I commend Mr. Hertzler for diligently trying to examine all New Testament passages touching on our use of wealth. I will not examine those passages and his explanations of them. I will conclude by stating, defending, and applying what I believe the gospel teaches concerning wealth.

Matthew 6:34

Hertzler misunderstands Matthew 6:34 to mean we should be unconcerned about the future, but turns around and advises us to Practice the 'squirrel principle,' which means "If you get paid monthly, keep enough from one paycheck to supply your needs until the following one." (80). It is impossible to stretch a pay check for a month without being concerned about tomorrow. Matthew 6:34 doesn't condemn planning ahead, it forbids "worry" (New King James Version, New American Standard Bible). The apostle Paul advocated laying up for future needs (2 Corinthians 12:14).

Luke 12:13-21

Hertzler claims of the Parable of the Rich Farmer, "It was the laying up of these profits on this earth that brought him into condemnation." (16). To sustain this assertion he quotes only a portion of Luke 12:21, "So is he that layeth up treasure for himself" (Ibid). This is an inexcusable twisting of Scripture. The author only quoted half the verse! I could just as accurately claim a Christian who sins may be forgiven by repentance without prayer by just quoting half of Acts 8:22. Luke 12:21 states, "So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." Luke 12:13-21 is a warning against covetousness (verses 13-15), i.e., "greed" (New American Standard Bible). It takes two conditions to make one greedy, to lay up treasures for oneself and to fail to be rich toward God. In the parable, Jesus described the words and actions of a greedy (covetous) person. He thinks the purpose of life is to accumulate wealth (verse 15), he is selfish (verse 17-19; "I" six times, "my" five), he is materialistic, equating his "soul" with his bely (verse 19), and he forgets about death (verse 20).

The wealthy farmer was a fool because he could not see past the material things of life. He made elaborate preparation for physical comfort and financial security but neglected to provide for the most valuable thing he possessed, his immortal soul. That is the description of a covetous (greedy) person and that is what the Lord condemns, not having savings.

Acts 5:4

The Apostle Peter denied the doctrine of nonaccumulation in Acts 5:4. He drew no distinction between owning land (a tool?) and saving the money gained from the sale of the land (an investment?). Of this money the apostle plainly affirmed, "And after it was sold, was it not in your own control?" (Ibid) They had the right to use this money as they saw fit, including saving or investing it.

Concerning Acts 5:1-4, Mr. Hertzler claims, "He was merely affirming the voluntary nature of the gospel of Christ" (44). The phrase "your own control" is from one Greek word translated "power" (King James Version) or "authority" (New King James Version) in Matthew 28:18. They had authority to use the land or money as they thought best. Since when does the Lord give us authority to use anything in a sinful manner? Giving away the proceeds from the land was indeed voluntary, meaning no law of God requires it (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:6).

2 Corinthians 12:14

The apostle Paul plainly contradicts Mr. Hertzler's primary position that saving for future expenses is sinful (2 Corinthians 12:14). The phrase "lay up" in this passage is exactly the same Greek term translated "lays up treasure" in the Parable of the Foolish Farmer (Luke 12:21). The phrase means "to collect and lay up stores or wealth, treasure, ...; to heap up, accumulate" (Mounce. 1169-70). The farmer's sin was not laying up treasure but failing to rich toward God (Ibid).

The author claims of this passage:
Although it seems more likely that Paul is referring here to providing for the current needs of our children, it is entirely possible that he is referring to the customary practice of leaving a financial inheritance. Either way, he clearly is using it for illustrative purposes, not for instructional purposes." (56).

"Lavish Generosity"

Does the Master demand we practice "lavish generosity"? Yes, the Master teaches us to give generously to the poor (Luke 3:11; 6:35; 11:41; 19:1-10; 2 Corinthians 8:9-15; 9:5-7; 1 Timothy 6:17-18; James 1:27), to expect nothing in return (Luke 6:35), and to give without fear or doing without ourselves (2 Corinthians 9:8-11). it is also true the first century disciples left a pattern we should follow of generous giving to the poor (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-37; 11:27-30; Romans 15:25-27; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5; 9:1-2, 13-15). We should also be generous in support of preachers who have given their lives to the proclamation of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:1-14; Philippians 4:15-17).

There are other passages which balance and limit these commands and examples but do not nullify them. We must not be so generous that we fail to provide for the needs of our own families (1 Timothy 5:8, 16) or pay our debts (Romans 13:8). We must not encourage laziness (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12), sharein in or encourage the sins of others (Ephesians 5:11, or use benevolence as an enticement to get people to listen to the gospel (John 6:26-27). We should help others with the necessities of life, not the desires which are really luxuries (Matthew 25:34-45).

Furthermore, the gospel of Christ is not a "social gospel" that has as its goal the elimination of poverty on the earth. If the poor are blessed (Luke 6:20; James 2:5), why is it the goal of most denominations to eliminate poverty? We are to take the gospel of Christ that saves men's souls to the whole world (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:15), not food that fills their bellies.

