“Non-institutional” churches do not support institutions other than God’s institutions of the church and the home. Are their convictions merely opinion or necessary to following Christ? The sincerity of these churches and their Christian examples are admirable and encouraging. However, are these scriptural beliefs? This author pleads with all readers to go to the Bible and reconsider the collection and its ministry for the saints.
Is Institutionalism a Sin?
“Institutionalism” is a broad term and can be ambiguous to define. Non-institutional leaders teach that there is only one institution of God, the church (maybe two including the home as an institution). They find that churches bypass the authority of elders when they support any organization of Christians or an individual Christian within an organization serving in benevolence, evangelism, education and, or training preachers.
Non-institutional churches do not support from their collection an organized group of house parents, counselors, and managers that make up a home for orphans. These churches cannot support in good conscience an organized group of teachers, evangelists, and preachers training students who form a school, college, or university. Instead of generally giving to an organization, these churches give only directly to such people (such as foster parents) who may work independently from any such organization. These congregations may give like this, but this is their opinion. If they bind upon other churches, then they exclude other churches from fellowship. These Christians are very generous and often do support these institutions from each person’s own giving.
Where Is the Authority?
Non-institutional churches are right in so many things regarding salvation, baptism, worship in assembly, and elders in church organization. However, the leadership of these churches need to reexamine the use of scriptural authority for consistency. They ask, “Where is the authority?” A worthy and necessary question for things for which God has specifically addressed, but this is misleading otherwise if God has given liberty. The apostle Paul instructed Christians to maintain the traditions just as delivered to them from Christ (1 Cor 11:2).
Regarding things that God has specified in His written Word, they are right that Christians need biblical authority. However, God’s specific authority does not extend beyond anything that God does not address in Scripture. For example, God gives no authority for driving cars to a congregation’s building and Christians are at liberty for choosing transportation. “Non-institutional” congregations do not need authority for using websites and using PowerPoint presentations in the assembly. In these instances, non-institutional churches do recognize that God’s authority does not apply to what God has not specifically addressed in Scripture on these matters.
When is authority not needed? When God does not specify how Christians are to accomplish a command, then there is freedom. When the Scriptures have not given any specific instructions, this leaves liberty. When a Christian brings food to a mourning neighbor, it does not matter whether one brings the food in a glass dish or basket, but whatever is expedient. However, when specifics are given in God’s Word, then Christians must observe these instructions completely. When considering worship in assembly and church government, Christians must have God’s authority. Why? This is because God has given specific commands regarding assembly and polity. Therefore, one must be careful not to exclude matters of liberty and expediency by misapplying the specifics of authority in God’s Word.
Posing the question, “Is that authorized?” can go beyond what is written in Scripture. How? Consider: Where is authority in the Bible to teach the gospel using projectors? There is none. Why do Christians have no problem with a projector that God did not authorize? Because the Bible has no specifics on how believers display the sacred Scriptures, but God blesses Christians when they do. What about the use of codex-books rather than scrolls? Where is the authority? The first-century church initially used scrolls until the rise of the codex. No authority exists for this change, yet no one judges churches for using a bound book for the Scriptures without scriptural authority. Christians are free to choose unless God specified otherwise in the Scriptures.
Disputing over authority about subjects that God did not specifically address is avoidable. Such disputes are unfruitful, distracting, and often harmful (2 Tim 2:23–36). The authority of God’s Word does overcome the traditions of men. Adding incense to prayers, prayers to the dead, and sprinkling and pouring for baptism are wrong by adding to God’s Word (Gal 3:15; 2 John 9). Yes, unauthorized worship is wrong, because God has specified the true worship that God authorized. Changing church government is sinful, because God has specifically authorized Christ as the Head and He established elders over individual congregations. Unless the aim is to cause many divisions by a neglectful misapplication of biblical authority, then all Christians must plead for authority according to what God has revealed in Scripture (cf. 2 Tim 3:16–17). Christians must not add or annul from God’s covenant (cf. Gal 3:15).
Are Sponsoring Churches Wrong?
Some non-institutional leaders consider sinful the act of giving financial support from one congregation to another congregation who would deliver that support unto missionaries and other workers. According to “non-institutional” leaders, churches must give directly to missionaries and to needy Christians, and never pass their giving through the hands of another congregation, organization, or person. They find that giving to other churches through another church to missionaries is to give authority to another congregation to govern those missionaries like a missionary society. They find that some congregations have made themselves into missionary societies that bypass the authority of other church elders. This can be a real concern if passive elders turn their oversight over to another eldership. The non-institutional brethren are right that missionary societies are not scriptural and not the biblical way. Missionary societies do often bypass the autonomy of churches. If a missionary society were simply a group of missionaries, then this would be of little concern, but rather these missionary societies are often boards who circumvent church autonomy and govern missionaries. These also neglect the personal fellowship between congregations and missionaries.
Another valid point of “non-institutionalism” is that a congregation could act as a missionary society, and so one eldership could bypass the elders of other congregations. Yes, this is wrong for any eldership or board to govern the work excluding other elders and churches. One eldership over another is an unscriptural hierarchy. However, this is not common practice or intention.
Some non-institutional leaders can accuse other churches of acting as a missionary society too hastily. Christians must not hear a charge without by two or three witnesses (2 Cor 13:1; 1 Tim 5:19). However, no such practice is prevalent. Where are the testimonies and accounts of such abuses? Have elders given to other churches whose elders pass their gift to a common missionary? Yes. Does doing this give one eldership a higher authority over another? No. Have these supporting elders who give to another church also given up their oversight and any personal relationship with the missionary? No. This is all cooperation between churches. Is such cooperation scriptural? What does the written Word reveal?
Sending financial support by cooperation with other congregations is scriptural, practical, and less expensive. The churches of Galatia (1 Cor 16:1), the churches of Macedonia (2 Cor 8:1), and the brethren in Achaia (Rom 15:26) all worked together having their collections gathered together and delivered to the church elders in Jerusalem for needy saints. They did this all together. This is the cooperation that “non-institutional” churches do not practice and believe this is wrong, because this would either support a central church, person, or group of people as an “institution” that could bypass the oversight of elders of other congregations. However, church cooperation is scriptural.
Were the churches in Judea “sponsoring churches”? These Judean churches received help for the famine and church elders oversaw its distribution (Acts 11:29–30). On this occasion, which elders determined who got what support? Were the elders in Judea bypassing the oversight of other church leaders by receiving and distributing this gift?
