disciples, it was only natural that they give out of sacrifice for the One who sacrificed for them. John expressed it in the following words: “In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 Jn 4:10).

This all began on the first day of the existence of Christians. On that first day of the existence of the church in Acts 2, and before the garments of those first converts had dried from the waters of baptism, “they [the local resident Christians] sold their possessions and goods and divided them to all, as everyone [baptized visitors] had need” (At 2:45).

A similar awesome response to the gospel of grace is illustrated by the sacrificial giving of the Philippians. After Paul and Silas stayed only a few days in the city of Philippi, both men and women responded to the grace of God by being buried with Christ in baptism. Paul then went on to Thessalonica. It was while he was in Thessalonica that the dripping wet disciples in Philippi “sent once and again” for the needs of Paul (Ph 4:16; see At 16:12).

Grace permeated the hearts to the early Christians. By the time Paul wrote the 2 Corinthian letter, a great famine was occurring in Judea. Consequently, all the disciples in the province of Macedonia—this would include the church in Thessalonica and Philippi—“in a great trial of affliction, and abundance of their joy and their DEEP POVERTY, abounded in the riches of their liberality” to contribute to the famine victims in Judea (2 Co 8:2).

The Holy Spirit moved Paul to testify of this gospel-driven sacrificial giving: “For I testify that according to their ability they gave of their own accord” (2 Co 8:3). But we must not stop here. The Holy Spirit drove Paul to write that the disciples in Macedonia had to beg us “with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering [contributing] to the saints [in Judea]” (2 Co 8:7).

Grace always reverses the order of begging. Instead of begging to get, grace changes our hearts to the extent that we beg others to receive our gift. It is a marvelous transformation of the heart (See Rm 12:1,2).

Four chapters before Paul wrote the preceding in 2 Corinthians 8, he explained why Christians, even new Christians, give out of their poverty: “For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace that is reaching many people may cause thanksgiving to abound to the glory of God” (2 Co 4:15).

Those Christians who try to excuse themselves from sacrificial giving because of some self-proclaimed poverty, are perpetuating their unchanged lives. They are refusing to allow grace to transform their hearts. They are expecting others to pay for that for which they must take responsibility themselves. They are thus not in fellowship with all the saints in ministering to the needs that may occur in another area of the kingdom.

We realize that the famine contribution to Judea was a onetime sacrifice on the part of those who gave. But the need brought out of gospel-responsive disciples their appreciation for the tremendous heavenly sacrifice that was made in order to bring us into a realm of eternal existence.

We must add to this the fact that those who do not take personal ownership of fulfilling their own needs, are also not responding to the grace of God. In fact, Paul was so direct on this matter that he set an example for the new disciples in Thessalonica by writing the following back to them about six months after they had obeyed the gospel: “… nor did we eat any man’s bread without paying for it. But we worked with labor and hardship night and day so that we might not be a [financial] burden to any of you” (2 Th 3:8). What was lacking on the part of the Philippians sending “once and again” to him while in Thessalonica, he worked making tents in order to supplement the financial gap.

In this way, Paul and Timothy did not walk disorderly among the Thessalonians (2 Th 3:7). Unfortunately, those in Thessalonica who did walk disorderly by not working to support their own needs, were to be disfellowshipped from the fellowship of the disciples (2 Th 3:6). In his letter to Timothy, Paul revealed that if “one does not provide for those of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever [infidel]” (1 Tm 5:8). This mandate was based on the principle “that if anyone is not willing to work, neither let him eat” (2 Th 3:10). When one becomes a disciples of Jesus, therefore, he must work to support his own needs. The church is not a welfare society for those who can work, but do not want to work.

When one becomes a Christian, he or she must take ownership of his or her physical needs, as well as the needs of family members who are under their care. But this care can, on special occasions, extend beyond one’s own family. Reconsider the care of the local Christians in Judea when they sold their possessions in order that nonresident visiting Christians continue receiving teaching and fellowship at the feet of the apostles (At 2:42). This too was a onetime sale of personal goods and lands. But it was a contribution that revealed the desire of the local Christians to maintain fellowship among all those of the universal body of Christ.

Other than occasions as this, Christians are not obligated to contribute to the needs of those who have the responsibility to work with their own hands, but do not. They have the option of doing so, but if such folks have been given everything all their Christian lives, or supported with outside sources throughout the history of the church in their area, then there may be some church colonialism going on that hinders the spiritual growth of the church. It may be for this reason that local members are not taking ownership of their responsibility to support local evangelists.

Cooperation among disciples in the matter of giving can sometimes be very challenging. This is especially true when local autonomous groups are not willing to partner with one another in a particular region. Because they do not desire to fellowship with one another in the matter of giving, they often do not support the local evangelists who go about the entire region where all the churches are based.

Therefore, when studying the subject of grace, it can be quite unsettling, for grace assumes that grace-orient disciples will always partner with one another in Christ in order that the gospel of grace be preached to others. It is for this reason that when one grows in grace, he or she starts to ask, “How has the grace of God caused thanksgiving in my own heart to respond to the needs of others and the preaching of the gospel?” We must continually ask ourselves the question, “Am I sacrificing in order that the gospel grace be preached to the world?” (See 3 Jn 5-8).

Download Book 57, THE GODLY GIVER

http://africainternational.org/files/Book%2057.pdf

PLEASE NOTE: When you download Book 45, the cover of the book you download must match the cover on this ad. If it does not, then you need to “refresh” the Library page, or clear the cache on your computer. If you do not, it will keep downloading the older edition. Click below and be challenged in reference to tithing:

http://www.africainternational.org/files/Book%2045.pdf

There is a difference between being a Christian in response to law and being the same in response to grace. The difference is often revealed in one’s contributions. Those who have become Christians on a legal basis in response to law-keeping often seek to give according to law. On the other hand, those who respond in their lives to the grace of God always give more.

In writing to Christians in Rome, the Holy Spirit, through the hand of Paul, reminded the Roman Christians, “You are not under law, but under grace” (Rm 6:14). If we consider this truth in reference to our contributions, a vast difference is seen between those who respond to legal giving according to law and those who give out of their gratitude for God’s grace.

For example, in order to extract contributions from the hands of those who live by law, preachers have often resorted to law in order to inspire guilt in the hearts of the “lawgivers.” The desired result is that at least a few coins are dropped into the collection plate. At the most, one will confine his or her giving to ten percent (the tithe). When such grudging givers do flip in a couple coins, or give as much as ten percent, they go on their way, having satisfied themselves that they have given according to law. And thus for another week they have the church leaders off their backs until another call for contributions is made again the following Sunday.

This law-obedient religious culture is more common than not. In order to inspire more contributions, therefore, what preachers often do is ignore the gospel of grace in order to bring the people under law. They take the people back under the tithing commandment of the Sinai law that was given exclusively to Israel as part of the Sinai law. In doing so, they have ignored grace for the sake of law, and thus have reversed what the Holy Spirit said to the Roman disciples. Instead of reminding the people that we are under grace and not under law, we often seek to inspire the contributors to give because of the tithing law of the Sinai law. In doing so, we forget motivating people to give in response to the grace of the cross. If we seek to inspire people to give, we must preach the gospel of grace, not law.

We must not forget that grace is far more powerful than law in reference to motivating people to live and give. To illustrate this fact, we would journey back to the Israelites when they were initially born as a nation at the foot of Mt. Sinai. It had been only three months since they were delivered as a culture of people from Egyptian captivity. But it was at Mt. Sinai that God signed a covenant with the people, and thus the nation of Israel was inaugurated into existence. Tithing was a part of the Sinai law that God gave as a condition for keeping the covenant. We must remember, however, that the people at the foot of Mt. Sinai did not initially give in obedience to the tithing law, for it was not yet given.

