READINGS ON 1 CORINTHIANS (4) PART 2
[p. 97] READINGS ON 1 CORINTHIANS (4) PART 2
JT Certain features of truth have been stressed amongst the saints during the last year or two; if not here, elsewhere, but I believe here too, and one is this matter of the collection, to use the language of 1 Corinthians 16, the collections for the saints. The brethren in this country are apparently acting on the same principles as elsewhere; but not perhaps in certain details, and I thought it would be wise to call attention to this. It may be remarked that the thought came before us in the expression in first Timothy, “Let not the assembly be charged” (1 Timothy 5: 16); that is to say, certain charges, though rightly called for in meeting obligations amongst us, are not to be charged against the assembly; they are not to be provided for and met by way of our collections in connection with the Lord’s supper. Our collections otherwise are not in question; the matter stands relative to the Lord’s supper and what is connected with it as to the assembly. It has been suggested that charges incurred in relation to certain meetings that are held, generally of a large size, for the special purpose of disseminating the truth in a constructive way, should be provided for in our collections at the Lord’s supper. What is in mind in these special meetings has reference to the truth as to the assembly rendered in testimony. It has been thought therefore that it is quite in order that the assembly should be chargeable for these three-day meetings for inquiry and instruction in the truth, such as have been held recently in Glasgow and London and are later to be held, if the Lord will, in Sydney, because the testimony, that is to say the ministry, is particularly in mind, not exactly the [p. 98] opportunities for fellowship or meeting the spiritual needs of the saints in a general way, but the ministry. Such occasions may be regarded as meetings for which expenses should be rightly debited to the assembly in our collections at the Lord’s supper.
FJF Would this gathering here during the last few days come in that same category?
JT That is what I think, and I believe the brethren here do, too, because these meetings are expressly for the ministry of the truth relative to the assembly. The assembly is said by the apostle Paul, speaking in the power of the Spirit, to be “the pillar and base of the truth”. The assembly is that, and therefore gatherings that take that character are rightly provided for from the collection at the Lord’s supper.
JRvN And now as to food, where there is temporal need among the saints, where do you fit that in?
JT That is a question for the brethren who have to deal with that matter to decide; what does the meeting of need mean. It is not in Scripture regarded as the supplementing of what is already provided. The word need ought to be understood according to Scripture. In James and John’s first epistle, it is in mind, and in these epistles to Corinth. The word in John’s epistle is, “whoso ... seeth his brother have need”, 1 John 3: 17; that is the expression.
RJD Our attention has been drawn to 2 Corinthians 8: 14, “But on the principle of equality; in the present time your abundance for their lack, that their abundance may be for your lack, so that there should be equality”. The word ‘lack’ has been referred to in this way as over against ‘need’.
JT Well I think the word ‘lack’ in the scripture is to be understood as implying need, because the collection in mind was for Jerusalem, for the poor
[p. 99] saints at Jerusalem, and it is mentioned several times. The word used is from the same root as ‘want’ and ‘penury’ in Mark 12: 44 and Luke 21: 4. The New Translation reads ‘destitution’ and ‘need’. It is used in this sense elsewhere by Paul in 2 Corinthians 11: 9; Philippians 4: 12; Hebrews 11: 37.
FJF Assemblies in other parts would be quite free to send help to the saints in the cities where such meetings as we are now having are being held.
JT Yes. Such meetings as have been held, as remarked, in London and Glasgow and are intended to be held in Sydney; they are general meetings specifically for the development of the truth in a ministerial sense.
PL They are exceedingly needful universally for investigating assembly-wise the truth, as sitting together over a more extended period than a Saturday afternoon would afford.
JT Quite so. The thought is the importance of the truth, the ministry, and the time needed for it. It is considered that three days is a period well authenticated in Scripture. The idea of ‘three’ is well established in Scripture.
RL In the meetings to which you refer, would it be in order to have a collection such as has been arranged here to meet the charge of these meetings?
JT Yes. They have in mind the testimony and the ministry supporting it. Paul uses the word ministry, saying “that the ministry be not blamed” (2 Corinthians 6:3); the word ‘ministry’ is understood in that sense.
SPS You make a distinction between what we generally speak of as fellowship meetings and three-day meetings?
JT What are called fellowship meetings are usually week-end meetings; it may be two meetings on a Saturday afternoon. Such are much used and very useful too, and the Lord is blessing them, but [p. 100] they have in mind rather the spiritual needs of those present. It has been a practice sometimes for these week-end meetings for the fares of children and families, including perhaps unconverted people, to be paid, and all that has been made a charge on the assembly. All this bears on what we are saying now, “Let not the assembly be charged” as spoken of in 1 Timothy 5, and the brethren would be wise if they were to look carefully at the facts of that chapter, seeing how the assembly is carefully guarded against unnecessary charges. It is not that the money is not plentiful in order to pay anything of that kind, but the apostle’s word is to bring out the dignity of the assembly. The assembly is not an ordinary human society, it is an exceptional thing, the greatest family in the universe really, and it is so treated in Scripture, a family of firstborn ones, so that its dignity should be maintained in all these matters.
PL The local occasions you allude to would furnish opportunity for the expenses to be defrayed by a collection on the spot.
JT That is customary now and I think is recognised generally as right.
RJD What is concerning us now is the question of defraying the expense of food for Great Britain and Germany.