The later giving to Jerusalem for which 1 Corinthians 16:3 shows the church at Corinth participated with the churches of Galatia to send money by approving of someone to go with Paul for delivering their gift to Judea. Was Paul another “unauthorized institution”? Was he bypassing the elders? This cannot be! Furthermore, would Paul receive support from congregations for his work and share such with other Christians who helped him like his scribes (Tertius, Luke, or Sosthenes), messengers (like Epaphroditus), fellow teachers (like Apollos), and those he trained (like Timothy)? Would Paul have then established an “institution” contrary to the church of Christ? No. Would giving to Paul and his fellow workers support an institution contrary to the church? No. Would he then have bypassed the elders? No.
Anyone could label any organization for Christian service as an “institution” to reject it. This is the overt fault of “non-institutionalism.” God did not authorize such labels to exclude liberty. Furthermore, in 2 Corinthians 8, Paul sent Titus with another man chosen by the churches. Were these men sponsored messengers and their home congregations “sponsoring churches”? No. However, the churches employed such men as the “messengers of the church” (2 Cor 8:23). Did this bypass the elders of other churches when each church selected a messenger? No. A congregation’s financial support can pass through the care of others even when they are organized, yet this is not making any person, group, or congregation an unauthorized institution that bypasses the authority of an eldership, which is something that all Christians must oppose.
Should “Christian” Schools Exist?
Non-institutional churches perceive that there is no authority for “Christian” schools. They mean this in two ways. They do not believe in supporting such organizations by congregational support, and many do not believe in calling such an institution “Christian.” However, these Christians do support schools organized by Christians as individuals apart from the church collection. These convictions are not wrong until such divide Christians. All Christians on all sides of these issues should sincerely consider Romans 14 and avoid causing another brother to stumble.
What does the Bible say about schools? The churches were supporting Paul’s work from the beginning (Phil 1:3–7; 4:10–20; cf. 1 Cor 9:1–14). Any support of the churches would have helped supply the apostle Paul when he taught disciples in the school of Tyrannus for two years (Acts 19:9–10). His teaching in this school was to convert and to teach Christians. Paul’s whole ministry was a school of training disciples to proclaim the gospel just as Jesus taught His disciples. Paul was rightly supported by congregations, and he was not usurping the authority of elders. He was evangelizing, making disciples, and most likely training others to become teachers (cf. 2 Tim 2:2). Who was supporting those who were receiving instruction? Would Paul have used support from churches to support his students? Must congregations and individuals give directly to each student? Does this mean that congregations could not help needy students except individually? No. Those who supported Paul supported those whom he trained.
A school is simply an organization of teachers instructing and training students, and such a school often includes other people who are necessary administrators for the organization of the teachers and students. Paul had his assistants in ministry such as scribes and fellow teachers. If Christians compose an organization for the education of Christians to teach a trade or for the training of Christian preachers and teachers, then the adjective “Christian” and “school” does describe them in their organization. This is reasonable and scriptural use for the word “Christian” to describe disciples who identify by the name of “Christ” in an organized work.
A few among these congregations believe that the congregation should not have Bible studies in their building besides the gathering of the whole congregation. In other words, they do not have separate studies for children and leave this to their parents. Parents have the right to make this personal decision. Furthermore, such churches are right that the assembly should include the whole congregation, but this does not exclude using the building for school, Bible studies, and other works (1 Cor 14:23). Is it a waste to use a building for only two or three hours a week?
Some of these congregations look down on Bible studies called by other names like “VBS,” “Bible School,” “Ladies’ Day,” and “Bible Class.” This is because the descriptive names for such Bible studies are not verbatim in the Scriptures and may sound denominational. These names simply specify the different approaches for the evangelizing the world and for the edification of the church. Christians should prefer to use other terms apart from denominational terms, but this does not change the scriptural work of studying together and with all people. Christians should not avoid Bible classes because “class” is not biblical and John Wesley organized believers via “Bible classes.” From the beginning of the church, there have been different studies for children, for women, and for evangelism (Titus 2:3–5). However, many object when a name is given to the study. Would they have not referred to these studies in specific ways when the women gathered for teaching or when the children regularly gathered to learn the words of Christ? Would they have called women studying “the women’s bible study” or “women’s meeting”? Again, Christians must be very careful not to misuse of biblical authority to support these conclusions when the New Testament gives freedom.
Should Christians Eat in the Church Building?
Many of the non-institutional leaders find that kitchens in church buildings are unauthorized, yet they accept bathrooms and baptisteries. The Scriptures authorize none of these, but these are not unauthorized. Some of these churches refuse to fellowship congregations who have inherited a building with a room large enough to serve others and provide a place of fellowship. While there is no explicit reference to churches purchasing their own places of meeting from the church collection, non-institutional churches reject this practice of building rooms for “socializing,” which those who accept this call “fellowship.”
What is wrong with a congregation using the kitchen in their building that they have inherited or purchased? Is there anything wrong with a congregation building a room for Bible studies and other meetings? This is not unauthorized. What would be wrong in eating in such a room outside the assembly? What would be wrong in having the supplies and appliances available to prepare meals for those in lengthy studies and labors of the church? Must those laboring around the building leave the building for every meal. Paul did not leave the upper room to eat when he taught in Acts 20. Can one not do a day’s work without returning home, going out, or stepping off the property to eat a sack lunch? Why cannot needy Christians eat on the grounds?
If eating in the location of the assembly in wrong, then the apostle Paul should have known before he ate his own meal at the meeting of Christians in Troas (Acts 20:7, 11). There is apostolic precedent to eat in such a place. However, Christians are not to eat the Lord’s Supper as a common meal in the assembly (1 Cor 11:17–34). The Spirit of Christ spoke through Paul revealing, “For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is filled. […] But if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home, lest you come together for judgment. And the rest I will set in order when I come” (1 Cor 11:21, 33). Many cite these scriptures to condemn eating together in the meeting room of the congregation. Yes, outside of the assembly, they broke their bread together in their houses (Acts 2:46), yet Paul ate in this meeting place of the assembly.
The non-institutional churches quote the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:22, “What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the assembly of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you.” These Corinthian Christians were shaming the assembly. The Corinthian Christians should not eat the Lord’s Supper for hunger and to fill themselves with drink. However, this first-century occurrence has nothing to do with eating in a room of a church building outside of the assembly.