On the contrary, at the time when the people were truly grateful to God for His grace in delivering them out of Egyptian captivity, they were inspired to give. It was only by His grace that they stood free at Mt Sinai. They could not have delivered themselves. So when it came time to contribute, Moses did not quote a “tithing law” to them. He simply informed the people that there was a need to contribute to the construction of the tabernacle that God had commanded them to build. Grace took it from there.

It was grace that motivated the people to give, not law. The Israelites’ appreciation for their deliverance from captivity because of God’s grace was so powerful in their hearts that the builders of the tabernacle had a problem. They came to Moses and said “The people bring more than enough for the construction work [of the tabernacle] that the Lord commanded us to make” (Ex 36:5).

The Lord had commanded that the tabernacle and its furnishings be built. A specific task was to be completed, and contributions for the materials were subsequently needed. Then the people, because of their gratitude for being delivered from captivity by the grace of God, exceeded what God required. Now notice what the preacher Moses had to say to the people:

“Then Moses gave commandment and they cause it to be proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, “Let neither man nor woman make anymore work for the offering of the sanctuary” (Ex 36:6).

Now listen to this: “So the people were restrained from bringing more” (Ex 36:6). The people gave in order to fulfill a need, but they gave out of appreciation for God’s grace in delivering them from captivity. Their contribution was so bountiful that they needed to be restrained from giving. This is the power of grace over law in reference to contributions.

This same giving in appreciate for grace was clearly illustrated during Jesus’ ministry. It was revealed in the heart of a poor widow who had not yet experienced the grace of the sacrificial Son of God on the cross. Nevertheless, she spiritually grew past giving in fulfillment of law requirements. On a particular occasion, Jesus witnessed contributions that were being given into the temple treasury. He was standing and watching the people make their contributions. “He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two small copper coins” (Lk 21:2). As a testimony of her heart, He said of the poor widow, “She out of her poverty has put in all the livelihood that she had” (Lk 21:4). This contribution was certainly more than ten percent. It was one hundred percent. This is what grace will do to one’s heart in reference to giving. Sometimes we must have so little in order to appreciate how rich we are because of the grace of God.

Law will never move one to the point of giving one’s last two coins. When the traveling salesperson, Lydia, and the government employee, the jailor, responded to the gospel in the city of Philippi, the Holy Spirit gave a testimony as to how far grace will take one’s heart beyond law. Only a few days (At 16:12) after their obedience to the gospel, and when Paul went on to Thessalonica from Philippi, Paul later wrote of their mission giving: They sent “once and gain for my needs” (Ph 4:16).

The power of the grace of God at work in the hearts of the first Christians in Philippi did not stop with supporting only the mission efforts of Paul when he went on to Thessalonica. A few years later when there was a famine in Judea, the Philippians’ appreciation for the grace of God once again stirred them into action. Grace worked so powerfully in their hearts that they gave as those Israelites who responded overwhelmingly to give to the special need of building the tabernacle. Paul wrote the following to some forgetful, if not stingy Christians in Corinth who conveniently forgot to follow through with their promise to give to the saints in Judea: “Moreover, brethren [in Corinth], we make known to you the grace of God that has been given to the churches of Macedonia,” the province wherein the city of Philippi was located (2 Co 8:1).

As the poor widow who gave her last two coins, so also the Christians in Macedonia in whose hearts was also the spirit of grace. Paul continued, “In a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty, abounded in the riches of their liberality” (2 Co 8:2).

There are some who ungratefully assume that they are too poor to contribute. They should make this excuse to the crucified Son of God who impoverished Himself of heaven in order to deliver us from the captivity of sin. Some in their knowledge of the sacrificial offering of the incarnate Son of God on the cross are still unwilling to give as the poor widow who had no knowledge of the extent to what the Son of God gave up for us.

Paul was not finished with the gratitude of the poor disciples of Macedonia. “For I testify that according to their ability [they gave], yes, and beyond their ability they gave of their own accord” (2 Co 8:3). We can only imagine what Paul felt when the poor Macedonian saints offered him their contributions to take to the suffering saints in Judea. We are sure he was somewhat reluctant to take their contributions.

The Macedonian Christians seem to have sensed that Paul was reluctant about taking their contributions for the famine victims of Judea. So they did something quite remarkable. Paul wrote of the incident that they were “begging us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints” (2 Co 8:4).

The saints in all of Macedonia knew that if they were to have fellowship with the worldwide body of Christ, they too had to give to the special need in Judea. And in their case, no one used his or her poverty as an excuse not to give to the general collection. They knew that they were individually poor. Nevertheless, they also knew that if they gave collectively, then the combined contributions of the universal church would be substantial. But everyone had to give individually. If they did not give individually, then they, as members of the body, would have had no fellowship with the universal body of Christ.

If we allow the grace of God to work in our hearts, then He will do through us “exceedingly abundantly above all that we ask or think according to the power [of the gospel of grace] that works in us” (Ep 3:20). Law will never get one to the limits to which grace will take us in reference to giving. A “tithing law” will get one grudgingly to ten percent. But grace will move one cheerfully to give his or her last two coins.

For those who walk in gratitude for the grace of God, the ten percent tithe is too restrictive. Unfortunately for some, because of the power of grace, they would rather stay under the law of the ten percent (tithe) and forget the grace of God that was revealed on the cross. It is more convenient to live under the restriction of the tithe (ten percent) than to be motivated beyond measure by grace.

When Paul wrote to the Philippians from prison, he reminded them of the example of the Son of God: “Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God” (Ph 2:5,6). Subsequently, on His gospel journey to bring us into the loving arms of God, the Son of God “made Himself of no reputation” (Ph 2:7). He was made “in the likeness of men” in order to go to the cross for us in order that we go into the riches of eternal heaven (Ph 2:7,8). If the Son of God could do this for us, then certainly there is no limit to which we can go for Him. If we claim to be disciples of this God in the flesh who was nailed to an old rugged cross, then there is no excuse to withhold our resources from supporting His continued mission.

By the time Paul finished the revelation of Philippians 2 in reference to the awesome sacrifice of Jesus, he was surely overcome with emotion when he inscribed the following words: “But what things were gain to me [before I obey the gospel], those things I have counted loss for Christ” (Ph 3:7). The Holy Spirit allowed him to inscribe more emphatically: “I count them refuse [Gr. dung] so that I may gain Christ” (Ph 3:8).

We have too many among us who were baptized according to law, but did not respond to the gospel in appreciation for the grace of God that was revealed on the cross. Those who are disciples by law will often continue to walk according to law. Subsequently, they will often contribute as least as possible in order to comply only with law.

We believe that many Christians are still living according to law in this manner. They do so because they are reminded every Sunday by the preacher that they must tithe according to the Sinai law. But we must remind ourselves that Christians are no longer under the restrictions of the Sinai law (See Rm 7:1-7; Cl 2:14). Christians are under grace, not law. Therefore, when Christians live according to the gospel of grace, it is an entirely different way of life. Paul explained:

“For all things [in reference to the gospel] are for your sakes, so that the grace that is reaching many people may cause thanksgiving to abound to the glory of God” (2 Co 4:15).

If a Christian does not understand what Paul just said in this statement, then he or she is still living under law and not under grace. It is only when we live by the grace of God that we will be cheerful givers in giving beyond measure, just as the early Christians.

