Should an elder leave his responsibilities when assembly problems overwhelm him?

Should an elder leave his responsibilities when assembly problems overwhelm him?

It is easier to make decisions for others than for ourselves. Decisions must, however, conform to spiritual principles. An overseer must answer one basic question: "Did the Lord give me this responsibility for His sheep?" The time to decide the answer to this is not when the pressure of difficulties sways his thinking. No matter who asks him to do so, no matter how often he receives a request to do so, no matter how necessary it appears for someone to assume the responsibility, a man should never take the place of an overseer unless he recognizes that God has given him this responsibility. Any who take the place of overseers and have not arrived at that conclusion should be assured that God holds them responsible to Him for the place they have assumed. They should leave that assumed responsibility immediately if they are not willing for the grace of God to bring them into conformity to the scriptural standard for overseers.

1 Timothy 4:10" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:10 provides an assuring principle for those who suffer physically and emotionally in fulfilling their charge in divine things. Paul assures Timothy that God is the preserver ("Savior") "of all men, specially of those that believe." Ultimately all depend on God for preservation and that is of special value to those who are his beloved children.

These principles seem to indicate that God is able to sustain those to whom He has given a responsibility. Therefore, no matter the difficulties, an overseer should never relinquish that responsibility. Like the Levites (Numbers 8:24-26)," TARGET="_blank">Numbers 8:24-26), he may be spared to the age when he should relinquish some of his activities and mentor others in doing the work. If an elder sins, he may be rebuked publicly (1 Timothy 5:19-21)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:19-21). If he is unwilling to conform to the standard for overseers, his peers may inevitably decide he must be removed from a place for which he is not fit. Otherwise, overseership is a lifelong commitment.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

When does the "breaking of the bread" take place?

When does the "breaking of the bread" take place?

Blessing (giving thanks for) the cup and breaking the bread (1 Corinthians 10:16)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:16) are united assembly acts that require each believer’s individual participation. "The bread which we break" is "the communion of the body of Christ" because "we are all partakers of that one body" (verse 17). "Breaking the bread" takes place when each believer partakes of the loaf. "Breaking bread" is used in Scripture where we would say, "eating a meal" (Acts 2:46)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:46) and connotes nothing official. It is not "the bread which He break," referring to the Lord’s breaking the bread and passing it to the disciples (Matthew 26:26)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:26). Whether or not a brother breaks the loaf open before he distributes it to others is immaterial. His act is neither official nor significant. Nothing in Scripture suggests that the person who gives thanks for the emblem must distribute it to others or that the person who distributes the bread must also distribute the cup. Pretentiousness is foreign to the Lord’s Supper.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Spirit

Is the Spirit’s leading relevant to assembly meetings?

We worship by the Spirit (Phi 3:3," TARGET="_blank">Phi 3:3, JND); we work by means of the Spirit (1Co 12:4-7);" TARGET="_blank">1Co 12:4-7); we walk together with others by the Spirit (Gal 5:25)." TARGET="_blank">Gal 5:25). The Spirit’s leading is essential in every aspect of our assembly life and service. If our assembly meetings do not display the sovereignty of the Spirit ("the Lord the Spirit," 2Co 3:18)" TARGET="_blank">2Co 3:18) in directing them, we have nothing more than mere ritual and empty form. The substance, timing, and coordination of our worship, prayer, teaching, and preaching must result from the leading of the Spirit. This will be very limiting to those of us who know little of His leading in our daily lives.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How are Psalm 22 and Psalm 24 related?

Is Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 the outcome of Psalm 22," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22, when the Lord Jesus defeated Satan at the cross or is it the ascension and the Lord's arrival back in heaven.?

I would say without hesitation that Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 is the outcome of Psalm 22," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22, but there is a difference. I have no doubt that the Lord Jesus defeated the strong man, Satan, at Calvary, and what a victory that was! In this trilogy of Psalms we have precious truths. Psalm 22" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 22 is the Sacrifice, the cross; Psalm 23" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 23 is the Shepherd, the crook; Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 is the Sovereign, the crown.

However, the victory of Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 is not primarily the defeat of Satan at the cross. The Lord from Bethany went back to heaven (Luke 24:50, 51)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 24:50, 51) and did not require to demand entrance into heaven but was welcomed with these soul stirring words from His Father, "Sit on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool" (Hebrews 1:13)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:13). Psalm 24" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 24 is not His reception into heaven but His entrance into the city where He was rejected, crowned with thorns and crucified. That day lies in the future and beyond the rapture of the Church. He will come to the air for His Spouse; He will return to the earth for His Scepter. They refused Him His throne at His first coming, but the purposes of God can never be overthrown, and our Lord Jesus shall reign "from the river unto the ends of the earth." We, as the people of God, should be like David's mighty men who shared his rejection with words of deepest consecration, "Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse." This was the language of loyalty in the dark days of his rejection and they looked forward to the day of his coronation. May we also recognize we are members of His Body and subjects in His coming kingdom!

S .Maxwell (September 1989)

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Internet a worse influence than television for a Christian?

We often hear ministry warning against television, but isn’t the Internet worse?

The Internet’s pollution is both worse and constantly available; however, its email service and volumes of information can be spiritually and educationally helpful. This highlights an important difference. We could hardly watch the news coverage, commercials, and programming of television without being bombarded by its unbiblical values, but we can use the Internet without accessing its corruption. One alternative for believers is that some software and some Internet providers limit access to the Internet’s defilement; nevertheless, computers in the work place and in public libraries still provide full Internet access. In an increasingly immoral world, we must, as never before, teach and motivate one another and our children to make right choices, avoiding the serious consequences of choosing otherwise. We can "use," but not "abuse" (1 Corinthians 7:31)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 7:31) the Internet, a choice that hardly exists with television.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is preaching the same as prophesying?