When any of these congregations need something, they often do not object to doing so indirectly through another person besides the church collection. Why not provide housing for the preacher with a large room and a large kitchen? Then the congregation could eat together, and “non-institutional” churches would see nothing wrong with this. However, the congregations who have church buildings with kitchens are doing the same when they provide a place for the ministers to eat and the church to fellowship.
According to them, churches are not authorized to build a building on the church’s property where someone might eat and socialize unless that place is the minister’s home. Those who say that the church had no buildings for meeting besides houses should reconsider. The first churches met in synagogues (Jas 2:2 ASV; cf. Acts 18:7–8; 1 Cor 11:22, 34), halls (Acts 19:9), the porch of the temple (Acts 2:46), and upper-rooms that were built for festal gatherings, funerals, and more (Acts 20:7–8). Upper rooms were places of eating, yet that room or the home below had such rooms that would have a kitchen. Christians can assemble and worship in many places even places with kitchens.
Should Christians Share with All from the Church Collection?
In the Scriptures, needy Christians received help from the collection. The non-institutional churches would say that the collection is only for Christians. However, they allow visitors to come into the shelter, protection, and comfort of their buildings that the congregation provides and maintains through the church collection. In the Scriptures, visitors did come under the same shelter of Christians gather as churches (1 Cor 14:16, 24; Jas 2:1–4). Guests to non-institutional churches use their roofs, walls, bathrooms, air-conditioning, heating, carpet, seats, songbooks, lighting, projector, and so on, which they purchased through the congregation’s collection. However, will they give the needy guest food or water purchased from the church collection? Some object. The guests who believed and were baptized entered into their baptisteries as unsaved to rise saved provided by the church collection. Christians used the collection of the church to help the lost, but the Scriptures do limit this help (1 Tim 5:3–16).
The non-institutional congregations also aid God’s institution of the home through individual foster parents, yet they object to providing for house parents of an orphanage from the collection. They do this because these house parents are a part of an organization or “institution,” and they are not working independently as foster parents. A few have admitted that their collection cannot go to help orphans, because these children are not yet Christians. This is not an accusation that these Christians have the heart of any Pharisee, yet this reasoning does appear to many as the Pharisees’ Corban in Mark 7:10–13. The Pharisees refused to help their own parents, because they claimed their money for giving was given to God. Some will only give to repentant baptized believers.
What does the Bible say about helping non-Christians? In 2 Corinthians 9:12–13, Paul may make a strong case for helping the needs of the saints and sharing liberally with all. However, some Christians understand that this passage is referring to specific saints in Judea and the reference to “all” includes all Christians and not all people. There is no reason to argue this point.
Suppose a non-institutional church survived a storm and purchased a water tank with their collection to aid the needy members of the church. Would any surplus go to waste at their building while others were in need? Would the church not give to their neighbors because the church believed that they purchased the water from the church collection? Could not the members take their share and give it freely to their neighbors and in doing so demonstrate the glory of Christ? Could Christians not take their individual shares and give to their neighbors? “Non-institutional” convictions would not allow them to do that if strictly applied. These churches share their building, air-conditioning, and water in their bathrooms with their neighbors, but they might think twice about giving disaster relief to neighbors from the church collection. What a shame and a waste of goodwill! For these churches are tender-hearted, kind, and care for others, but these beliefs restrict them.
Non-institutional churches refrain from helping Christian orphan homes and elderly homes from the church collection. They only help if they are able as individuals. However, the purpose of the church collection is to do what individual Christians cannot do alone. Would they think the apostles would have hesitated to aid widows who lived together and were cared for by organized caretakers? The apostles oversaw the care of needy widows. Some were neglected from the “daily distribution” in Acts 6:1, and that distribution came from the collection (Acts 4:34–35). However, according to most non-institutional churches, giving to such widows who have organized Christian caregivers from the collection is wrong; although, doing so supports their elderly and orphans. They believe that one should only help from one’s own income as God blesses them. They are right to be so generous individually rather than expecting only the church to carry the burden. This is how they apply and observe James 1:27, which reveals, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit [look after] orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
How Are Non-Institutional Churches Right?
Church collections do have limits. Those who do not work do not eat (2 Thess 3:10). The Scriptures teach that widows are first helped by family and then by the church (1 Tim 5:16). If Christian widows are first helped by their family, then would this not apply that all Christians first seek aid from their family? The principle is from Scripture, “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God” (1 Tim 5:4). Paul also noted, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8). Christians are to honor father and mother by caring for them as they age. Christians are to show piety and support to their own families first, and then the church can help true widows without families to support them. Non-institutional churches are right to give cautiously to those who are truly in need.
Why would any Christian easily give money to needy unbelievers before caring for their own? The collection should aid the family of God before unbelievers. Paul referred to the purpose of the collect as “the relief of the saints” and “the ministry of the saints” (1 Cor 8:4; 9:1). The congregational collection should first be distributed to true widows in constant distress and to needy Christians for disaster relief. At the same time, this does not mean that churches, who are able, cannot show charity to their denominational and unbelieving neighbors from their abundance in the ministry of the saints. No need to write large checks or give cash to help the needy false teacher or atheist around the corner, but rather Christians can give a cup of water, a bag of food, clothing, or shelter to everyone whether as an individual or from the abundance of collective support of the church. Giving to the lost and unbelievers is not the primary purpose of church collections, but the purpose of the collection is for sharing the gospel, supporting true widows, and helping Christians through disaster relief. Non-institutional churches are right to emphasize the purpose of the collection as for “the ministry of the saints.”
One minister personally observed thousands of dollars given in groceries to the unfaithful in a the community in Christian love, yet the people of the world never considered the gentle invitations to come to Christ. They never stepped through the door on the Lord’s Day to hear the gospel of Christ that compelled these Christians to give to them in the first place. In fact, the minister witnessed that many resented the faith of these Christians who helped them (Matt 6:33). After feeding the five thousand, Jesus did not give those coming to Him again when they would not partake of Him as the bread of life (John 6).
Elders must remain good stewards of the collections. The priority for the collection is to support the saints first as they seek first the kingdom of God and the bread of life. In observation, Christians would be better to give from collections to needy saints and then give to unbelievers out of one’s own pockets. Those unbelievers would more likely consider the personal charity and faith of individual Christians rather than disregard mass distribution from a church as charity for little recognition of Jesus Christ. The cautious giving of “non-institutional” churches should encourage all churches of Christ to be good stewards of the collection.