DOWNLOAD FREE FROM THE BIBLICAL RESEARCH LIBRARY & SHARE:

The Godly Giver

http://africainternational.org/files/Book%2057.pdf

Special Responsibilities

 Since money is an indication of our life, it is a part of our Christian living. We give our time to produce money, and thus, the money is a symbol of our time. When we contribute our money unselfishly, it is the same as giving our time unselfishly to a specific cause or individual. This was Paul’s point in Philippians 4:17 when he stated that the fruit of his labors went to the Philippians because they had supported him once and again when he preached in Thessalonica. They were blessed with the fruit because they did not personally reap from the contribution. Giving to the evangelist in his preaching somewhere in the world was what the Philippians were doing.   They were not supporting a local preacher, or purchasing song books for themselves, or doing building repairs where they would personally benefit. Theirs was unselfish giving for something from which they would not receive personal benefit. We do not say this because it would be wrong to support something from which we receive personal benefit. It is simply a fact that in the New Testament the giving was directed to someone or some famine victims from which the givers did not receive any personally benefit. New Testament giving was always for someone else, not for self. It was as God gave unselfishly to us, we give unselfishly to others.

There are other financial responsibilities where contributors can share their time, and thus reap fruit from their sacrifices.   These opportunities to produce fruit identify the nature of our discipleship, which is to say, they are opportunities to manifest our love. They are also manifestations of the nature of the church of our Lord.

 A.  Enrolled widows:

James identified “pure religion” with the statement, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this, to take care of the orphans and widows in their affliction …” (Js 1:27).   Taking care of orphans is simply being a part of the human race. There need be no commandments in reference to this ministry. James’ statement of James 1:27, therefore, is simply a declarative statement, not an imperative. But when it comes to taking care of widows, the Holy Spirit knew that the disciples needed some special instructions in order that their love not be abused by those women who might become Christians just to get on the payroll of the church.

In the early days of the existence of the church, one of the first points of identity of the church was a common distribution to widows. What is interesting to note is that we have this event recorded in the New Testament, not in reference to making this ministry a mandate, but simply as something that Christians did. In the case of Acts 6:1-7 there were some problems with the distribution. But we must keep in mind that as preaching the gospel to the lost was normal for a disciple, so was caring for widows.

But as this behavior of the church progressed throughout the first century, there was some abuse of the sharing love of the disciples in this matter. By the time Paul wrote the first letter to Timothy, the Holy Spirit had to lay down some qualifications for the church’s support of widows. When we study through these qualifications for a widow to be supported, it is interesting to note that the church does not have the responsibility of supporting all widows.

Paul wrote, “Honor widows who are truly widows” (1 Tm 5:3). The word “honor” here means to support financially, or to provide for all their needs. By using the word “truly,” Paul was instructing that the church must support only those widows who are defined to be true widows according to the instructions that he was about to give. The word “truly” excludes some widows who are not qualified to be supported according to the limitations that he gives. The church is not obligated to support every Christian widow. The following would be the defining qualifications that would warrant a widow to be supported by the church:

 

1. A childless widow: “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to practice piety at home and to repay their parents, for this is good and acceptable before God” (1 Tm 5:4). But if a Christian widow does not have children or grandchildren, then she must be considered by the church to receive church support.

 

2. Spiritually minded: “Now she who is truly a widow and desolate trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day” (1 Tm 5:5). The widow who is not continuing in supplications and prayers has no right to be supported by the church. If she is “desolate,” and she has no other means of support, then she is eligible for the support of the church. Being “desolate” would be subjective, and thus, the church must make a decision if a widow is truly desolate. If she is living in a mansion that was left to her by her husband, then she probably is not desolate. The church should ask her to sell the mansion, bring down her standard of living, and then she would be considered to be enrolled as a widow to be supported by the church. An older woman is not truly a desolate widow if she has a retirement plan or pension that will service her needs. A Christian widow must always remember what Paul added, “But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives” (1 Tm 5:6). The church is under no obligation to support a widow who is spiritually dead and unfaithful to the Lord.

 

3. Children first: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tm 5:8).   The word “household” in the first century context meant more than immediate children. A household included the immediate children, husband and wife, but also servants and relatives. What Paul was instructing in the above statement was that relatives first have the responsibility of taking care of the widows within the household.   This would mean that a Christian family who had employed a Christian servant, has the responsibility of taking care of the widow of a Christian servant. If the head of a household does not take care of the widows of his household, then he is worse than the unbelievers who feel no obligation of taking care of widows. The heads of families cannot obligate the church to do that which is their responsibility. Therefore, if a head of a household is negligent in carrying out this responsibility, then it is the responsibility of the church to approach such a person, for he has denied the faith.

 

4. The limitation of sixty: “Let no one be enrolled as a widow who is under sixty years old, having been the wife of one man” (1 Tm 5:9). No widow under sixty can apply for support from the church. If she is sixty and older, then she must have been the wife of one man, and thus not a polygamist. If she was a polygamist, then she was not living a faithful Christian life. It could be argued that she may have been a polygamist before she became a Christian, but remained with one man after her baptism. Thus the phrase, “having been the wife of one man” could apply only to the time she was a faithful Christian. We would assume that this would be the proper interpretation simply because some young woman may have lived a rebellious life in her younger years as an unbeliever, having more than one husband. Such a person may have been as the woman caught in adultery, to whom Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go. From now on sin no more” (Jn 8:11). If this woman went and sinned no more by having only one husband and living a faithful Christian life, then we would conclude that she would be enrolled as a widow when her husband died because she was faithful at the time of her husband’s death.

 

5. A reputation for good works: Paul now lists a series of things that the church must follow in order to register a widow to receive support from the church. The prospective enrolled widow must have …

… a reputation for good works; if she has brought up children, if she has shown hospitality to strangers, if she has washed the saints’ feet, if she has relieved the afflicted, if she has diligently followed every good work (1 Tm 5:10).

From what Paul states here as qualifications for support from the church, we would assume that a problem prevailed where Timothy was located. The problem was probably in the area of widows of the community lining up for support from the only people in town who took care of widows. Since it was the obligation of the church to support widows, the word got out to everyone in the community that the local church puts widows on a pension plan. In all these qualifications, one point is very clear: If a widow has not been a faithful Christian for some time, then she has no right to be supported by the church. In other words, those widows who would seek to be members of the church in order to be supported by the church have no hope of support. The church is under no obligation to take care of any widow who has not become known for being a faithful servant to the saints.

 6.  No young widows need to apply: “But refuse the younger widows …” (1 Tm 5:11). If a widow is under the age of sixty, then she is not to be supported by the church. Because of the temptations that face young widows, Paul said, “I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house …” (1 Tm 5:14).   Paul’s qualification of one being a “young widow” would be a woman who still had the ability to bear children.   This would be a young Christian woman who was relatively young, and thus had the opportunity to marry and bear children.

Paul’s final instructions concerning the care of widows is significant. “If any believing man or woman has widows, let them assist them, and do not let the church be burdened, so that it may relieve those who are truly widows” (1 Tm 5:16). A Christian man has the responsibility of taking care of his widowed mother. A younger single Christian woman also has the responsibility of taking care of her widowed mother. If those of the household do not support the widows of the household, then the church would possibly have to neglect those who were truly widows. This is the organic body of Christ functioning properly in order to make sure that every faithful widow is cared for in the fellowship of love.

 B.  Supported elders:

 In reference to the support of elders, Paul wrote, “Let the elders who direct well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (1 Tm 5:17).   This statement needs little explanation. “Double honor” refers to double pay. When Paul said in a previous verse of this chapter, “honor widows …,” he meant the same thing as he means here. Reference is to support, not giving respect, though the young are taught to respect their elders. We say this because some have tried to excuse themselves from supporting elders by interpreting Paul’s use of the word “honor” in this text to mean giving great respect. Such would be an inconsistent interpretation, and in being inconsistent, one might neglect his responsibility of supporting worthy elders.