JT Well I see that, but what is to be said firstly is. Great Britain is not starved, as we speak; it is not like Germany; the rations are enough to keep people alive, so that it is not really a question of need in the full scriptural sense in Great Britain. The actual facts would show that. If brethren are free to send parcels to Great Britain, good and well, to supplement what they already have, to increase their food, but the point now in question is whether there is real need and so whether the cost of such parcels is chargeable to the assembly. Then as regards Germany and other nations in Europe, the question [p. 101] is, To whom are we sending the food? Are they real christians, are they walking in the truth? You cannot always be sure, because we do not know all the facts.
WSS To refer to facts for a moment, the parcels are being sent from Great Britain to Germany, and are being distributed amongst the households of our brethren. These parcels are being paid for by brethren individually, although the letters which have been received in acknowledgment indicate considerable need.
JT In Germany I would say there is considerable need, and perhaps there is need in England, but I do not know of such need in the sense of which we are speaking. While there may be considerable need in Germany, the question arises whether the persons that get the food are all in the testimony as we might say. Of course, we are right individually in meeting need if we can, wherever it may exist, but are we right in using the collections in the assembly to meet general need? We are dealing now with a very remarkable truth and I believe it has been somewhat ignored. The phrase “Let not the assembly be charged” (1 Timothy 5: 16) used by the apostle Paul has to be specially noticed. He speaks of “widows indeed” and then he says of them that if they have descendants, let their descendants look after them. They are real widows and they are in need, but the descendants are to look after them. That is what Scripture says, and then again there was evidently a list that should be used, and it is in regard to a widow. She was not to be less than sixty years of age. Well that is a remarkable thing. Why should that be? We have to stop and think. Does it agree with the assembly, the dignity of the assembly? This widow is to be so and so. She had to be marked by washing the saints’ feet; she has had to be the wife of one man; and several [p. 102] other items like that. Well, why should that be? It might be said by the ordinary mind, ‘Well, that is nothing at all, not worth speaking of’, but then heaven has a different mind, and that is the point, that we should be in accord with heaven.
AM Has not christendom become taken up a great deal with good works and public philanthropy, like Dorcas? Is not the assembly to be elevated above that in our minds?
JT Yes. The persons that were taken up with the work of Dorcas were greatly distressed when she died, but Peter put them all out. That is a very solemn thing, that people have to be put out, and it is the idea of elimination that matters. Although these widows were benefiting from Dorcas, they were put out by Peter. It was a matter of spirituality that led him to do that.
WSS I have been struck with the words used in 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 9; the apostle says, “Now concerning the collection for the saints” in the first epistle, and “For concerning the ministration which is for the saints” in the second epistle. Is that the thought to be emphasised, “for the saints”?
JT That is just it. It is a question of the saints, and the word ‘poor’ is attached to them in Romans 15.
AWP Do you think it is happier to minister to the saints abroad individually and not through the box, even though there be need?
JT The persons who are doing the thing are the best judges as before God of what should be done. Of course, if it is a brother or a family that are known to have need, it would be right to use the box, because it is for that purpose; only let us be sure of having the intelligence needed to govern [p. 103] the matter.
AWP We are not generally free to contribute through the box for the parcels to England; we do it individually. The contributions to Jerusalem were for the famine. Do you think that was an assembly matter and that, properly speaking, the collection should be through the box?
JT I can understand that you do not send to England from the box, because, as I have been remarking, that as far as I know, and I have been there recently, they are not in need as Scripture speaks of it.
FJF Do you think then, that all giving from the assembly should carry the dignity of the assembly. We are not always thinking of the dignity of the assembly.
JT That is what I was thinking exactly. If we get that clearly before us and weigh it over the Lord will help. What has been said I think ought to be clear to all.
JW I think that some years ago you said that need ought to be met, indeed would have to be met. Now if there is no need in a scriptural sense among our brethren in England, then the bounty would be sent from individuals.
JT Well, that is right. When a person gives he gives what he pleases, so to speak. The Lord loves a cheerful giver, but then we are dealing with a specific thing, you know, that is, the assembly and the dignity that belongs to it. It is not a common thing at all, it is dignified. And the facts stated in 1 Timothy 5 will indicate that, if the brethren will look into it.
JW If there is a deficit in our collections, should that be made up? If so, how can that be done?
JT Well, the simple thought is, that if there is a deficit in the collection that is given in the assembly the distribution should not be limited to what is [p. 104] actually given. The saints have more than what is given, and that more should be taxed; that is to say, the resources of the brethren should be taxed according to what is needed.
JW When there is a deficit, how can you make it up? Would you go to a brother and say we want to make this up, or would it be made up by brethren together?
JT Well, there is nothing to hinder that. It is still an obligation. John says, “whoso ... seeth his brother have need”, but that does not meet that need. It is not simply what will be given at a collection, it is what is in our pockets or bank accounts that is to be taxed. That is all I would say.
JW Having stated a certain amount for a certain purpose, we may get more than what was asked for. How would you deal with that surplus?
JT If there is more given than is needed, the question is, Why not increase the giving?
JW You mean, increase the amounts asked for in view of the collection. We have come to the conclusion when we have more than enough that we should carry it forward to the next occasion.
JT Well, I would not say anything about that.
JW In providing again for the next month, we would say that we have a certain amount in hand. Would that be in order?
JT Quite so. I have heard of brethren designating a collection and saying, Whatever is left over give to Mr. So-and-So. Whatever is left. I do not think that right at all. The arrangements ought to be based on spiritual understanding, and if we have assembly ears, we can find out what is suitably called for in any district, or with any brother who is ministering.
CMM If there were a surplus at a special collection, brothers in care would not increase the [p. 105] amounts which had been named to the saints. The balance would be carried forward to the next special collection.
JT That is quite right. I would not have any difficulty about that.