Should These Matters Cause Division?
Let the non-institutional churches have their convictions and work by the wisdom that God has given them. May God bless all Christians humbly to love one another so as to cause further study on these matters. However, opposition to institutionalism is a position dividing many believers. This writer encourages all to continue to lead by their example of generosity and pattern of right giving. For this reason, this writer pleads with all to go back to the Bible and reconsider giving. Likewise, may all Christians consider further biblical ways to give and maintain the church collection. This writer urges all Christians not to push “non-institutional” believers away or call them “legalists” or “antis.” May God help all Christians so that there are no divisions among the church.
Seeing God's Breath 
Scott, you mentioned benevolence toward outsiders when the church has an abundance. I agree with you, and I have wondered if the NI issue exists only because of our affluence. It is my opinion that our affluence has allowed us to be distracted from more important matters.
Thanks for a well thought out article/blog.
Mark
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a Christian, and a member of COC, I have worshiped in both scenarios across the country. In some areas it’s difficult to even find a church of Christ. In my 39 years as a Christian we seem to focus a lot of energy and time discussing and preaching on this subject. Yet we have failed to reach billions of souls. Where’s the focus. If we continue on this track we will have failed as Christians. And that is to reach as many souls as we can, encouraging one another, and praying for these two areas. If we continue down this path, the COC will continue to fail in growth. We know it’s easier to go through the eye of a needle. But at this rate we may find ourselves in very sparse company as we narrow down things that God can decide when we face him. Our jobs are to lead them to God and plant the seed. God will take it from there. Let’s just encourage one another and stick to repentance, recognize our savior and baptism. Let’s let God make those choices of clothing closets, orphan homes, benevolence, etc once were called up yonder.
LikeLike
Not quite sure why this showed up as a “new comment.”
I strongly disagree with your concluding statement, “. Let’s just encourage one another and stick to repentance, recognize our savior and baptism.”
Suggest a reading of Hebrews 5, 6 – going on to the mature menu, rather than the milk diet…
We have some excellent examples of how early believers made an impression on the people outside the Body of Christ – Dorcas, for example. And of course, the ‘imperative’ to do good to ALL people, starting with the household of faith!
And, repeating my first comment: If we believe in congregational autonomy, we have no business in worrying about what our NI brethren do (or not do)…
LikeLike
This seems to be an OLD discussion. The question that keeps coming up in my mind? If we truly believe in the autonomy of the LOCAL congregation, why should this even be an issue?
Authority? Really? So many things are done in both groups that has no biblical authority. Treasury – show me a passage that “authorizes” it.
OWNING real estate? Where do you find that passage?
PAID preachers? Nowhere to be found. Missions- yes. Supporting the needy, yes. But paid preachers? Nowhere.
“Sips and pinches” to celebrate the Lords Supper? The EXAMPLE is in the context of a meal.
And yet – we all want to claim “authority.”
I am familiar with a congregation from the NI persuasion, and regularly assemble with them. Impressed by the generosity of the members, practicing what they preach. When a member is in need, they dig into their individual billfolds and provide.
So what if they don’t think you can eat in the building? That is not what our faith is all about! Let them believe and act on that.
I’m a member of a congregation which supports three missionaries – and a children’s home. A congregation where about an average of 15% of the funds go towards helping those who are in need, and where much money is donated apart from the budget to help needy.
I KNOW I can find clear and obvious references in scripture for those. In both congregations God is honored by what members do for those who are in need.
As a member of the one congregation I have no business judging the other. A sinful rift was torn. Based on PERSONAL preferences, not on biblical principles. As such, we should repent of such behavior. It is not my place to condemn a part of Gods family (Who are you, to judge the masters servant?). I may disagree with the conclusions. But the needy are provided for in either congregation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The NI folks of whom I am familiar will not use their buildings even for funerals or weddings. The authority matter as is exemplified above by ozanark is typical. It is a bottomless pit and an endless road when taken to the extreme which it most always is by the person who knows well the arguments which he obviously does. All the while the unbelievers and denominations mock us! More tragically people are lost. I wonder what does the Lord think as he approached all such religious questions in such common sense ways and in such human-need ways such as the Sabbath controversies. — Larry
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for the respectful and honest way you handled this issue. Though we differ in our understanding on this issue, you have earned my respect in being respectful yourself, and intellectually honest.
First off, I for the most part agree with your assessment of the problem of authority. Whether we call something general authority and the necessary expediencies to accomplish such or authority with liberty, it is really the same thing. We are commanded to preach, and without further command, we preach using the tool set that works. It is helpful to remember that part of the word that we are to follow was left in the examples recorded, not only in the commands left for us. Even if examples of the church are less black-and-white, they are no less binding (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:6).
In light of this, the question must be asked: What is the New Testament example for using church money? And following that, how specific are these examples?
The way the church was to gather funds is a case of positive example, by way of command by Paul to churches, especially the Corinthians. Because this example is specific, gathering in other ways would be adding wrongly.
The operational control of funds was to be conducted by the church. the unit of governance is the church under the oversight of the elders (you can nuance this in little ways saying “the elders oversee the money” or “the church does, but the elders oversee the church”) but the point really is the same. The church is responsible for the money it raises. So far, I believe we are agreed.
We begin to differ in considering how a church can allocate their funds.
First is the issue of “sponsoring churches” you addressed. Looking at the evidence in the passages you listed (paragraph 3 of the section) the picture is not readily painted of churches “cooperating” as you said it. Those passages do not completely eliminate such as a possibility, but they do not show us a example of such cooperation. What they do show is an example of an active Christian (Paul) asking churches to support needs saints elsewhere. The cooperation in the terms you were expressing was between Paul and the churches in these passages. Further, the example of the money being disseminated throughout Judea is of little worth, as we do not have any data on how that was done. You can speculate that it was done through a major church in Judea (like Jerusalem), and I can counter-claim that it was done by being sent to the churches or people directly. We don’t know how exactly it happened.
However, lets look a little more at 1 Corinthians 16:3. There, in a passage where Paul is calling on the Corinthians to support needy saints, Paul does not suggest that he should carry the money. Rather, Paul calls on them to select their own representative to go and deliver the money, perhaps going with that person, perhaps not. That seems like Paul is making sure that the control of the Corinthians’ money stays under Corinthian hands.
Further, since we have an example of sending money by such a representative, which can be interpreted as a specific form of any means of using money in a direct, controlled-by-the-church fashion, anything that does not fit this model must either find a way to fit in it, find another model in scripture to work under, or (and I think this one works) it must not be scriptural.
