Eric Walberer

• About this site

• About this site

10 Ways to Read the Bible

• About this site

Tom Bentley

• About this site

Bonnie Sharp

• About this site

Foundation Truths of the Gospel

• About this site

OVERSIGHT
Is it scriptural for overseeing brethren to hold that, and to act as if, they and they alone are responsible to God for the carrying on of the affairs of a local assembly?

Does attendance at a monthly oversight meeting constitute one an overseer?

It is not attendance at an oversight meeting which makes a man an overseer, nor the appointment of anyone, even an apostle, but the call of the Holy Spirit to the work (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). There will also be a desire for the work not an “office” 1 Timothy 3:1" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1 though there will be doubtless a consciousness of insufficiency. In addition, there must be also certain qualities in a man to enable his brethren to recognize his fitness and call.  He must be blameless, patient, not domineering; apt to teach (that is, not necessarily a teacher, but able to instruct in sound doctrine). He must be able to rule well his own house; he must not be a neophyte, that is, a newly converted person; and he must have a good report in the world (see 1 Timothy 3" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1: ). These chapters are an integral part of God’s Word, and it is quite a gratuitous assumption to say that they are in abeyance, because we have no apostles or apostolic delegates. Why should all these directions be left, if not to guide us on this very point?

What is proposed to take the place of an elders’ meeting?—a mere human arrangement without, I believe, one line of Scripture to authorise it—a meeting of the male members of the assembly. Surely it is evident that some of the men in a gathering may correspond very slightly indeed, if at all, with the conditions laid down in the Scriptures. They may be new converts; they may lack the power to keep their own homes in order; they may be lacking in the qualities and grace needed for the work of oversight; they may, perchance, not have a good report in the world. If so, they are as clearly excluded from oversight as the sisters. I was once long ago in a meeting where the leading brother, having come from a circle where the arrangement in question had vogue, insisted on all the males being invited to the “business meeting.” I remember still the hindrance this was to a true oversight meeting. Only two meetings are known to the Word—

(i) That of the “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:6; 20:18)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:6; 20:18), but because we have no elders of apostolic gifts, this principle is in no way affected. What excuse can there be for introducing mere “males,” whom the Scriptures exclude? (a) That of the assembly (Acts 14:27;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:27; Acts 15:4;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:4; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; Acts 21:22)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 21:22). What is known as the “oversight meeting” is a matter of convenient arrangement between brethren who have mutual confidence, but it ought not to be what is called “a closed oligarchy,” nor should it prevent anyone else, who believes himself called to the work of caring for the saints and of giving proof of his ministry, but such would naturally not force fellowship on others,but would wait to be assured of their welcome. Overseeing brethren ought to be on the lookout for Spirit-called helpers.

W.H.

• About this site

Is there any good ground for the change, advocated by some, of the word “virgin” In Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 to “young married woman” or “young woman of marriageable age”?

I believe “virgin” can be shown to be the true rendering, along several lines of proof. It is significant that those who propose this change are mostly of Modernist tendencies. Such men deny the miraculous in general, and would gladly get rid of the Virgin Birth of our Lord, and create a discrepancy between Matthew 1:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23 and our verse. Gesenius, the well-known author of the Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon, a man with a strong Modernistic bias, says, “The true meaning of ‘almãh, (“virgin” in Isaiah 1:14)" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 1:14) is a girl of marriageable age, with no special reference to her unspotted virginity, which is expressed,” he affirms, “by another word, bethulãh”; but that moral purity is surely taken for granted, unless definite proof is alleged to the contrary. He adds, “almãh is used of a youthful spouse recently married”; but the only place he quotes to prove this is the verse in question, Isaiah7:14," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah7:14, where he wants to rule out the other meaning, and thus begs the question. He also quotes Canticles - Song of Solomon 6:8" TARGET="_blank">Song of Solomon 6:8 to prove his point, but as virgins (‘almöth) are distinguished there from wives and concubines, we may ask what they do stand for, if not for unmarried girls of unspotted character? Gesenius admits, moreover, that his word bethülah” is sometimes clearly used of a woman newly married, e.g., in Joel 1:8." TARGET="_blank">Joel 1:8. If that word had been used in Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 he might still have found a loop-hole, and have quoted Joel to show that even was not conclusive. God, however, has raised up to oppose Gesenius a man of equal scholarship, namely, Dr. S. P. Tregelles, of humble evangelical faith, and also of European reputation as a Hebraist. He translated Gesenius’ Lexicon from the German, and has added notes in brackets to neutralise, where necessary, the bias of the Lexicon. The following note by Dr. Tregelles occurs under “‘almãh”: “Gesenius’ object in view in seeking to undermine the opinion, which would assign the signification of virgin to this word, is clearly to raise a discrepancy between Isaiah 7:14" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23. Nothing which has been stated (i.e. by Gesenius earlier in the article) does, however, really give us any ground for assigning another meaning. . . . ‘Almãh in the Punic language signifies virgin.
The absolute authority of the New Testament is, however, quite sufficient to settle the question to a Christian.” We may refer here to the words of Matthew 1:23" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:23: “Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled, which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which is by interpretation, God with us.” The Evangelist uses the ordinary Greek word, “parthenos,” for “virgin,” used too in Luke 1:27," TARGET="_blank">Luke 1:27, of the Virgin Mary. The Greek Version, the Septuagint, does sometimes translate the word “‘almãh” otherwise than by “parthenos,” but here in Isaiah 1:14," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 1:14, where as Tregelles points out “it must to their minds have occasioned a difficulty,” they translate by the same word that we have in the Gospels. We may suppose these learned Jews—the translators of their own Scriptures—knew at least as much of Hebrew and Greek as Modernist scholars. Matthew does not appear to have quoted from the LXX, so is an independent witness. We do not, however, in any case, need even the authority of God-fearing scholars. This is a question in which “a wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not err.” Let us look at the other occurrences of the word, “‘almãh,” in the Old Testament. It is used in Genesis 24:43" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 24:43 of Rebecca—the prospective wife of Isaac. The other word, “bethülãh,l occurs in verse 16, as we might say “virgin” or “maid” indiscriminately. Miriam, in Exodus 2:8," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 2:8, is called an “ ‘almãh,” and she was clearly not a young married woman, but a maiden. This suits, too, in Proverbs 30:19." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 30:19. Canticles 1:3 seems to demand the sense of virgins, as also chap. 6. 8, as we have seen. Psalm 68:25" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 68:25 we may take as neutral; we cannot affirm the damsels to be.yirgins, though they might have been. Then there is another consideration. The name to be given to the child—”Emmanuel,” “God with us”—goes a long way to justify the translation of “virgin” by our Translators and Revisers, as such a birth demanded extraordinary concomitant circumstances. The context, too, favours the same conclusion. Jehovah had offered Ahaz any sign he might choose to ask—”in the depth or in the height” above, that is anything comparable with the drying up of the Red Sea or the Jordan, or on the other hand, with Joshua’s long day. When Ahaz refused, the prophet replied, “The Lord Himself shall give you a sign. “Behold a* (literally “the”) virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” Clearly God’s sign would be something extraordinarily arresting. How else would the Eternal Son of God enter into manhood except in the womb of a Virgin? The birth of a son to a young married woman, far from being an arresting sign, would not be a sign at all, but the most
natural of events.