Paul’s instructions to support elders is based on the Old Testament principle, “You will not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tm 5:18).   Paul explains two worthy works of those elders (shepherds) who should be supported by the church. These are those elders who choose to work in the area of preaching the gospel to the lost and those who seek to teach the saved.   However, he uses the word “especially” to refer to the specific ministries of some elders. In general, the elder is to be supported, but specifically, those who labor in preaching and teaching must be supported if they do not have any other livelihood.

The elder must be supported with “double” wages.   If one truly understands the nature of a godly elder, then he will have no difficulty understanding what is meant in this statement. Godly elders are with the people. And when the people are in need, the elder reaches into his own pockets. A godly elder will never consume upon his own lusts, and thus will always die a poor man. The church has the responsibility of ministering to the poor through the elders who are with the sheep, ministering aid when aid is needed.   Worldly minded and greedy people have no understanding of what is meant in the double pay of elders. And thus, the church should under no circumstances allow the twisted minds of greedy people to discourage the church from obeying the mandate of the Holy Spirit in reference to the double pay of elders.   When elders are ministering in growing the church through the preaching of the gospel, and edifying the converts through teaching the word of God, then they must be encouraged to continue their work through double pay lest they give themselves into poverty.

 C.  Concerning orphans:

Outside the statement of James 1:27, there are no instructions in the New Testament concerning the care of orphans. As previously recognized, there is a great deal of information concerning the support of widows. In the past chapters, we have studied at length the support of evangelists who go forth to preach the gospel. There is also a great deal of information in the New Testament concerning the contribution of funds to those brethren who are suffering from a natural disaster. We have the instructions of the previous point in reference to the support of elders.   But there is nothing about the support of orphans. Nevertheless, James stated that pure religion is identified by people who take care of orphans.

Since there are no instructions concerning orphans, then we can make only one conclusion. Taking care of orphans is simply a natural thing to do as a citizen of the human race. There need be no instructions, no commandments. To turn away from an orphan is to deny the very principle of humanity.

But one might reconsider the context of James 1:27. In this chapter, we have reviewed the church’s responsibility of taking care of widows. However, the church does not have the responsibility of taking care of all widows. Only those widows who have been faithful Christians are to be listed for support. We would not come to this conclusion in reference to orphans, for orphans would have no life history of service that would qualify them for church support as the widows.   We could conclude, therefore, that when James spoke of orphans, he spoke of any orphan. It is simply the responsibility of Christians to do the best they can in taking care of orphans. No qualification is needed on the part of the orphan in order to be supported. Taking care of orphans is a way by which we can determine if we are still citizens of the human race.

If after reading this book you are looking for an evangelistic mission to support, then we have good news. Why not consider supporting Africa International Missions’ efforts to print and distribute Bibles worldwide.   You can read about the Bag-of-Bibles mission on our website:

 www.africainternational.org

 Write to us for information at …

 rdickson@mweb.co.za

 We will give you information on where you can send your contributions.

Giving With Purpose

 If we could learn anything from the negligent Achaians, specifically those in Corinth, it would be to put our money where our mouth is. They at first had good intentions to do what was right in reference to contributing to the famine victims of Judea. However, their performance certainly lacked. It lacked so much that it took the Holy Spirit, through the inspired mind of the apostle Paul, to correct their financial dysfunction. In His instructions to correct their procrastination, the Holy Spirit gave some points that we must seriously consider in order that we too not fall victim to the same procrastination.

Among all the instructions that were given in the letters of 1 & 2 Corinthians, there are some points that will help us to get on with getting the job done in reference to our contributions. If any of these points are ignored, our contributions and collections for any ministry of the body of Christ will certainly be an indication of our lack of concern for God’s work through the body, or at least our procrastination in doing what we have promised to do.

 A.  Purpose our contribution:

Paul instructed, “Let each one give according as he purposes in his heart …” (2 Co 9:7). Contributing to the work of God is not something that is done nonchalantly. It is determined before the act of giving actually takes place. The Greek word for “purposes” is proaireomai.   This is the only place in the New Testament where this word is used. It seems that the Holy Spirit looked throughout the Greek dictionary in order to choose a specific word to enjoin upon Christians a life-style of intended sacrificial giving. The word means “to prefer,” “to choose,” or “to purpose with considerable intent.”   The passage could be translated, “Let every one give as he has determined before hand.”

The use of the Greek word indicates that one should make a heart-determined plan to make his contributions. When one is purposing in his heart, he is forming his life around his contributions. The contributions, therefore, are the indication of one who has the Lord’s work at heart. When one has given his heart to the Lord, then his offerings are intentional, directed and planned.   There is no sporadic action on his part. On the contrary, with great consideration, he sets aside that which he intends to give. There is no “spur of the moment” contribution with the one who has purposed in his heart.

Because we are to plan beforehand what we intend to give, then purposing our contributions is a sign of faithful discipleship. Making plans as to how we will return to God that which is His is simply the behavioral pattern of a faithful disciple. If one is not giving anything, then certainly his discipleshp of Jesus would be questioned. But in the context of Paul’s instructions concerning planned giving, we might question whether one truly has the heart of a disciple if he is not planning his giving. Disciples plan to give, for they understand that giving is a part of being a disciple of the One who gave us all. As the Father planned to give His Son before the creation of the world, so Christians must plan their giving before the collection is taken by the church.

 B.  Promise the purposed giving.

Paul introduced his instructions on making a purposed contribution with the words, “Therefore, I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren so that they go before to you and make up beforehand your previously promised generous contribution …” (2 Co 9:5). What he was saying to the Corinthians was that they needed to fulfill what they had promised in reference to a special contribution for the famine victims of Judea. For a variety of reasons, they had fudged on their promise. And since he was on his way to them with some of the brethren from Macedonia, Paul was writing in order that they not be embarrassed about making promises and not keeping them (See 2 Co 9:3,4).

The Greek word for “previously promised” in 2 Corinthians 9:5 is prokatangello. The word means “to announce beforehand.” A year before, the disciples of Achaia made a promise to give to the collection that was being made for the famine victims in Judea (2 Co 9:2). They had made a public declaration that they too would give to the need, which promise Paul had announced to other disciples in order to spur them on to likewise contribute. In Paul’s instructions concerning what they had promised, there are a great number of lessons to be learned concerning contributions. Read carefully what he instructed them in 2 Corinthians 8:10,11:

And in this I give advice: For this is advantageous for you who were the first a year ago not only to do, but also to desire to do this thing [contribution]. But now finish doing it so that as there was a readiness to desire it, so there may be also a completion out of what you have.

 Desire without completion means nothing. Talk without the financial walk of what one has promised manifests a lack of integrity. We must commend the Achaians for their desire. But desire means nothing if there is no performance. At least the Achaian disciples were better than the person who makes no commitment at all to give, or the one who says he just cannot afford to make a promise.

The disciple who has given his heart to the Lord, has also given his promise to do the business of the Lord. Before one becomes a disciple, therefore, he must seriously consider how he will purpose in his heart that which he is going to give to the Lord, as well as, make a promise that he will complete his planned giving. Jesus reminds all of us,

 For which one of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to finish it? Otherwise, after he has laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all who see it begin to mock him. (Lk 14:28,29).

 C.  Perform the promise:

The Achaians had the desire. They evidently made a promise of giving a substantial amount, for Paul used their promised contribution as an example for the Macedonians (See 2 Co 9:1,2). But now they had to perform, as Paul wrote, “But now finish doing it …” (2 Co 8:11).   The Greek word that Paul used here is from the root word epiteleo which means “to bring to completion.”   What Paul was now asking of the Achaians was that they execute that which they had previously purposed and promised a year before.