Hertzler pointedly inquires:
Can we honestly say that we have done good "as we have opportunity" if we have money parked permanently in a savings account or retirement plan at the same time that there are needy people in the world? (31)

Blessed Are the Poor

Yes, the poor are blessed (Matthew 11:5; Luke 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 14:21; 16:19-25; James 2:5), but this is because the poor are more likely to be "poor in spirit," i.e., humble (Matthew 5:3) and "rich in faith" (James 2:5).

Yes, it is "easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25), but this is an hyperbole teaching the extreme difficulty of a rich man being saved (Matthew 19:23; Mark 10:23; Luke 18:24), for "The things which are impossible with men are possible with God" (Luke 18:27; Matthew 19:26; Mark 10:27). It is very difficult for a rich person, whether rich in land or investments, through inheritance or ability, in income or possessions, to be saved, because wealth tempts us to love and to serve it rather than God (Matthew 6:24), to live in luxury while allowing others to suffer (Luke 16:19-21; James 5:5), to be haughty (1 Timothy 6:17), to trust it rather than God (Ibid), to use wealth to oppress the poor (James 2:6; 5:6), and to cheat others to maintain and increase wealth (James 5:1-4). But rich people can be saved if they trust in God rather than riches (1 Timothy 6:17) and "do good" by being "rich in good works, ready to give, willing to share" (1 Timothy 6:18).

Mr. Hertzler tries to dodge the apostle's implication that rich people can be saved by observing, "The term 'rich' can apply either to those who are rich in income (who earn $1 million a year) or to those who are rich in assets (who have $1 million in a bank account)" (53). What about rich in property? According to Hertzler, that's OK, as long as you're generous. Pray tell, what's the difference between one who is generous in giving away income from investments and one who is generous in giving away income from a farm?!

Hertzler goes to the absurd when he claims, "Nor does the Bible condemn someone who is rich in assets, provided he did not acquire those assets through disobedience to Matthew 6:19. Perhaps he received the money through inheritance" (54). So it's OK to be a millionaire if you inherited it, but if you earn it, it's a sin! Too bad my dad wasn't a rich sinner, so I could be rich and righteous! So now we know why the rich, young ruler had to give away all his wealth. He must have earned it rather than inheriting it! Is that in your bible? I surely can't find it in mine.

1 Timothy 5:8

Mr. Hertzler claims the "key" to understanding 1 Timothy 5:8 "is to recognize that this verse is talking about providing for the older generation, not the younger one" (55). So a father has no obligation to provide for his wife and children? Why did Paul teach that parents should lay up for their children? (2 Corinthians 12:14)

Hertzler advises parents to inform their children "that you believe in the doctrine of nonaccumulation, and thus you are not planning to lay anything aside for your old age" (79). Sounds to me like a forewarning I plan to come live with you. I believe children are obligated to honor their aged parents by caring for them as necessary (Matthew 15:3-6; Mark 7:9-13; Ephesians 6:2; 1 Timothy 5:4), but, just as Paul did not want to be a burden to his spiritual children (2 Corinthians 12:14), I don't want to be a burden to my fleshly children.

3 John verses 1-2

Prosperity is a blessing from God that the apostle John prayed that Gaius might have (3 John verses 1-2). The apostle distinguishes between this prosperity on the one hand and good health and spiritual prosperity on the other (verse 2). Surely it is no sin to be prosperous if John prayed that Gaius might be so. The fact that Satan turns blessings from a loving heavenly Father into temptations to sin demonstrates the depth of his depravity.

Conclusion

The Scriptures do not teach the Anabaptist doctrine of nonaccumulation. They do teach us to put God ahead of wealth and to trust God to provide our needs (Matthew 6:19-34). The Lord forbids us to amass wealth while leaving God and the needs of others out of our plans (Luke 12:13-21). The Lord and His apostles sternly forbid covetousness, "the greedy desire for gain" (Thayer; Luke 12:15; Colossians 3:5). The Scriptures teach us to be content with the material necessities of life (1 Timothy 6:6-8; Hebrews 13:5) and forbid the love of money and the desire to be rich (1 Timothy 6:9-10; Hebrews 13:5).

An old saying speaks of "running past Jerusalem to Jericho." To go back to Jerusalem is to return to the spiritual standard of the apostles. To run past it to Jericho (all downhill) is to make laws stricter than the law of Christ. I do not doubt the good intentions of Mr. Hertzler and the many sincere, God fearing Anabaptists. But in their "doctrine of nonaccumulation" they have run past Jerusalem to Jericho and exalted their opinion to the level of divine revelation.

In this and other ways, Anabaptists are pharasaical. They reject the plain teaching of the gospel on the necessity of water baptism for salvation (John 3:5; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Ephesians 5:25-27; Colossians 2:11-13; Titus 3:3-7; Hebrews 10:19-22; 1 Peter 3:18-22) while binding their traditions as conditions of salvation and fellowship. "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." (Mark 7:8)

"And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:9)

Works Cited

Mounce, William, Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words