As to the passage in 2 Corinthians 8. First of all, the passage does not necessarily allude to men representing the churches in the way that we are considering (though it seems plausible). But even if it does, those people were chosen by the church. Thus they are under the authority of the elders of that church to exercise the decision of the church, in a similar (arguable same) model as a deacon who can go and exercise judgment on behalf of a church under the broader judgment of the elders. That person is then a representative, but by no means are they circumventing the authority of the church, but rather exercising on behalf of it. (I know that wasn’t the most clear, sorry)
To look at the other points, another idea must be established. What is the work of the Church? If it is to feed bunnies, then everything from our funding to our preaching should be focused on feeding bunnies. I like bunnies, and feeding them is a good thing to do. But the work of the church is not any and every good thing. In fact, the work of the church is not everything a truly good Christian should be doing. Rather our central mission is that mission outlined in the great commission. That great imperative: save the lost. But wait! Didn’t Paul say to do this or that? Didn’t James say to do this or that? Yes. They did. But those are always in respect to the broad imperative of the New Testament: Save Souls.
But what does the New Testament say about the Church’s work beyond its central mission? Acts shows that the church united to care for its own. Paul told us that we should help needy saints, both among our own (Widows indeed) and abroad (i.e. Judea). Most of the extra stuff tends to call the church (acting together) to help their own.
But what about James? Well, first of all, there is no clear sign that he is speaking to churches and not individuals, and by that themes the letter is addressing, it seems most likely to me that he is writing with individuals in mind, not with churches.
Of course, there are a good number of things that Christians do that a church doesn’t. Just as the Temple tax wasn’t for the poor, but for the priests, so our treasuries are for the central work of God. Of course, we cannot follow the Pharisees in saying since I gave to God, I don’t need to do good on my own. The people were of course to give to God, and that was to be used for the work of God, and not for anything else, but then they were to be generous and giving in all else. (note: example of the water in the emergency could well be equated to the showbread with David: not allowed under law, but under the greater law of grace of course it is allowed)
As to the details of the sections you addressed:
A “Christian School” – The mission of the church would provide for teaching, much like Paul did in the School of Tyrannus. But that teaching was in effect preaching the word. So Paul was really just using a readily available Greek setting (kinda like Mars Hill in Athens) to preach and teach the gospel. If a church were to do this, or to supper this, or something that is in principle the same, the that would be fine. But schools in the modern sense are not this. While learning about psychology or chemistry or whatever is nice, that is clearly secular education (even if in a “christian worldview”) and is not under the same sort of thing as preaching the gospel.
Also, there is no example that Paul supported his Trainees. In absence of an example the method of “I think it would make sense if it worked like this” simple does not cut it.
Eating in the Church building – there is nothing intrinsically wrong with eating in the same building as we assemble in. But, we do need to remember what the focus of the church is. This will govern how we pursue our use of funds on the expediency of a building. A building for assembly is an asset to fulfill the command to come together on the First Day of the Week, and further, it is a tool for preaching and teaching, which are the primary goals of the Church. A kitchen does not advance this goal, nor any goal that is outlined as a work of the Church in the New Testament.
Helping non-Christians – the examples of helping the lost to come to be saved by them enjoying the benefits of the building, and eventually the baptistry, are examples of the primary work of the Church, and so there is no question that this is to be supported. Again, the passage in 2 Corinthians 9 does not point to collective support of non-Christians. It speaks of generosity, but that can be collective or individual.
Again, thank you for treating this issue respectfully, and for having a heart to be hurt over division. It is my prayer that we can see more eye to eye, and that God’s Church can grow as God intends.
LikeLike
Brother Sigmund,
Thank you for your gentle response that compels me to honestly reconsider your points. For the most part, I agree with your statements and positions. Yet, the places where we do disagree appear to be induction. This is what concerns me about dividing about these matters. Personally, I do not like the idea of churches building entertainment rooms for teens, gymnasiums, etc. Although, I do not find this to be a hard line of withdrawing from these congregations. I believe as your focus is that we should return our focus Christ and bring our purpose of evangelism and worship from Him. I know that with a critical eye I could hold many innovations against various non-institutional churches, because I find their measure to be inconsistent. I believe that I have thoroughly address this in the article above.
With that said, I am currently at a congregation in which we inherited a kitchen and small hall for other meetings. A kitchen may be defined very simply to be a place for preparing food and include storage of food, utensils, dishes, washing sinks, and also appliances. While I find these kitchens should be small and useful toward sustaining those laboring in the Word, I find that we go too far to make our stipulations and draw a hard line of fellowship.
I was curious about your description of the authority of elders. How do you understand the elders’ leadership in 1 Peter 5:1-4 as compared to Matthew 20:25-28 (Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-27)?
Lastly, I believe the section above about sponsoring churches is still my sufficient reply to your concerns. I encourage you to ask yourself some questions about the cooperation of churches. Consider how Paul received support when teaching in the school, how would his disciples have received support and what cooperation would they have between their supporters and their home congregation? Consider 1 Corinthians 16:3, would the Corinthian messenger travel with Paul and other messengers of other congregations to deliver the support to Jerusalem without cooperating? How would the Judean elders have delivered the aid to other Christians in other congregations without cooperating with those congregations?
May God bless you in grace and peace in Christ.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but as a member of a congregation currently that embraces the Non-Institutional viewpoint, I see several places where you have misdefined the arguments.
The NI viewpoint is NOT that it is wrong to “eat in the church building”. That was never the point. The point is that the treasury should not be used to support or oversee social events. This covers also Family Life Centers and extra buildings that are just for eating.
Schools are not thought of as wrong. Neither are orphan homes. I know many people who believe themselves to be NI but they still support homes – as INDIVIDUALS. And that is what we have the command to do – as INDIVIDUALS, not as the church corporate. Florida College is a school used by many NI brethren … you say you grew up NI, so I believe you knew this already brother, and you skipped over it. They simply do not accept donations from churches – individuals only.
“The non-institutional congregations also aid God’s institution of the home through individual foster parents while objecting to helping house parents of an orphanage.”
That is simply not true. Again, you mistake the individual giving with what the church can do.
And there is the crux of the argument – authority. You rightly say that where there is no command there is liberty. But where you make the mistake is assuming there is no command as to what we should do with our giving, and that simply is not true. We are limited in what we use the church treasury for. Therefore, there MUST be authority in what we use that money for.
