The Doctrine of Nonaccumulation

Despite the abundance of support in Scripture for the doctrine of nonaccumulation, there will always be people who use Scriptures and logic in attempts to disprove it. Here are a few of the more common objections some have used. Paul wrote about the rich in 1 Timothy 6:17–19 as though they were part of the church. Doesn’t this prove that Luke 12:33 doesn’t apply to us? Luke 12:33 is a command for us to “distribute.” Let’s read the passage in Timothy to see if it supports or refutes this command. Here is what it says, in part: Charge them that are rich in this world . . . that they be . . . ready to distribute . . . that they may lay hold on eternal life. Nowhere do we read in this passage that the commands in Matthew 6:19 or Luke 12:33 have been rescinded. Rather, Paul seems to be saying that these commands apply to the rich just as they do to everyone else. 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). The Bible doesn’t condemn those who are rich in income as long as they obey Matthew 6:19 (by not laying up treasures on earth) and Luke 12:33 (by distributing to those in need at every opportunity). 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. Or perhaps he already had the money at the time he became a Christian. Either way, the requirements are the same for him as they are for everyone else: stop laying up treasures on earth (Mt. 6:19) and start distributing that which he currently has (Lk. 12:33). In doing so, he will follow the example of our Lord Jesus, who “though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might become rich.” Proverbs 6:6 tells us to follow the example of the ant in laying up treasures for the future. Doesn’t this disprove the doctrine of nonaccumulation? The doctrine of nonaccumulation does not teach that we shouldn’t lay up for the future. On the contrary, Matthew 6:20 actually commands us to lay up for the future. The prohibition, rather, is that we are not to lay up on earth, but rather in Heaven. The key issue here is the question of where we are going to spend our future. Because an ant will spend her future in an anthill somewhere, she ought to be laying up treasures in an anthill. Because our future will be spent in Heaven, we ought to be laying up our treasures in Heaven. Some people, who because of either laziness or poor management, are not able to lay up treasures anywhere, either on earth or in Heaven. These people need to read Proverbs 6:6, receive the warning it gives, and repent of their slothfulness. Then they ought to get up, get busy, earn money, and start laying up treasures. The only stipulation is that their laying up must be in Heaven (through giving) and not on earth (through hoarding). 1 Timothy 5:8 tells us we need to provide for our own. Doesn’t that include laying up treasures on earth? This passage in 1 Timothy 5 makes sense only in the context of a church in which nonaccumulation is being practiced. The key is to recognize that this verse is talking about providing for the older generation, not the younger one. The dilemma here is that of some widows whose husbands had not accumulated wealth on earth (in obedience to Matthew 6:19). Consequently, these widows had nothing with which to support themselves in their old age. The solution Paul gives is that family members should take first responsibility to support these widows, and, where that failed, the church should take over. Paul was showing clearly how a Biblical church ought to provide for the needs of its elderly members. In churches where this is practiced consistently, the temptation to violate Matthew 6:19 and Luke 12:33 is greatly reduced. The younger members can feel free to devote all their assets to the work of the Lord (including the care of the elderly), knowing that the rest of the church will be perfectly willing to provide for them if they should ever lose their ability to provide for themselves. 2 Corinthians 12:14 says the parents ought to lay up for the children (and not the other way around). Doesn’t this disprove the doctrine of nonaccumulation? Using this verse, in part, as support for their actions, many parents spend a good portion of their lives storing up wealth so that they can leave a sizeable financial inheritance to their children. Countless families have consequentially been plagued by bitter feuding, intoxicating materialism, and spiritual ruin as a result of the sudden wealth that was thrust upon them. Countless other parent–child relationships have been strained while the parents were yet alive because of the children’s secret desire for the parents to die so that they could get their hands on the money. Still other situations have resulted in virtually nothing being passed on to the heirs because of high court costs and attorney fees. 