The contribution about which Paul was writing was a special contribution for a special need. We have discovered that people will often do well in making such contributions. In all their dysfunction as members of the body of Christ, the disciples in Achaia at least responded to the special needs of those who were suffering from a famine in Judea. We cannot fault their desire to help, though their performance somewhat lacked. Nevertheless, they did make the contribution. They purposed in their hearts to get the job done, and with some encouragement from the Holy Spirit through Paul, the deed was done.   If disciples make such promises today, but procrastinate, then the leaders need to be teaching the exhortations of 1 & 2 Corinthians.

We feel it is also significant to mention that when the Achaians made their promise to give the special contribution for the special need of famine victims, they were probably less than five years old in the faith. We mention this because we know of disciples who are decades old in the faith, and yet, they have never been challenged to make a special contribution to a need outside their local area. They have never given to mission efforts outside their local area. They have never given to any disaster relief needs outside their local area. Their contributions have usually been for those things they could personally enjoy.   Consequently, the selfish motive for their contributions has led them to never being blessed for their contributions.   Giving to our “building fund” has its selfish ulterior motives. Giving to increase our comforts in worship is not sacrificial giving.

The Achaians had no New Testaments in their possession to read these instructions as we have today.   We might fault them concerning their delay in performing the deed of unselfish contributions, but we cannot fault them on their response to the instructions of the Holy Spirit to contribute to needs outside their local area, and thus to something that they would not personally enjoy. Now we have no excuse if we have failed to purpose in our hearts to give. We have no excuse because we can simply pick up a New Testament and read the instructions that moved the Corinthians to get the job done. The godly giver seeks to live after the One to whom he has given his life. He reads with interest every instruction concerning that must be done to follow the God who owns everything. There is thus only joy in the heart of the one who seeks to be as Jesus who gave all for us.

WELL-DOING DISCSCIPLESHIP

 When discussing the sin of covetousness, we must review the life of one who lived in total contrast to a covetousness life-style.   Gaius was an unselfish disciple who understood the purpose of discipleship, and thus, through the apostle John’s letter, the Holy Spirit gave him an overwhelming testimony that he was walking in the truth by his well-doing sacrifices to partner with evangelists in the preaching of the gospel to the world.

Romans 10:14 explains the mandate of Gaius’ obedience. This statement of Paul explains the organic function of the body in reference to the financial partnership that members have with those who go forth to preach the gospel. It explains the well-doing of Gaius.

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how will they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

The sending forth and support of preachers is a function of the body of Christ to take the gospel into all the world. This is what the body does.   When this function is either ignored by the members of the body, as in the case of the Corinthians, or disrupted by dominating leadership, as in the case of Diotrephes, then the body is financially dysfunctional. In the context of John’s letter to Gaius, if this responsibility is ignored by any individual Christian, then that Christian is dysfunctional in reference to his or her responsibilies to send forth preachers to preach the gospel to the lost.   Such was the case with the disciples in the area where Gaius lived. The problem was so grave that Gaius may have been in doubt concerning his financial responsibilities to support preachers. For some reason, he wrote to John concerning one who was disrupting the organic function of the body in reference to what Paul stated in Romans 10:14,15.

John subsequently wrote a comforting letter to Gaius in order to reassure him that what he was doing in supporting evangelists was walking in the truth. “For I rejoiced greatly when brethren came and testified of the truth that is in you, just as you walk in truth” (3 Jn 3). In this context, Gaius’ walking in truth was his financial support of the preaching of the gospel. From what John said of Gaius, therefore, we would conclude that one is not walking in the truth unless he is doing that which Gaius was doing in supporting preachers to go forth to preach the gospel.

Supporting traveling evangelists was a faithful work and walk in the truth. “Beloved, you do faithfully whatever you do for the brethren and especially for strangers” (3 Jn 5). Those who had been helped by Gaius on their journeys reported his faithful work to other disciples wherever they went. The extent of Gaius’ hospitality of those who came by his way is revealed in the fact that some were not formerly known by Gaius. They were strangers to him. But the fact that they were preaching the gospel was reason enough to warrant his support. John commended Gaius, “… who have borne witness of your love before the church” (3 Jn 6).

Gaius’ support of the traveling evangelists was a manifestation of his love, and thus, in John’s statement of 3 John 6, one definition of Christian love is identified to be one’s support of those who go forth to preach the gospel. Gaius’ godliness was revealed in his giving. “You will do well to support them [the preachers] on their journey in a manner worthy of God” (3 Jn 6). In order to be worthy of God, individual Christians as Gaius, should support those who are going forth to preach the gospel. The other side of the situation is also true. If one does not support the preaching of the gospel through the support of preachers who go forth, then he is not worthy of God. He does not know God, for God is love, and love manifests itself in the support of those who go forth to preach the gospel for God’s love of the world through Jesus (Jn 3:16).

The word “support” in 3 John 6 comes from the Greek word propempo. It means to set one forward on his journey with whatever it takes to get the evangelist on to his next location. The word assumes, therefore, that the evangelist is not staying at home. He is gone! He has gone into all the world to preach the gospel. The context of John’s discussion of 3 John is not the passage to be used for those who want to stay at home, and yet be supported according to John’s instructions. There are other passages that teach the church’s responsibility to support their teachers (See Gl 6:6).

In the evangelistic function of the early church, there were evangelists going throughout the world preaching the gospel.   Paul, for example, sought to go on to Spain after he visited the disciples in Rome. When he wrote to the disciples in Rome, he hoped to be supported by them in his travel on to Spain. “… whenever I make my journey into Spain, I hope to see you in my journey and to be supported on my way there by you …” (Rm 15:24).

In 3 John, John explained the reason behind Paul’s statement in Romans 10:14. It is the responsibility of every disciple to do what Gaius was doing in supporting those who would go forth to preach the gospel. In 3 John 7,8, John gives three reasons why each individual member of the body should do this.

 

1.   The evangelists went forth to preach Christ. If we would claim to be “of Christ” (Christian), then it is our obligation to support those who preach the One in whom we believe.
2.   The evangelists did not take contributions from the unbelievers. We should support evangelists in order that they and their families can live, and not bring shame upon the gospel message by living in need of material sustenance (1 Co 9:14).
3. We must be fellow workers for the truth that the evangelists preach. We join in with those evangelists who go forth by supporting them on their journeys.   We partake of the fruit of their labors when we partner with them through our giving of support (Ph 4:17).

The preceding evangelistic function of the body was disrupted by one man in the vicinity of Gaius. The case here is similar to that in Corinth. There was a group in Corinth who were puffed up and arrogant, and subsequently hindered the Corinthians from supporting Paul, whom they accused of all sorts of nonsense. The same happened with Gaius when Diotrephes, who was puffed up, disrupted the financial function of the body by slandering the evangelists and John with malicious words. One of the evils in which some involve themselves in order not to support a certain preacher is to make slanderous statements to others of the church about the preacher.

The financial disruption caused by Diotrephes was enshrined in one simple statement made by John: “Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not receive us” (3 Jn 9). Diotrephes did not receive and send forth even John, the apostle of love. In his actions to dominate a group, or area of house groups, he disrupted the function of the organic body that was explained by Paul in Romans 10:14,15.   Gaius could not send forth the beautiful feet of those who preached the gospel because Diotrephes wanted to dominate the church, and thus, present himself to be first among the disciples.

John’s letter to Gaius was meant to encourage Gaius during this unfortunate time of financial disruption of his evangelistic outreach through the support of evangelists. “Beloved, do not follow what is evil, but what is good.   He who does good is from God. He who does evil has not seen God” (3 Jn 11).   That which Diotrephes was doing was evil. If Gaius submitted to what Diotrephes was trying to impose on the church, then he would also be doing evil and not walking in truth. The Holy Spirit takes a very dim view of anyone who would disrupt the financial support of those who go forth to preach the gospel.

