Abundant Grace

• About this site

10 Ways to Read the Bible

• About this site

Becky MacLeod

• About this site

 What is a Church?

• About this site

Anthony Elliott

• About this site

Safety, Certainty and Enjoyment

• About this site

RULE
Do the Scriptures teach that an overseer is to rule the Church?

Does “obey them that have the rule over you,” imply that we have rulers in the Church to-day?

Three words are translated “RULE” in the New Testament in reference to oversight:

(1) P0IMAINO (from POIMN, a shepherd), used by our Lord to Peter—”Feed (better, ‘shepherd’) my sheep” (John 21:16)." TARGET="_blank">John 21:16). The word in vv. 1 and 17 for “feed,” is BOSKO; but feeding, though of the first importance, is only one item of shepherding.

(2) POIMAINO also occurs in Acts 20:28" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2, “feed the flock”; also in Matt. 2:6," TARGET="_blank">Matt. 2:6, “RULE”—”that shall rule (marg. feed) my people Israel.” (z) PR0" TARGET="_blank">PR0I- STMI, as in 1 Timothy 3:5" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:5 “If a man know not how to RULE his own house, how shall he take care (EPIMELBOMAI) of the church of God?” This word for “take care” occurs only here and in Luke 10:34, 35," TARGET="_blank">Luke 10:34, 35, of and by “the good Samaritan.”

PROISTEMI is used too of the RULE OF THE CHURCH in 1 Timothy 5:17." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17.

(3) HGEOMAI (from AGO, to lead), to be a leader, to rule (in New Testament this latter only in present participle), is used of Barnabas and Silas—”CHIEF MEN among the brethren” (Acts 15:22);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:22); of Joseph—”GovEiuoR over Egypt” (Acts 8:10);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 8:10); and in Hebrews 13:7, 17," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24 in the expression, “them that HAVE THE RULE OVER” (marg., in two latter verses, “guides,” which seems to do well).

Overseers, then, are shepherds, feeding, guiding, tending the flock; also ruling, but not inthese]fassetiye, domineering way of a Gentile king, “not as lords over God’s heritage,” but with gentle control for the good of the sheep, whom they love, because they belong to the Chief Shepherd who has entrusted them to their care (1 Peter 5:2-4)," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2-4), and it is for the sheep to be subject to this godly rule.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Please give a clear understanding as to the terms Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven?

These two expressions refer in the Gospels to the same thing, from a slightly different standpoint, as is seen by comparing Matthew 13:31-33" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:31-33 and Luke 13:18-21," TARGET="_blank">Luke 13:18-21, where the same pair of parables describe in the former, “the Kingdom of Heaven,” and in the latter, “the Kingdom of God.” When we read, “Kingdom of Heaven,” the place from which the kingly rule is exercised is in view, when “Kingdom of God,” the Divine Person who exercises that rule. Both expressions in the Gospels represent generally the condition of things produced in the world by the preaching of the Gospel in the absence of the King. This is always true, I believe, of the expression Kingdom of Heaven, which only occurs in Matthew. In the Kingdom of Heaven there is a mixture of good and bad—tares are sown by the evil one; worthless fish are caught with good; but when the King comes, He will cast out of His kingdom “all that offends and all that work iniquity.”

The kingdom aspect of truth represents the responsibility side of things and includes profession, which must be tested. To enter the real thing the new birth is needed. The Kingdom of God in this aspect is “not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” The kingdom includes the Church, but is greater than it, in that it began before it. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will sit down in the Kingdom of God, but they will not be in the Church. The kingdom will continue when the Church is taken, but will only be visibly established when the King returns.

W.H.

• About this site

Why is it said of Abram in Genesis 15:9-10," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:9-10, “The birds divided he not”?

Why were the animals divided, but not the birds?

We see in verse 9 that, preparatory to making a covenant with Abram, the Lord God directed him to take certain sacrificial victims—a heifer of three years old, a she-goat of three years old, a ram of three years old, a turtle dove and a young pigeon. On the slain carcases of these the covenant was to be made. Evidently God had given general directions as to sacrifices and the clean animals to be offered up, as we gather from the knowledge of such things displayed, for example, by Noah, who knew the animals that were clean, that is, fit for sacrifice, and unclean— unfit (see Genesis 7:2, 3);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 7:2, 3); and the same with the fowls—of the unclean two would suffice, but the clean were to go in “by sevens”—as these latter would be needed for sacrifice (Genesis 8:20)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 8:20). No doubt, too, the order to be followed was divinely revealed. The very word for covenant, “berlth, from an unused root, “barath” means “to cut, to hew”— that is, the victims were divided—he who made the covenant had to pass between the Victims. In Jeremiah 34:19," TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 34:19, those who made the covenant passed between the calves—all typical of Christ, the Mediator of the New Covenant.

According to Hebrews 9:17" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:17 the covenant is always made on the ground of dead things (i.e. sacrifices). I am convinced that the idea at the back of this whole passage is that of a covenant, not a testament or will in our modern sense, as the next verse seems clearly to show. If we turn to Exodus 24" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 24: , there is no thought of a will being made, but of a covenant being established between Jehovah and Israel. How then could the second covenant be a testament? The R.V., although somewhat hesitatingly retaining “covenant” up to verse 15, translates verse i: “For a testament is of force where there hath been death” (margin, “over the dead”). The word, “dead,” is plural, and therefore must, one would judge, refer to the covenant victims, rather than to the testator of a will—who is a single individual. I suppose that the reason Abram did not divide the birds is that they formed one offering in two parts-_one of which was placed on each side, representing a cut victim. To those who have a deeper appreciation of the work of Christ, the Word divides the victim even between the . . . joints and
marrow (Hebrews 4:12)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 4:12).

W.H.

• About this site

Is the Sermon on the Mount the rule for the Christian to-day?

The question is not, be it noted, whether the principles of the Sermon on the Mount are applicable to us to-day; but was it intended to be the rule of Christian living? Of course, it is part of God’8 Word, and as such, is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. So, indeed, is the Law of Sinai, and the rest of the Scriptures, but that does not prevent our drawing dispensational differences, and holding that certain parts do not apply to us primarily or directly. The law is not the Christian’s rule of life, for we are told again and again (e.g., Romans 7:4;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:4; Galatians 2:19)" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 2:19) that we have died to the law. It would then be difficult to assert that the Sermon on the Mount, which is the quintessence of the law, is the Christian rule of life. It may be questioned whether many who laud it as a code of morals, and make it literally binding as a rule on the Christian, have a very clear idea of its teaching, or really practise it themselves in any exhaustive way. They seem to have in their mind a dozen or so verses about giving to every man that asketh you, letting a man have your cloak who asks for your coat, going with a man two miles if he forces you to go one, and giving your right cheek to the one who has just smitten you on the left. But this is only a very small part of the Sermon, and if no one has ever perfectly obeyed the ten commandments, it is equally certain that no one has ever perfectly carried out the Sermon which deals with the hidden thoughts of the heart, as well as with acts.

Indeed, when Paul was before Ananias and was unjustly smitten, he did not turn the other cheek, nor did our Lord Himself before Caiaphas, as He certainly would have done, had He laid down the Sermon on the Mount as the Christian rule of conduct. In the new style of teaching, unfortunately too common, heard in our midst to-day, from men who have but a feeble grasp of any distinctive truth or place, it is often the fashion to belittle dispensational teaching. No doubt this teaching has been exaggerated, but that is no reason for denying it its true place.

To understand rightly the Sermon on the Mount, we must under stand the dispensational character of the Gospel of Matthew, and in a less degree of the other Synoptists. It is addressed primarily to Israel; from the first chapter, Christ is offered them as their King—the heir to the throne of David. John the Baptist was the herald of the coming Kingdom, and so the Lord, the twelve and the seventy; and the miracles, which are so prominent in chapters 8 and 9; were the signs of the Kingdom; it was as King that the Lord presented Himself to Israel in chapter 21 (see vv. 4, 5). The Sermon on the Mount comes in its place, as the rules binding on the children of the Kingdom, while the Kingdom is being set up. When the Kingdom was rejected, and the powers of the King attributed in chaps. 9 and i a, to Satan, then the Lord revealed the mysteries of the Kingdom, namely, how the Kingdom would be set up in men’s hearts, during the absence of the rejected King. When the Church is taken away, the testimony of the Kingdom will once more come to the front, and I take it, that during that period, the Sermon on the Mount, will come into very literal force for God’s servants among Israel. It has been alleged, on the other hand, that our Lord in His parting commission told His disciples to teach the converts to observe whatsoever He had commanded them, but that that does not apply to the whole of Matthew is clear, for no one would maintain that our Lord’s words in Matthew 10:5" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:5 and 6, about not preaching to the Gentiles or the Samaritans, but only to the lost sheep of the children of Israel, should be taught to converts to-day, as a rule for their witness. I only quote this to show that our Lord intends His “Sermon” to be interpreted in the light of subsequent revelation; e.g., “Owe no man anything”; “Whiles it remained was it not thine own?” “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”; “If I have done evil, bear witness of the evil, but if well why smitest thou me?”

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

Among the various passages where “breaking bread” is mentioned, in Acts and elsewhere, please distinguish, which do, and which do not, refer to the Lord’s Supper.

Whatever difficulty there may be of settling this point in any particular instance, is due to one or both of two considerations. On the one hand, it is clear that the usual Jewish method of eating bread was by first breaking it up into convenient portions; and therefore the statement that a person had “broken bread” might with them signify merely that he had had a meal, with bread as its prominent feature. On the other hand, it also seems to be beyond doubt that in the apostles’ days the Lord’s Supper was often associated with a meal, of which the saints partook in fellowship together; and therefore, when the phrase “break bread” is linked with some other one about taking food, it is open to question whether this, or an ordinary meal only, is meant.

In Acts 27:35," TARGET="_blank">Acts 27:35, and of course in the references in the Gospels to the Lord breaking bread to feed the hungry multitudes, there can be no suggestion of the Ordinance; and to these occurrences I would add Luke 24:30, 35;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:30, 35; for although the Lord there took bread, blessed, brake, and gave to the two disciples; and although their eyes were opened to recognise Him as He did so; they could not, even in thought, connect this with the Supper which had been instituted a few days previously; since none but the apostles had been present on that occasion.

Over against these instances we may place Acts 2:42;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; and 1 Corinthians 10:16;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16; as passages in which the reference to the Lord’s Supper cannot reasonably be denied; and we then are left with Acts 2." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2. 46 and Acts 20." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20. II, as the only occurrences about which there may be difference of opinion, In each of these there is an additional word or phrase about the partaking of food; and although in the view of some, this rules out any reference to the Ordinance; it seems to me that its effect is just the opposite. For why, if an ordinary meal, and nothing more, is intended, should the two separate expressions have to be used at all? Either of them, in that case, would have said all that was to be said, without the other.

In Acts 2:46" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46 the significance of the statement appears to be that, while some of the activities of the early disciples could be carried on in the precincts of the Temple, the Breaking of Bread could not; and so it took place in their homes (see R.V.). As for Acts 20:2," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:2, the insertion of “the” (R.V., “had broken the bread”), which is according to the reading of all the most ancient authorities, links the statement with verse 7, and implies that here too the Ordinance is meant; though some may find a difficulty in the fact that Paul’s long address would thus have been given before the Supper, transgressing certain views they hold as to it being out of place for a brother to speak, or even to read the Scriptures, in the part of the meeting which precedes it.

W.R.

• About this site