LikeLike
Hi brother,
From my experience, I have yet to find a brother holding to NI that did not oppose eating in the building using 1 Corinthians 11:17-20. Yet, I did not suppose that many do not believe this. I agree with you on the extreme of which churches may go in providing a community center, but I believe this judgment belongs to God for the intentions of such building.
I did not say that the NI churches think schools were wrong or orphanages. I think I make that clear in the article above. I thoroughly noted that these are supported individually. Your quote from above is out of context, which was speaking of churches not giving from the collection and yet only individually.
As also noted in the article, we are limited in our collection according to scripture, but the extent of the NI position is unscriptural in some ways and exclusive of other churches by rejecting cooperation of churches. These churches must not overlook that their collection gives to the unsaved attending their assembles. They must also not judge church, who inherit or build for their own fellowship.
I know my article is long, but I sought to be comprehensive. I think you will find that I very agree and hold to limiting and wisely using our church collections.
God bless and thank you for comment.
LikeLike
The fact that individuals that gave Paul, et al the relief to give to the elders in Jerusalem is only illustratrating the method of delivery. They were absent of any decision making concerning the relief. There were no postal services, so the relief would have to be given to someone to get it to Judea
LikeLike
Exactly. I agree.
LikeLike
Mr. Shifferd,
Pardon the lengthy reply, but the content of your article persuaded me to write, as I have read all of it and most of the comments associated with it. You make titanic assertions and flimsy straw man arguments that do not represent any of the so called “non-institutional” churches of Christ I have been a member or have supported through the years. But your greatest error is in the first part of your article where you write “authority is not needed for all things”.
First, other than 1 Cor. 4:6, you used not one Scripture to prove your assertions under the section “Where is the Authority?” So when the Bible says “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do ALL in the name (or the authority) of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. (Colossians 3:17), who are we to believe? The Bible says authority is needed for all things, you say otherwise. God did not give Eve the authority to eat of the tree, but the serpent said otherwise. Just who are we to believe here (Rom. 3:4)? By the way, if one can arbitrarily dismiss Col. 3:17, what would limit him from disobeying any other command in the Scriptures?
You said there is no authority for “driving cars” or “PowerPoint presentations” and ask, “Where is there authority in the Bible to teach the Gospel using projectors?” The answer to this question is, the Scriptures do authorize these things – by way of an expedient (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23). The authority you say does not exist is present under the form of generic authority (Gen. 6:14). The aforementioned Scripture authorized Noah to use transportation or tools of any kind and not be in breach of the Lord’s commands – even though they were not specifically mentioned. How do I know this? Thus did Noah; according to ALL that God commanded him, so did he. (Gen. 6:22).
Bible authority is inherent in the command to assemble. Thus, “driving cars” and using “PowerPoint presentations” are authorized because one may use transportation to fulfil the command to assemble and all of the things that are associated with said assembly (Heb. 10:25). However, if one were to attend a church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) or a group of Muslims worshipping almighty Allah, with the intent of worshiping with them, then I would agree there would be no authority for “driving cars” or using “PowerPoint presentations” for said activity (John 4:24; 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). Likewise, Noah would have zero authority to use transportation or tools of any kind to build an ark out of oak, pine or any other kind of wood — save gopher. See the difference, brother Shifferd?
To be consistent with your argumentation, you would have to give up the practice of “driving cars” to or using “PowerPoint presentations” in the assembly, for such things are sinful without authority in light of Col. 3:17. If not, when you condemn “non-institutional” churches of Christ for so doing, you condemn yourself (Rom. 2:1-3).
You write “When God does not specify how a command is to be done, then there is freedom. When the Scriptures have not given any specific instructions, this leaves liberty, and the lack of authority does not exclude.” What scripture teaches “the lack of authority does not exclude”? 1 Cor. 4:6 only tells us not to think of men above that which is written. Where does the scripture teach there is “liberty” in the “lack of authority”?
If the Bible (authority) is not needed for all things, then you must cite the Bible verses (authority) by which we can discern sinfully unauthorized things from lawfully unauthorized (?) works – because ALL authority has been given to Christ, and ALL scripture has been given by inspiration of God, which is profitable unto EVERY good work (Matt. 28:18; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).
But since some unauthorized things “God has” not “specified in [sic] the His Word” are lawful, I suppose a man or a church could argue that there is “freedom” and “liberty” to use instrumental music in worship, or utilize unauthorized “church government” or “unauthorized worship” or a missionary society to spread the gospel of Christ, because according to your doctrine “authority is not needed for all things”. After all, He did not specify to not use the instrument in worship (neither does any passage specify he that believeth not and is baptized not shall be condemned (Mark 16:16)). 1 Cor. 4:6 “does not say to learn, ‘not to go beyond what is not written’”; so the instrument, along with everything else not specifically mentioned, although unauthorized, may not be sinful. If not, why not?
LikeLike
Ozanark,
Did you read the article? It appears that you did not get past the first 3 paragraphs. You have not recognized or comprehended the Scriptures presented here and I encourage you to consult a dear brother to encourage you of which points that you should reconsider. God’s Word has specified concerning church music, church government, and foreign evangelism. God did not authorize anything besides singing, self-governed churches via elders, and direct fellowship with evangelists from each congregation. Yet, you make charges against me without witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19ff).
Colossians 3:17 does not mean as you have read into it. Doing something in God’s name is not having all authority or doing so by His authority, but to do so in representing the Lord by which many may err in claiming God’s authority. You speak as though acting in the Lord’s name gives inerrant authority, but one may represent God in name and err. For instance a false prophet can speak in the name of Lord, but his prophecies are false (Deut. 18:19-22, Jer. 14:14-15, 23:25, 27:15, Matt. 24:5, cf. Deut. 18:5, 7). Clearly, false prophets do not speak false prophecies by God’s authority but they do so falsely representing God’s name. Likewise, there are many so-called Christians, who are hypocrites. As soldiers represent their country’s name or police officers represent their city or county, they bear the name as a representative of their locality and its authority, and yet they may err abusing their power. As our parents may encourage us to represent our family’s name with respectable behavior, this is also the meaning of doing something in God’s name. Such is what we find in many scriptures throughout the Bible (Deut. 25:6, 1 Sam. 17:25, 20:42, 25:9, Acts 4:10, 18; 5:40, 9:27, 29; 1 Cor. 5:4). Colossians 3 expands upon the instruction to do all in the name of the Lord in Colossians 3:17 stating that we act “heartily as to the Lord and not men” (Col. 3:23). Acting in God’s name does imply that we do so representing His Word, and if we do right, then we follow what He has authorized. This does not mean that doing things in the name of Christ makes all things that we do authorized. According to Colossians 3:17, we are to represent the name of Christ, but that does not mean we cannot stumble in doing what is unauthorized.