When any member of the body of Christ disrupts the outreach of the body, then that member is a cancerous evil. His behavior will lead to the death of the body in any particular region where the body is not allowed to preach the gospel.   If the other members of the body allow a dominant member to disrupt the evangelistic outreach of the body, then they have fallen victim to the cancerous evil of the autocratic leader.   We enable evil when we say nothing about these matters, nor refuse to confront the evil of those who would dominate our desire to send forth those who preach.

When the leaders of a group of disciples do not allow a traveling evangelist to speak to the members of the body about the function of the body in evangelism, then they have fallen victim to the cancerous evil of Diotrephetic leadership. When a preacher blocks the coming of a traveling evangelist to speak to the members of the body, then he has become a cancerous evil to the evangelistic function of the body of Christ. When churches as a whole are not receiving and sending forth those who preach the gospel, then they are indeed dead with a cancerous evil. When John wrote to Gaius about Diotrephes’ hindering of the evangelistic financial function of the body, He wanted all of us to know that such is evil, and should be avoided.

We must not ignore or consider lightly the Holy-Spirit inspired words of John in reference to the behavior of Diotrephes in his efforts to block the evangelistic function of the body.   Diotrephes was hindering the function of the body to preach the gospel by not receiving and sending forth those who grow the body into all the world. His actions were contrary to the existence of the church, and thus, his actions were evil. It is for this reason that every disciple, as Gaius, must be assured that receiving and sending evangelists is the function of every member of the body of Christ. Paul concluded his letter to the dysfunctional Corinthians in this matter: “Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith.   Test your own selves. Do you not know your own selves, that Jesus Christ is in you, unless indeed you are disqualified?” (2 Co 13:5). An old Persian proverb is, “What I kept I lost.   What I spent I had. What I gave I have.” Someone wrote, “If you want to be rich, give; if you want to be poor, grasp, if you want abundance, scatter, if you want to be needy, hoard.”

 

(Be sure and research this subject in the …

www.africainternational.org

Biblical Research Library, Book 22, Chapter 11

 

The Sin Of Covetousness

 Balaam met death because he was tempted with covetousness. He sold his gift for money, and thus paid the ultimate price. Covetousness is the desire of those whose minds are focused on the things of this world. When Paul wrote, “Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth,” he had the sin of covetousness in mind (Cl 3:2). Every time the collection plate comes by, many people have a brief struggle with the sin of covetousness. The emotion that encourages one to hold back in his contributions is the feeling of having to give up that which one can consume on his own lusts.

 A.  Definition of Covetousness:

The Greek word of covetousness is pleonexia. It is a word that has a wide variety of equivalents in the English language. It can mean greediness, avarice, a desire to take more than one’s share, or a desire to take possession of that which belongs to another. Those who do not give according to how they have prospered are certainly covetous disciples. They hold back on giving according to their prosperity because they realize that they are relinquishing the right to consume upon themselves that which they release to the church.

Throughout the Bible there are is a variety of subpoints that fall under the definition of covetousness.

1.  Covetousness is a desire to possess more than one has.   This was the problem of the rich man about whom Jesus referred in the parable of Luke 12:13-21. Jesus introduced His illustration of the covetousness of the rich man by saying, “Take heed and beware of all covetousness, for a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things that he possesses” (Lk 12:15). The fact that Jesus cautioned the disciples about the sin of covetousness should be a warning to everyone that this sin can creep into our lives, bringing with it a desire to possess the things of this world. In the preceding statement, Jesus helped us to examine ourselves. We are covetous if we think that life is to be focused on possessions. Jesus’ explanation of covetousness is the love of possessions.

 2.  Covetousness is a desire to acquire material things in an evil manner. It is the desire to acquire through unfair, dishonest or unscrupulous means the material things of this world. Because of the temptations that come with covetousness, Paul reminded the Thessalonian Christians, “For neither at any time did we use flattering words, as you know, nor a cloak of covetousness …” (1 Th 2:5). Since his focus in life was not to possess the things of this world, his relationship with the Thessalonians did not have the ulterior motive of taking possession of their things. But this could not be said of some of the shepherds of Israel when the nation was in a state of backsliding from the Lord. God said of them, “For with their mouth they show much love, but their heart goes after their covetousness” (See Ez 33:30-32).

 3.  Covetousness is the love of money. This was the sin of the religious leaders of Israel during the time of Jesus. the Holy Spirit stated that the Pharisees were “lovers of money” (Lk 16:14). In the context of his statements in 2 Timothy 3, Paul seems to indicate that covetous religious leaders would arise within the body of Christ.   “Know this also, that in the last days perilous times will come. For men will be lovers of themselves, covetous …” (2 Tm 3:1,2). We can understand why Paul was so cautious about this sin. Because of the covetous world in which he preached, he worked with his own hands to support his needs, even paying for everything that he ate. Such behavior seems to indicate that he wanted to shun all appearances of covetousness (2 Th 3:8). He reminded the elders of Ephesus that when he was among them that he “coveted no man’s silver or gold or clothes” (At 20:33). Peter also knew that covetous brethren would take advantage of the church. When in a state of apostasy, Peter warned, “And through covetousness they will with deceptive works exploit you” (2 Pt 2:3).

 B.  The curse of covetousness:

Paul wrote, “For the love of money is the root of all evils, by which some coveting after have strayed from the faith and pierced themselves with many sorrows” (1 Tm 6:10). No greater truth could have been said concerning what seems to be our natural desire to acquire and possess. This urge can be so strong that it can lead one to great dishonesty and the destruction of one’s integrity. It is not the money in and of itself that is evil.   It is the love of the money that corrupts the very soul of a man. It is for this reason that the Bible is filled with exhortations to guard oneself from the sin of covetousness:

• “You will not covet your neighbor’s house. You will not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s” (Ex 20:17).
• “Incline my heart to Your testimonies and not to covetousness” (Ps 119:36).
• “He who is greedy for gain troubles his own house …” (Pv 15:27).
• “Woe to those who join house to house, who lay field to field until there is no place, so that they may be placed alone in the midst of the land” (Is 5:8).
• “Woe to him who increases that which is not his …” (Hk 2:6).
• “But now I have written to you not to associate with anyone who is called a brother if he is a fornicator, or covetous …” (1 Co 5:11).
• “But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints” (Ep 5:3).

 C.  The consequences of covetousness:

The insidious nature of covetousness is that the one who is covetous often has no idea that he is such. To consume upon one’s own desires has simply become the culture of his life and the life of his neighbors around him. Such people often judge themselves as nice people, for they are not drunkards or thieves. They are simply trying to maintain a life-style similar to their neighbors.   They often present themselves as good community leaders, and often present before the church a cloak of piety and spirituality. They are faithful in being with the disciples for prayer and Bible study.   But when the collection is made, they reveal their covetous culture. This is the one about whom John wrote. “In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not from God, nor the one who does not love his brother” (1 Jn 3:10). And how does one know he loves his brother. John further explained, “We know that we have passed from death to life because we love the brethren” (1 Jn 3:14). But how does one know that he has passed from death to life, and thus, loves his brother? John explains, “But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?” (1 Jn 3:17).

Now we understand why Paul was so hard on the Corinthians in reference to their fufilling of their promise to help their brothers in famine in Judea. But in reference to his personal needs, he reminded them, “And when I was present with you and in need, I was not a burden to anyone …” (2 Co 11:9).   Paul simply suffered alone, but later in this and other statements, shammed the Corinthians for their lack of love toward him because they did not help him in his need. Their lack of care for him when he was in physical need revealed a flaw in their understanding of the concept taught in Galatians 6:6. They were thus not yet perfected in righteousness.