* Heb.—”the Virgin,” that is the Virgin of prophecy, predestined one day to be the Virgin of history. When people talk of the Virgin to-day, they refer to the Mother of our Lord, and this expression is undoubtedly better.

 W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

THE RESTORATION OF ALL THINGS

When does the restoration of all things by Elias take place?

The answer is given in Malachi 4:5" TARGET="_blank">Malachi 4:5: “Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” The Lord seems clearly to refer to this promise, see Matthew 17:11" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 17:11 “Elias truly shall first come and restore all things.” As to what this coming represents we must refer to other Scriptures. The first time historically that Elias is mentioned in the N.T. is in Luke 1" TARGET="_blank">Luke 1: , in the angel’s message to Zacharias that his promised son “shall go before Him in the spirit and power of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, etc.” John’s mission was to resemble in spirit and power and result, the mission of Elias as described in Malachi 4:6." TARGET="_blank">Malachi 4:6. Now, we remember that when later the apostles James and John proposed to call down fire from heaven, even as Elias did, and consume the Samaritans, the Lord rebuked them on the ground that they knew not what spirit they were of. It was the spirit of Elias, which was perfectly right in his dispensation, but not that of the Son of man (see Luke 9. 54)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 9. 54).

Does not this supply one more Scriptural reason against the new theory that John, had he only been faithful, would have become one of the twelve apostles? Had he been so, there would have been two incompatible “spirits” in the twelve, one, that of Elias in the person of John the Baptist, and another foreign to it, the spirit of Christ. In Matthew 11:14," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:14, the Lord said, “If ye will receive it, this (i.e., John the Baptist) is Elias which was for to come.” The words, “if ye will receive it,” are important, as they also throw light on our Lord’s words in Matthew  17:12 “I say unto you that Elias is come already, and they knew him not.” This cannot, I submit, mean that John was a reincarnation of Elias. They are separate entities to-day. Elias will surely come again, but he will not be born, as John was, of a mother. He will come again as he went and probably as secretly, as far as the general world will be concerned.

John did up to a certain point fulfil the role of Elias. To use a modern phrase, he was his “double,” but none the less it remains true that “Elias will come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord,” and most evangelical interpreters of the Revelation are agreed that he will be one of the two witnesses of Rev. ii. Their ministry will last 1260 days or 3- years, that is, during the first half of Daniel’s last week of years, beginning with the Covenant between the Head of the Roman people and the Jews. The ministry of the two witnesses will be a ministry enforced by judgment and plague, and bearing down all opposition and. crushing their enemies by miraculous power. It will also be wonderful in its success. There will be a revival in Israel, such as has never yet been known, and a world-wide testimony through, I might suggest, the I,ooo equipped for this service by that Pentecost (see Joel 2" TARGET="_blank">Joel 2: ), of which that of Jerusalem was the foretaste, and vast numbers will be brought to repentance. It will only be when their ministry is finished that the “Beast,” then manifested as such, will slay them. This will inaugurate the day of Jacob’s trouble and the great tribulation, running concurrently, only to end in the appearing in power and great glory of the Son of man—”the great and terrible day of the Lord.”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Can we know from the Scriptures who are the three shepherds of Zecheriah 11:8?

It would be too much for anyone to affirm that there is no light in the Scripture on any point mentioned therein. All anyone can say is that he has no light. The incident of the three shepherds forms part of a prophetic Scripture, referring to the closing days of Israel’s history. As shepherds they would be responsible rulers of Israel, but their names are not indicated here, but no doubt this prophecy will shine out clearly when it is fulfilled. In the meantime students of prophecy, as has well been said, are not called to try to be prophets.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site