When something is not authorized, this means that it is not commanded for which God has given instruction (Lev. 10:1-2). If God has not specified the fire that the priests were to use, then the priests would have been at liberty to choose according to their own means.
First Corinthians 4 is an instruction for the Corinthians to not judge Paul beyond what he has written. His writings as an Apostle of Christ are sufficient in representing the Spirit of Christ and the beliefs of the Apostle Paul. When scripture is interpreted within its context, Christians must take the scripture from its context with its meaning and apply that truth to our lives. Clearly, we cannot think that there is any other traditional teachings from Christ, His Spirit, or the Apostles that we do not read, and we must not go beyond what is written.
Lastly in using your reasoning that projectors are authorized, then the point still stands that God’s specifics excludes, and that we should condemn Paul and his associates as an unauthorized institution for collecting money from numerous congregations to send to the elders in Jerusalem to disperse to the congregations throughout Judea. This is cooperation and networking between congregations, and it is permissive in aiding other Christians and children under their collective care (Acts 11, 15, 1 Cor. 16, 2 Cor. 8-9). There is nothing wrong or unauthorized about designating men to work together without an official title to serve the needs the widows (Acts 6). This is not outside of the elders’ oversight.
I encourage you to get a dear brother to consider your words and the scriptures here, so that he can testify to you what you should reconsider.
LikeLike
Mr. Shifferd,
Thank you for your quick response. I am quite busy, so hopefully you will pardon a delay in mine, or any other replies I may choose to send to you.
As I stated in my first reply, “I have read all” of your article. I didn’t see a need to respond to every point in it because without getting the concept of authority down correctly, it would be pointless to do so. I also did not want to submit a nine or ten page document (this response is too long already) delineating every flaw I see in your article, and thought the submission would be rejected.
You say I make unscriptural charges against you (1 Tim. 5:19). One, this is a public venue where everyone can witness what you and I write (Gal. 2:11-14) “I said to Peter before them ALL…”. Two, your own writings (as well as mine) constitute evidence of being a witness, as was the heap of stones in the Genesis account and other passages (Gen. 31:48; Ex. 22:13).
You ask me to get a “dear brother” to explain these passages to me. One, I am a member of a church that apparently approaches authority differently than yours (1 Cor. 1:10), so how is this “dear brother” going to be of assistance to help me understand a way of thinking different from yours? Two, why do I need a “dear brother” other than yourself? You are preacher in a local church, are you not? Are you incapable of teaching someone out of what you believe to be error? If two reason together, as God would have true Christians to do, good will result from it (Acts 17:2-3).
Concerning your second paragraph, Col. 3:17 does not say to merely “represent the name of Christ”, it explicitly says to do ALL in the name of the Lord. I understand that one may speak falsely in the name of the Lord (as I believe you are doing). Neither did I imply the things you said I did in your paragraph. If so, point out specific examples. No one is saying one cannot act in violation of God’s will; Jesus said as much (Matt. 7:22). The question is, is it lawful to willfully engage in things that are not authorized by God Almighty?
You say “Paul and his associates” acted as an “unauthorized institution”. But “Paul and his associates” never functioned under the oversight of a board or another church in the distribution of the relief, neither did they have a separate treasury to distribute said relief (It is NOT “support”, as your article says), Since you are the one making the assumption that they were receiving “support”, when a) the Bible says “relief” not “support”, and b) the text says every man sent this relief (which was temporary, not a permanent circumstance) to the brethren in Judaea by the hands of Barnabas and Saul, it is your duty to explain how this is so from the Scriptures. In Acts 11:29-30, they obviously distributed the gift by divine approval, and when they did, they acted as a group of individuals, not as an organized entity with a treasury and human board (Matt. 18:15-17). There is no evidence they kept any part of the gift for their own use.
Further, let’s examine your claim that “Paul and his associates” collected “money from numerous congregations to send to the elders in Jerusalem to disperse to the congregations throughout [sic] Judea” and that “…the church at Corinth” sent “their money by approving of someone to go with Paul delivering their gift to [sic] Judea.” You used Acts 11, 15, 1 Cor. 16 and 2 Cor. 8-9 as proof texts.
First, relief was sent to the saints at Jerusalem from the church in Corinth in 1 Cor. 16:1-3. But in Acts 11:29, the relief was sent to the brethren in Judaea. So these situations are different than what you asserted in your article.
You said that Paul delivered the gift to Judaea, but Paul was still named Saul in Acts 11. So not only are these two situations different, the relief described in Acts 11 is years earlier than the events in 1 Cor. 16.
Furthermore, Paul, Titus and other brethren worked together in 1 Cor. 16. In Acts 11, Barnabas and Saul did. By the end of Acts 15, they were no longer working together. Again, more scriptural evidence that much time had elapsed between the two situations.
Now here’s the clincher: The church at Jerusalem could not have been a sponsoring church, because the Corinthian church was not in existence when Acts 11 was written. The city of Corinth is not mentioned until Acts 18:1 – several years after Antioch sent relief to the Judean brethren. So how is it scripturally possible that this relief that was sent “to the elders in Jerusalem to disperse to the congregations throughout [sic] Judea” a) when Judaea was not in need of relief when the collection for Jerusalem was taken – and b) from a church that did not exist? Why are you using two completely different situations and portraying them as if they happened all at once?
Finally, I’ll repeat what I believe the crux of the problem. You used Nadab and Abihu as an example in your third paragraph as to why they were destroyed by God because of the fire they used (to which, I agree). You say there is no authority for PowerPoint presentations, projectors, codex books along with musical instruments and missionary societies. But this does not answer the question. Why is it okay for a church (or an individual) to be engaged in some things that are authorized, and others that are not? I am especially curious to know how you explain the difference between a PowerPoint Presentation and a musical instrument being used in worship, since both are not specifically mentioned by the New Testament and allegedly without authority, according to your reasoning. Why is one unauthorized action accepted, but the other rejected?