When we are covetous, we will not feel the need of those in need, and thus respond with a heart of love. In the context of the preceding words of John about those who would not manifest their love of the brethren by making sure that physical needs are covered, John concluded, “Whoever hates his brother is a murder. And you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him” (1 Jn 3:15).

Sins of the flesh as drunkenness are clearly evident to all. But the sin of covetousness can reside undetected in the heart of one for years without being clearly manifested. As the rich consume upon their lust, and give only a token when the collection plate is passed, they can hide behind the cloak of a secret contribution. When the poor widow gave all her livelihood, it was known to all. But when the rich gave, their comparatively large contribution was actually a cloak that disguised their covetousness.

Liberal giving is the very core of Christianity.   It is the revelation of the heart of the one who truly knows God, and thus seeks to be godly. One has simply deceived himself if he thinks that token contributions can identify him with the God who loved the world so much that He gave His only begotten Son for our sins.

 It is the curse of legalism that allows the covetous person to hide behind his token contributions (Lk 21:1-4). The legalist deceives himself into thinking that since he gave something, then he has fulfilled the law of giving. But he has conveniently created a religion after this own covetous desires. He has failed to see that we are not under a law of tithing percentages, but under a new commandment of love that moves us to give as we have been given to by the God who owns all things. Unfortunately, the legalist will go down in condemnation crying out that he gave, but never realizing that he did not give himself wholly over to the Lord. His tokens will take him into total destruction from the presence of the One who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.

 D.  Character of the covetous:

The covetous person is actually denying the one true and living God. He does so because he substitutes another god for God. In the city of Ephesus, Paul was confronted by the adherents of an idolatrous religion (See At 19). Theirs was a religion of idols, and idolatry is creating a god after one’s own image and own desires. Therefore, when Paul later wrote to the Ephesian Christians, he identified the nature of the covetous person. He wrote that the covetous man “is an idolater” (Ep 5:5). The covetous man is an idolater because covetousness “is idolatry” (Cl 3:5). Covetousness is worship of the creation over the Creator. It is elevating the created things of this world above the One who created the world. Jesus explained,

“No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” (Mt 6:24).

David said of those who made idols, “Those who make them are like unto them [idols], as is everyone who trusts in them” (Ps 115:8). The one who idolizes the things of this world are like the things of this world. They are worldly.

A servant is of no value to his master if he serves another master, while pretending to be totally dedicated to his master. When one becomes the servant of wealth, then he cannot be totally committed to God. Not only does the covetous man trouble his own house, he troubles the house of God (See Pv 15:27; 1 Tm 3:15). In the case of Achan, covetousness caused the death of his entire family (Ja 7:21). He saw; he coveted; he took; he died. The idolatrous man can never give his entire devotion to God. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Mt 6:21).

It seems that the heart of Demas was on the things of this world which he loved. Paul urged Timothy, “Be diligent to come to me soon, for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world …” (2 Tm 4:10).   As Demas, and Gehazi, many good men have fallen to the idolatrous nature of covetousness (See 2 Kg 5:22-25).

The sin of covetousness became so grave in Israel that the princes of Israel were known for their bribes by which they exploited the people, even to the point of shedding innocent blood to receive them (Ez 22:12). We must never underestimate the sin of covetousness. We must never fail to identify such as sin. And considering all that is stated in the word of God about the sin, we would do well to be on guard in our lives that we do not deceive ourselves that this sin cannot turn us away from God. Covetousness leads to the destruction of the spiritual life we have in Christ. Because it is a relentless curse to the soul of the Christian, it eventually turns one into a hard-hearted person who is void of empathy for the needs of his fellow man.

Through our obedience to the gospel, we have “escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Pt 1:4). It is our struggle to stay away from lusts that lead to spiritual death. Those disciples who would persist in their way of covetousness seriously challenge themselves through personal studies of the eternal sacrifice that Jesus made for us (See 1 Co 5:9-11). Those who with smooth and fair speech prey upon the disciples for gain, must also be challenged (2 Th 3:6). God is serious about the sin of covetousness because such is a character that is totally contrary to the godly nature of Christianity.

“For this you know, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. Let no man deceive you with empty works, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience” (Ep 5:5,6).

The covetous person needs to remember the words of Jesus that were spoken in reference to the rich man who was concerned only about laying up riches on earth for himself: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself and is not rich toward God” (Lk 12:21). Remember, covetousness comes to light when the collection plate is passed.   One member boasted, “If I had US$1,000 I would give half to the church.” His fellow brother sitting beside him said, “What if you had two pigs?”   The man responded, “That’s not fair.   You know I have two pigs.”

 E.  Repentance from covetousness:

We must remember what the Holy Spirit said of the religious Pharisees. “They were lovers of money” (Lk 16:14). And when religious people who are lovers of money are denied their money by the preaching of the gospel, trouble is unleashed on the preachers of the gospel.

 1.  Simon the sorcerer loved, but lost his money. When Philip went to Samaria, he encountered one who was not unlike some preachers today. Simon was a preacher who was well known throughout the city of Samaria.   For a long time he had “practiced magic and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that he was someone great” (At 8:9). As we said, he was not unlike some preachers today who like to stand before the people with great pomp. And in order to guarantee his right to stand before the people, he worked his “miracles,” which were only magical tricks. And we assume that he was known for the two things that Solomon said would identify the leech: (1) Give! (2) Give! (Pv 30:15).

Simon certainly gained a great deal of money from his “miracle services.” He had the respect of the people he fooled. Luke recorded, “They all, from the least to the greatest, gave heed to him, saying, ‘This man is the great power of God’” (At 8:10). The people gave heed to the “miracle working” preacher “because he had for a long time astonished them with his magical arts” (At 8:11). But then there came to town a preacher of truth. Philip showed up with the message of the gospel. “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (At 8:12). The religious profiteering of the “miracle” working preacher was shut down.

But when religious profiteers are shut down, they do not go down peacefully. Simon lost his source of income. Nevertheless, the text says that “Simon himself also believed … and was baptized” (At 8:13). But when he saw the miracles that were done by the apostles, he possibly saw another “angle” by which he could get back into the religious money-making business.   So “when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money” (At 8:18). Simon saw where he presumed he could cash in on the religious business of miracle working (At 8:19). But notice what Peter said to the covetous preacher Simon, “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money” (At 8:20). The reason Simon sought to financially invest in the “laying-on-of-hands” business was because of what Peter pronounced was in his heart. “Your heart is not right in the sight of God” (At 8:21). Peter identified the problem when he said to Simon, “You are full of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity” (At 8:23). Bitterness originates out of a heart of one who craves something so much, that when he loses it, he is bitter. Simon lost his position as a “miracle worker” among the people, and thus, he lost his source of great financial wealth. Though he was baptized, he was still in the “bondage of iniquity.” When covetous preachers lose their source of income when their iniquity is discovered, their heart of iniquity will move them to lash out with all sorts of nonsense.

 2.  Demetrius loved and lost his religious money-making business.   In the city of Ephesus, another religious profiteer was endangered by the preaching of the gospel. The occasion was the conversion of people away from idolatry to Christianity. The mass conversion was so great that those who were into the idol-making business became somewhat disturbed. “Then about that time there arose a great disturbance concerning the Way” (At 19:23). The problem was that “a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines for Artemis, was bringing no little profit to the craftsmen” (At 19:24). So Demetrius called the craftsmen together and said, “Sirs, you know that by this craft we have our wealth” (At 19:25).   The problem was that a preacher of the gospel came to town and said “that gods made with hands are not gods” (At 19:26). And so the market for idol gods took a hit, and the wealth of the idol makers had a bad day on the stock market.   Consequently, Demetrius sought to stir up opposition against Paul by appealing to their belief in the idol god Artemis [Diana], that she was in trouble of being “dethroned from her magnificence” if this is continued (At 19:27). So what happens when the wealth of religiously covetous people is endangered? There is mass confusion and opposition against those who preach the truth (See At 19:28-41). One must never underestimate the culture of religious covetousness.

