Comments by "Guy Who Likes Ecclesiastes" (@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts) on "Thom Hartmann Program"
channel.
-
Jehovah’s Word expresses concern for widows, and decrees retribution upon any who oppress them. (Ex. 22:22-24; Deut. 14:28, 29; 26:12; Ps. 68:5; 146:9; Zech. 7:9, 10; Mal. 3:1-5) He commands that they be honored, which would include their support if necessary. Jesus showed that this included support when he clashed with the scribes and Pharisees over their traditions. He pointed out that God’s Word commanded honor for one’s father and mother, but that their tradition allowed them to slide out from under the responsibility of giving their parents material support. In this way he linked honor with material support, and that to fail to support parents who needed it was the same as failing to obey the command to honor them. (Matt. 15:1-6, NW) Paul showed this same understanding of the expression “honor” when some thirty years later he wrote to Timothy on how to deal with those in the congregation who were actually widows, that is, those without means of support. His words are recorded at
1 Tim. 5:3, 5, 9, 10. There is indicated that those widows too old to earn their own living and without relatives to support them, yet who were worthy, theocratic women, should be on the list for congregational relief work.
In no sense was this communism. If widows could be privately cared for, they were not to be put on the list for congregational support. Each household was responsible to provide for its own. Godly devotion would require children to honor their parents by material support, duly compensating their parents, who had reared them and provided for them while they were growing to maturity, until they were no longer helpless, until they were able to support themselves. Hence Paul wrote: “But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let these learn first to practice godly devotion in their own household and to keep paying a due compensation to their parents and grandparents, for this is acceptable in God’s sight. Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith. If any believing woman has widows, let her relieve them, and let the congregation not be under the burden. Then it can relieve those who are actually widows.” (1 Tim. 5:4, 8, 16, NW) Nor were young widows to burden the congregation with their needs. They could either work, or, better yet, remarry.—1 Tim. 5:11-15.
The early Christians did not try to erase the political evils or social inequalities of their time, not by communistic teaching nor by religious precept. If the permanent Christian rule had been for all things to be held in common, there would have been no rich or poor. There would have been no need to take contributions from those with money to aid others who were poor and needy, as Paul did. (Acts 24:17; Rom. 15:26; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-15; 9:1-15) More than twenty-five years after Pentecost no form of communism had equalized Christians in a material sense, for the disciple James cautioned against class distinctions between rich and poor, and warned those intent on heaping up material wealth, as did Paul also. (1 Tim. 6:7-10; Jas. 1:27; 2:1-9; 5:1-6) The rich were alerted to the deceitfulness of riches, and were to lovingly share with needy brothers, not under compulsion or with grumbling, but cheerfully, as evidence of their faith, viewing such giving as more of a blessing than receiving.—Acts 20:35; Rom. 12:13; 2 Cor. 9:7; Jas. 2:14-20; 1 Pet. 4:9.
The ‘having of things in common’, as spoken of at Acts chapters 2 and 4, was confined to Jerusalem. There is no indication that it was practiced by Christian groups beyond the Jerusalem vicinity. Jerusalem was where mutual assistance was so urgent, for there was the stronghold of the scribes and Pharisees and temple priests, there was the hard core of opposition. The amazing increases of the Jerusalem Christians following Pentecost so roused clerical ire that a violent campaign of persecution was touched off, spearheaded by the stoning of Stephen. It was “on that day great persecution arose against the congregation which was in Jerusalem; all except the apostles were scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria”. It was well that prior to this the Christians had sold possessions to aid one another; it kept their goods from falling as loot to the persecutors that scattered them.—Acts 8:1, NW.
When this particular burst of persecution spent itself and the Christian congregation openly functioned again in Jerusalem, there is no record that any ‘holding of things in common’ was resumed. The early church had weathered a rough storm, and was stronger for it. The need for such emergency measures seemed past. In fact, just before the satanic wave of persecution broke over them, it seems that these more drastic relief measures were tapering off and giving way to the principles more generally set forth in the Scriptures, such as relief for the bereaved or fatherless and widows. This is indicated at Acts 6:1-4.The suggested course was followed and the matter promptly cared for.
This cannot be construed to mean that the early Christians set up community eating centers or operated “soup kitchens” where all assembled to take their meals. Acts 2:46 plainly states that “they took their meals in private homes”. (NW) Please note, also, that their homes were private, and not viewed as the property of the entire congregation. The daily distribution referred to in Acts 6:1-4 was a relief work whereby the tables of the poor were properly and impartially supplied. The text deals specifically with widows, who would likely be persons without other means of support. It was to such destitute ones that foodstuffs were distributed, and not a case of the entire body of Christians pooling everything and then all drawing on this common store of goods for their daily needs.
2
-
1
-
1