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 (very similar to the way he uses the illustration of a soldier in 2 Timothy 2:4 and that of an athlete in 2 Timothy 2:5). Paul is simply trying to assure the Corinthians that he is not after the material things that they could provide for him, although he would have had the full right to receive such a provision. He therefore indicates, through this illustration, that he is willing to assume the role of a parent with very young children. Young children, you see, never feel any twinge of conscience for not providing for the needs of their parents. No matter what the practice is to which Paul refers, it is obvious from the context that the issue at hand is the provision of his current needs, not the storing up of reserves for the future. The question of whether Paul approved of stockpiling financial resources or not can be quickly resolved simply by going back a few chapters and reading 2 Corinthians 8 and 9. Many Godly men in the Old Testament such as Abraham and Job were very rich. Doesn’t this disprove the doctrine of nonaccumulation? One foundational principle of the doctrine of nonaccumulation is that God’s requirements for His people are different in the New Testament from what they were in the Old Testament. Christ introduced us to a brand new covenant with its own set of commands, many of which had not been commanded to God’s people under the old covenant. Jesus says repeatedly in His Sermon on the Mount “It hath been said . . . but I say unto you.” These statements highlight a number of differences between the Law given by Moses and the laws of the kingdom of God. Under the old covenant, God at times commanded his people to destroy their enemies. Under the new covenant, we are commanded to love them. Under the old covenant, divorce and remarriage was permitted in some cases. Under the new covenant, it is strictly forbidden. Under the old covenant, laying up treasures on earth was permitted or even commanded. Under the new covenant, Jesus forbids us to accumulate wealth on earth. The command to “sell and give” applied only to the rich young ruler, didn’t it? That this argument is even used at all simply reveals a widespread ignorance of the fact that Luke 12:33 is in the Bible. When you take Luke 12:33 out of the Bible, then this argument seems as though it may have some merit. When you put Luke 12:33 back in the Bible, however, this argument is turned totally upside down. First, remember that the Luke 12:33 command was given to Christ’s disciples (and therefore to us). The rich young ruler isn’t mentioned at all in Luke 12. Second, Luke 12:33 was given before the story of the rich ruler, not after it. At the time Jesus gave the Luke 12:33 command, there may have been some doubt in the disciples’ minds about whether this command was really meant to be taken literally. After they witnessed the encounter with the rich ruler six chapters later, however, there was no longer any doubt. This command was meant to be taken literally, they now realized, even by those who were rich. In the story of Mary anointing Jesus with costly ointment, Jesus told Judas that we will have the poor with us always. (Mk. 14:3-9) By saying this, wasn’t He de-emphasizing the importance of giving to the poor? Throughout His earthly ministry Jesus preached about the importance of helping the poor. This is especially true in Matthew 25:31-46 where Jesus indicates that our eternal destiny will be determined to a large degree by how we have responded to the physical needs of our fellow man. He says in this passage that to give to the poor is to give to Him and to fail to give to the poor is to fail to give to Him. After Mary had anointed Jesus with this costly ointment, Judas, in a show of loyalty to the teachings of Jesus, said that this ointment instead ought to have been sold and the money given to the poor (just as Jesus had commanded in Luke 12:33). Jesus, however, rebuked Judas and responded that “The poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.” (Jn. 12:8) Jesus’ response to Judas was not a contradiction of the things he had been preaching the last three years. Rather, it was further confirmation of the truth that giving to the poor is the equivalent of giving to Christ Himself. Mary should not have been criticized for choosing to give to Christ directly instead of giving to the poor. After all, a desire to give to Christ was supposed to be the motivation for giving to the poor in the first place. Either of these two actions would have been giving to Jesus; either action would have been motivated by a love for Jesus. If we have the kind of love for Christ that Mary did, we will also seek, as she did, to give generously to Him in one way or another. Because we do not have the option of giving to Christ in the flesh as Mary did, we must therefore choose the other way to give to our Lord: by giving to the poor. And there will never be a lack of opportunity to do so, because, says Jesus, “The poor always ye have with you.”