The repentant journey out of covetousness is painful. Sometimes it is so painful that one becomes, as Simon, bitter. To some, as Demetrius, wealth is far more important than truth, and thus, people as Demetrius are willing to stir up a riot against those who endanger their religious profiteering. But for those who seek to serve God, these are those who are willing to endure the pain in order to gain the crown. Those who are wealthy, and who bring their standard of living down for the needs of others, will certainly be blessed with great riches in eternal glory. We must keep in mind that money cannot give itself away. It takes a sincere and godly heart to do that.

 

 

BALAAMITE PREACHERS

 It was stated of the sons of Eli that “they did not know the Lord” (1 Sm 2:12). The fact that they did not know the Lord was revealed in what they did to the people of the Lord. The sons of Eli were taking advantage of the people concerning that which was required by the Lord in reference to sacrifices. The people were to come to the Lord with their sacrifices, but the sons of Eli wanted more than what the law required for the support of the priests.   They were greedy, and thus, they took advantage of what the people were obligated to do (See 1 Sm 2:12-17).   The Holy Spirit thus recorded of them, “Therefore, the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord, for men abhorred the offering of the Lord” (1 Sm 2:17). That which the people should willing do, that is, give their sacrifices, they despised because the two priests, the sons of Eli, were taking advantage of their offerings. When preachers take advantage of that which the people of God are obligated to do to serve the Lord, then the preachers are doing an evil thing. They “do not know the Lord.”

Those whose purpose it is to preach for money are usually, according to Solomon, identified by two things. “The leech has two daughters, crying, ‘Give!   Give!’” (Pv 30:15).   We can know those who are constantly after the contribution with their hands out. They cry from pulpits across the land, “Give! Give!” They continually, as the sons of Eli, stand before the people and cry out for the offerings that the people are obligated to give. The people, therefore, “abor the offering to the Lord.”

The supporters are not always the problem when it comes to the function of money in order to propagate the gospel. We live in a world of Balaamite preachers who take advantage of the innocence of the sheep of God. They abuse the obligation of the church to give their offerings.   These profiteers often drive in fine new vehicles before the poor, promising that “God will bless you, too if you will give to the Lord [actually, ‘give to me’].” Their mansions on earth reveal that their minds are on the things of this world.

When Paul was in Corinth, he did not take support from the Corinthians. He was planning to visit them again after he wrote the second letter. But even on this visit he said he would not take their money (2 Co 11:9). It seems that the Corinthians in general had a tendency to accuse people of teaching for money because there were so many profiteers in the Corinthians society. If this were not a problem in the Corinthian society, then Paul would have willingly accepted their support on his visit after writing the second letter. But Paul did not want to be accused of being a Balaamite preacher, as so many are today in the world of Christendom. We would advise that preachers gain some wisdom from Paul on this matter. Since it is often the case that immature brethren are too quick to accuse preachers of preaching for money, then preachers should be cautioned in reference to the money of the offerings of the brethren.   Preachers must never forget that the One they preach had only one robe and no owned place to lay His head at night (See Mt 8:20).

Unfortunately, there are too many preachers in the religious world who are like Balaam. Balaam was minding his own business, doing the work of God. He was known for his work throughout Pethor. But Balak, king of Moab, had another agenda for Balaam.   He had money and a list of sermons he wanted preached to a people he feared. He was afraid of the blessed people of God, the Israelites, who were coming his way (Nm 22:3,12). He thus sought for a preacher to hire to carry out his agenda against Israel.

Balak had the support, the sermons to be preached, and the audience to whom he wanted them delivered (Nm 22:5,6). So with cash in hand, he went looking for a preacher he could tempt with purse and position in order to carry out his mission.   He knew that there were preachers out there who would sacrifice their freedom and principles for the sake of a salary. Paul knew that there were a host of these hirelings in Corinth who were masquerading themselves as messengers of light (1 Co 11:12-15).

Balak knew how to approach religious hirelings.   He went looking for a dynamic and successful religious leader. He said of Balaam, “I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed” (Nm 22:6). His method of tempting Balaam to preach his agenda was to send an important delegation of elders to the preacher. With the delegation, he sent the greatest temptation to acquire a hireling preacher.   He sent “the diviner’s fee,” a handsome salary (Nm 22:6). So with an impressive delegation from a foreign land, and the temptation of great support, Balaam was tempted to accept the agenda of someone other than God, and to preach what the supporters demanded.

At first Balaam held out against the temptation of salary and fame by refusing to compromise his principles. He would not allow his faith and freedom to be bought with foreign support from those of a foreign country who had their own agenda.   He even consulted God concerning the request of the delegation of elders. And he initially followed God’s command not to go with the delegation of elders, or to accept their support (Nm 22:8-12). He was following God’s ultimatum. It was not to be changed under any circumstances.

But Balak was relentlessly persistent. He thus sent a greater number of influential people who were more noble and numerous than the first delegation.   These were political people who would appeal to the political ambitions of Balaam (Nm 22:15-17). With the temptation of the high salary he initially received from the first delegation, this time Balaam was tempted by the foreigners with a great position and any request he might have from the nation of the foreigners (Nm 22:17).

Balaam again held out. He refused to go with the political delegation that was sent from the foreigners (Nm 22:18).

But Balaam weakened. He again asked the political delegation to spend the night.   God knew Balaam’s heart, and thus, he accommodated his carnal desires for gain. He thus allowed Balaam to be ensnared in his own greed for gain and fame (Nm 22:19,20). “So Balaam rose in the morning … and went with the princes of Moab.” The mold was then cast for the hireling preacher to sell his gift to another for the sake of support. Balaam wrote his own legacy that the Holy Spirit recorded in Jude 11, when Jude wrote of some who run “greedily in the error of Balaam for profit” (Jd 11). Balaam established a “way” of behavior that would always be identified with his name and would describe those who compromise their principles for the sake of a salary as Balaamite preachers. Peter defined this behavior: “… the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Pt 2:15). The angel to the church of Pergamos condemned those who “hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality” (Rv 2:14).

How could a preacher who was minding his own business establish forever a legacy of greed and selfish ambition?   Simple. We must never underestimate the temptation that comes with a delegation of elders from a foreign country who come with a great “diviner’s fee” in order to hire those who would preach their agenda of sermons.   It takes men of great spiritual integrity and dignity not to sell themselves to such great temptations. When preachers live in great poverty, it is not difficult to understand why some would be tempted to sell their gift for a salary. We must always remember the life of Paul in Corinth: “And when I was present with you and in need, I was not a burden to anyone …” (2 Co 11:9). Paul did not sell out his gift even when he was in poverty. He did not because he had crucified to himself the carnal things of this world (Gl 2:20). When preachers sell out their gift by preaching whatever the supporters demand, then they have not crucified themselves with Christ. They are Balaamite preachers who will, with smooth and fair speech, tickle the ears of those who sign their pay checks. When we read the following concerning the ministry of Timothy, we conclude that Timothy preached what was necessary, for he did not sell out his gift to supporters:

Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound teaching. But to suit their itching ears, they will surround themselves with teachers who will agree with their own desires. And they will turn away their ears from the truth and will be turned to fables (2 Tm 4:2-4).