LikeLike
Ozanark,
By you not having witnesses, I was not referring to the lack of witnesses available in our discourse or this public forum. If you found my wrong publicly, you are have done right to openly correct me. My point was that you say that I am in error without evidence concerning inventing strawmen, etc.
It appears to me that you are reconsidering your use of Colossians 3:17 and that doing something in Jesus’ name does not mean having His authority for each action, but rather as the Scriptures show that we are to righteously represent His name in our faith and works. As far as authority, you have charged me with acting without God’s authority. Yet, I find that God authorizes liberty for which He has not specifically addressed (Rom. 14).
Ironically, I do not think that we disagree about what is forbidden in regards to observing God’s commands and the traditions of Christ delivered to us (1 Cor. 11:2). Yet, I do find that are quite different in how we present the same principles. Regarding the specifics of God’s commands, we agree that God have specific instructions regarding worship and edification through song and melody. That specificity for “the fruit of our lips” excludes as much as Jesus specificity in the Lord’s Supper for “the fruit of the grapevine” (Matt. 26:29, Heb. 13:16). See, it is what Christ has authorized that excludes. While the Scriptures do not address what material modes of communication in any specificity, we are at liberty to decide. See, silence does not exclude, bur rather what is written excludes. Specifics exclude alterations. For example, the specifics of the Law for priests to eat the showbread excluded others eating like David according to Christ (Matt. 12:1-5), and the specifics of God’s institution of marriage excludes divorce except for fornication along with excluding numerous evils like homosexuality and polygamy (Matt. 19:4-9). If God told Noah to build an ark being silent about the specifics, then Noah could choose the dimensions and the type of wood, but God’s specifics regarding the wood and the dimensions exclude alterations. Therefore, we must not exceed the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9). We must not add to His covenant (Gal. 3:15). Christ is specific about His music in the Church, and yet He is not specific about communicating His Word using ink on scroll or codex, painted linen, or projections of light. We are not at liberty to change worship in song, but we are at liberty is using various modes of writing. Even though we say this is different ways, I think we agree and should seek unity. I think you charge me false without witnesses otherwise.
Now, this is what I have applied since the beginning. I find no passage saying that I must seek authority for step or breath that I make, but rather these are implied in living in Christ.
Also, I knew from the beginning that 1 Corinthians 16 was not referring to Acts 11, and that these were not the same event. I did assume that you would consider the work of the Church consistent regarding the use of the collections among the churches, so that if there is a uniform pattern, then would accept these as being in harmony with one another. My point is that Paul would have sent this second aid to the church elders again in Acts 21 as he did in Acts 11. Yes, they sent the relief to their brothers and specifically, “So the disciples determined, everyone according to his ability, to send relief to the brothers living in Judea” (Acts 11:29).
Rather you want to call it temporary “support” or relief makes no matter to me, the churches initiated to send relief from their collections to Judea twice. Paul organized its collection with others. A letter and individuals were expected to be sent with Paul, who was accompanied by at least Luke and Aristarchus (1 Cor. 16:3).
What is a board? If we consider Paul and his companions a board or the servants of the Church in Acts 6, then everything is fine, but if some churches label such an organization “an unauthorized board”, then they should be able to present scriptural authority for doing so. Do they have the authority to label what they do not like in order to superficially oppose it? A board is “an official group of persons who direct or supervise some activity”. As you know, women can direct a Bible study with other women in their homes while under the supervision of the eldership. The elders are still supervising, and the women are directing their studies and attention to God. As far as board is defined, we could make claims and charges against this practice or recognize that it is scriptural. God’s “board” to supervise each congregation are elders. Yet, the organization of ministers, a work crew of remodeling the building, or a group of women teaching other women or children are a board in directing their own responsibilities under the oversight of the elders. As long as elders are overseeing, then there is no conflict with Christians collectively working under them.
If we can support the collective care of widows through the church collection as in Acts 6 by a group of 7 men (“a board”), then we can support the collective care of orphans by Christians or the collective care of our children’s education. Even in the matter of authorized or unauthorized, the collective caring for others under the oversight of elders is authorized.
LikeLike
My apologies for the duplicate postings. I could not find a way to message you privately about them, hence the message here.
LikeLike
I am sorry that my site did not allow you instant access to post comments. After one comment is approved, you should be approved from then forth. If Parts 1 & 2 duplicates, with your consent, I would like to remove them.
LikeLike
Go ahead and delete them. Thank you for your consideration.
LikeLike
Parts 1 & 2 are saved and hidden and will be restored if you desire.
LikeLike
I want to be sure of something?? What does Non-institutional mean?? For I know the Church split up over a lot of these issues, and I was raised in fear of going to COC’S that had fellowship halls taught from childhood it was wrong?? Please tell me
LikeLike
I do not see the Church splitting over these things. I do find that a few broke away for their convictions over these things. “Non-institutional” is the respectable reference used for these few, who object to supporting orphanages managed by Christians from the collection and often these also reject the fellowship hall.
LikeLike
Thank-You for your answere!!
GOD BLESS
LikeLike
I have always been confused on how we justify funding an orphans home with James 1:27, when the only command I see referenced is to visit them? Please help clarify what James is saying in this verse.
Thanks for your spiritual insight.
LikeLike
“Visit” is not the best word to use here. I am still baffled by this word’s use in our prominent translations. The Greek word is episkeptomai meaning to oversee, look after, or look out for. It is close to being the verb form of overseer as in a bishop, episkopos. I believe most commentaries make this same note about this incomplete translation.
LikeLike
Thanks,
Strongs says,
ἐπισκέπτομαι
episkeptomai
ep-ee-skep’-tom-ahee;
Middle voice from G1909 and the base of G4649; to inspect, that is, (by implication) to select; by extension to go to see, relieve: – look out, visit.
Perhaps this is why the translators used the word visit, I see the Stong does use the word relieve, but is that to imply monetarily or emotionally or perhaps both?
LikeLike
Certainly, visiting is implied. Remember what Strong’s concordance is. He is a Greek scholar presenting his own word-studies. He is only one witness and a fallible man. He along with Vine and Thayer can and do error, and I do not think any of these men are members of the Church of Christ. Add to this that everyone including you and I are able to do these word-studies easier now on our own. For instance, when we study the subject of baptism, we look up and refer to a number of passages about baptism to see that baptism in Jesus’ name is immersion in water and we understand its purpose in the Gospel. That is a word-study and it is the same work that these lexicographers did.
LikeLike