I presume the questioner is referring not so much to prophesying in the sense of foretelling, as to prophesying as forth-telling. Certainly foretelling the future was not exactly preaching. Forthtelling was a distinct gift in the primitive Church, enabling those who possessed it to communicate direct revelations from God. It was one of the sign- gifts, and was necessary to the Church in the absence of the complete Canon of Scripture. It was a miraculous gift, and was a sign to believers (see 1 Corinthians 14:22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:22). “He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort” (verse 3).

Apostles and prophets were foundation gifts and exist no longer to-day, except in their work in the Holy Scriptures, which they were used to give us. Preaching is a very broad term. Probably the man who prophesied preached, but to-day the term is applied to delivering an address to believers or to proclaiming the Gospel. We have the gifts of evangelist, pastor and teacher with us still, but neither of them is to be confounded with this gift of prophecy.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How do the churches of Revelation prophetically show ages of the church?

How do we interpret this view?

The Lord presents the seven churches as golden lampstands, precious witnesses of divine truth. Any "prophetic" or mystery interpretation must therefore focus on divine testimony and its preservation until the Rapture.

Second, the conditions affecting the 7 churches to which John sent the Revelation could, in greater or less degree, affect any assembly. In the mystery interpretation, the Lord discloses the predominating influences that will affect divine testimony until the Lord comes.

Third, others have pointed out the interesting parallels between characteristics of the seven churches and those of the judges, kings, and the parables in Matthew 13." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13. This supports the thought that these seven predominant influences will be sequential, a sort of cycle of evil that consistently has challenged divine testimony in various ages. The influences that plagued these seven churches will run their cycle until the Lord comes. They are the very forces that appear in the rest of the Revelation, at their apex under the Man of Sin. What encouragement it gives those involved in divine testimony to see that the Lord will eventually destroy these forces when He comes!

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should Christian

Should Christian’s take a fatalistic view of political elections?

Godly living includes subjection to governmental authority (Romans 13:1;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:1) and prayer for the salvation of rulers and all men (1 Timothy 2:1-4)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:1-4). The Lord Himself was interested in the affairs of the political world (Luke 13:1-3, 32; 19:12-14)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 13:1-3, 32; 19:12-14), but the only specific involvement is His teaching that His disciples pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth" (Matthew 6:10)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 6:10). We are therefore concerned about God’s will being carried out in governments, including in elections. To this end we pray.

To be fair, though, the argument that Christians shouldn’t vote because they might be opposing God’s will in an election is weak. By the same logic, a Christian could hardly dress himself for fear of violating God’s will on a given day that he wear black shoes instead of brown shoes. We seek to know God’s will, pray for it, and do it. If it were right for Christians to vote, they should seek to ascertain God’s will for an election, pray for it, and vote accordingly. The weak link in that statement is not the difficulty in ascertaining God’s will, but the premise. Christians shouldn’t voluntarily vote.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

In Isaiah 53:12, who are the

In Isaiah 53:12," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 53:12, who are the “great” and the “strong”, and in what way does God “divide” to the Messiah a portion with them?

Is it not probable that we place overmuch emphasis on these three words, and that we seek to get more out of them than perhaps they are meant to convey? “Divide” seems to suggest to our minds a cutting up into so many definite shares, of which Christ gets His, and certain others get theirs. But what if we use the word “assign” as is done in Darby’s Translation, or render the clause, “I will allot to Him a portion among the mighty”, as Gesenius does in his Lexicon! Either of these is quite correct as a rendering, and at the same time does not tie up our thoughts to an actual division of something into two or more parts. This should make it clear to us that the meaning may be no more than as follows: “I will assign to Him such a spoil as is usually that obtained by the great and the strong; and I will do so in recompense for (“Therefore”) His having suffered in littleness and weakness (as pictured in v. 7, etc.), and for (“because”) His having poured out His soul unto death (middle of v. 12).
Viewed in this way, the words “great” and “strong”, which are both plurals, need not refer to any particular individuals, but to the great and strong in general. Compare how the same two words are coupled together in such passages as Isaiah 8:7;" TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 8:7; Joel 2:2" TARGET="_blank">Joel 2:2 and Zecheriah 8:22; the word “many” in the first and last of these being the same Hebrew word as “great” in our verse.
The translators of the Septuagint, when turning the passage into Greek, rendered the second clause. “He shall divide the spoils OF the mighty”, and left out the “with” of the first clause also; thus suggesting the meaning to be a complete triumph over all His foes, however “many” or “mighty” they were. Various commentators agree with this view of the passage. But whether we take it thus, and think of the great and mighty ones as His enemies, amongst whom He stands out pre-eminent; the basic idea in the statement is much the same—that the One who stooped so low and who suffered so much, has been given a place and an honour beyond all others.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was Shem or Japeth the oldest son of Noah?

Which of Noah’s sons was the eldest?

In Genesis 9:24" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:24 Ham is spoken of as Noah’s younger (or “youngest,” R.V.) son, though some commentators would connect the expression there with his grandson Canaan because of the prominence given to the latter in the curse of verse 25. This leaves us as the two elder ones, Shem and Japheth, and the decision between them depends on the rendering which is accepted as the correct one of Genesis 10: 21." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10: 21. The AN. gives it, “Shem . . . the brother of Japheth the elder,” which would imply that Japheth was oldest; but the R.V. with more probability translates it, “Shem . . . the elder brother of Japheth,” which would
give the honour to Shem.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu