Must sisters cover their heads at weddings and funerals?

Must sisters cover their heads at weddings and funerals?

No. The Scriptures teach that "cultural head coverings" are part of the testimony when the assembly comes together. Weddings and funerals are not assembly meetings. If a sister chooses to wear a hat, it is unbecoming for any believers to belittle her for her ostensible failure to grasp that this occasion is not an assembly gathering. Nor is the sister who wears this covering indicating that, because of this, she is more spiritual than those who choose not to wear a head covering.

A case can be made that it is advisable for sisters to wear head coverings because the reading of and speaking from the Word of God at these social occasions is related to the assembly’s testimony. Also, a sister may see the value of letting others who do not attend the assembly gatherings know that the assembly still carries out the Bible’s teaching about head coverings, although many other congregations have discontinued that practice. On the other hand, some make the case that sisters with their head coverings unnecessarily alienate unbelievers by making them feel uncomfortable. In either case, the choice is personal. A sister may make either choice with the purpose of honoring the Lord. Romans 14:6" TARGET="_blank">Romans 14:6 is relevant to this issue.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Are elders supposed to be paid for their work?

Could we support the thought of a paid overseer, who “labours in the Word and doctrine,” from 1 Timothy 5:17, 18;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, 18; 1 Peter 5:2-4" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 5:2-4? and why the mention of “filthy lucre,” if the pastorate were not a paid office?

The word translated, “honour,” (time) in 1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, is in forty occurrences, out of fifty, so translated; in eight others, “price”; “sum” in Acts 7:16," TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:16, and in 1 Peter 2:7," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2:7, “precious.” It is always, “honour,” in the Epistles to Timothy (see 1 Timothy 1:17;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 1:17; 1 Timothy 6:10, 16; 2 Timothy 2:20, 21)." TARGET="_blank">2 Timothy 2:20, 21). There does not appear any necessity to change the word here: “honour,” “respect,” “consideration,” are quite adequate. However, even if we adopted the sense of monetary payment, it would only be in recognition of spiritual services rendered, not as a fixed salary.

The form of the exhortation seems to preclude the idea of money due, whether the services have been well done or perchance left undone. “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who LABOUR in the word and doctrine.” The principle that a teacher or evangelist has a right to “live by the gospel” is clearly taught in the Scriptures (see 1 Corinthians 9:7-14)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:7-14), provided he teaches or evangelises.

There is no idea of a “living” or ecclesiastical title or office. Assemblies which utilise their brethren’s gift are quite right to remember these adequately, and not to take too easily for granted that the preacher does not need anything beyond his bare expenses. As for the “Peter” passage, we can see no hint that what the questioner calls “the pastorate” was to be filled by a salaried official.

The elders, in the plural, are addressed here, as in the other passage, nor can we find the idea of the “presiding elder” or of “the pastor” of a church in this or in any other Scripture. Here the exhortation, “not for filthy lucre,” seems to preclude a stated salary. A servant of the Lord truly looking to Him for his support, is not serving for filthy lucre. The man who is receiving so much salary according to an arrangement, is bound, if he is a conscientous man to give a good money’s worth. The only man that I can find in the Scriptures, who agreed to do so much spiritual work (in this case as “a priest”) for so much pay, was Jonathan, the grandson of Moses (though not of the family of Aaron), and his salary was ten shekels of silver per annum, a suit of clothes and his meals (Judges 17:10)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 17:10). He broke the contract, only when a better living was offered him (Judges 18:19)." TARGET="_blank">Judges 18:19).

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How does one decide who is an overseer?

How does one decide who is an overseer?

The Lord decides (Acts 20:28)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28), but the oversight guides (Hebrews 13:7," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:7, AV margin). No man decides this for himself, yet he must be sure in God's presence that this is God's will for him.

The oversight (1 Timothy 4:14," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:14, a single unit, "presbytery") is not a secret society nor does it make independent decisions. Its responsibility is to determine God's will through His Word and to lead the assembly in fulfilling it. Overseers guide the assembly in recognizing men whom God has called and to whom He has entrusted the care of His people in that assembly. The man demonstrates the characteristics given in the Scriptures (1 Timothy 3:1-7;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6-9). His activities and the course of his life express a care for fellow-believers and for the truth of God.

Overseers continually watch for evidence of this work of God, not limiting their search because the number of overseers is sufficient and not rushing it because the number of overseers is depleted. They allow God to do His work on His schedule.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Must discipleship be "radical"?

Must discipleship be "radical"?

Yes. The world, the flesh, and the devil unitedly oppose total commitment to Christ. Devotion that consistently follows Christ, learns of Him, and produces likeness to Him must be all or nothing. Mary’s alabaster box of spikenard was broken; no part of its precious contents could be retained for any other use (Mark 14:3)." TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:3). "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:33)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 14:33). On at least two other occasions, Luke points out that discipleship involves "forsaking all" (Luke 5:11;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 5:11; Luke 18:28)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 18:28). Discipleship is immediate, total submission to Christ. Anything less robs the Lord of deserved honor and produces partial obedience at best.

Consider, however, Paul’s charging the Thessalonians to be occupied with their job, work diligently, and provide for their necessities (1 Thessalonians 4:11, 12)." TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 4:11, 12). Radical obedience is not irresponsibility. It does not produce an irrational lifestyle. We express this radical obedience by consistent, wholehearted submission to all the claims of Christ.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What qualifications should a preacher meet?

If a man in the fellowship of an assembly has previously been put away on several occasions for fornication, should he be permitted to preach the Gospel or minister the Word in assembly meetings?

1 Timothy 3:8-12" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:8-12 gives us the qualifications for deacons, men who serve the Lord in an assembly. The primary service of deacons (servants) is spiritual, that is, ministering the Word of God to believers and preaching the Gospel to sinners. Verse 10 clearly states that they must first be proved; "then let them minister being found blameless" (Newberry margin). The Scripture therefore clearly disqualifies a Christian man in an assembly from preaching the Gospel to sinners or ministering the Word to believers, if he has been guilty of repeated moral sins.

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is true subjection for a Christian wife?

What is true subjection for a Christian wife?

Ideally, Christian marriage involves two Spirit-filled believers fulfilling their God-given roles (Ephesians 5:17-33)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:17-33). The husband loves his wife with an unconditional devotion to her wellbeing (verses 25-28); the wife recognizes the responsibility God has given to her husband and respectfully defers to him (verses 22-24, 33). Neither should ever have to remind the other to fulfill his responsibility, because attaining this high standard is enough to challenge each one for a lifetime.

Rather than looking at marriage as male-dominant, verse 21 establishes marriage as "Lord-dominant," where both are in subjection to the Lord and respectfully defer to Him. "Fear" in verse 21 and "reverence" in verse 33 are closely related words. Aware that the Lord has entrusted to them what is best for them, both marriage partners fulfill their differing roles because of submission to Him. Both act because of obedience to the Lord and not because of the other spouse’s obedience to Him. No matter whether these roles are delightful or difficult to fulfill, the strength to obey the Lord in this can only come from the Spirit of God. Christian marriage requires a willingness to be a Spirit-filled marriage partner.

Subjection does not indicate that a wife exists for the benefit of her husband. In fact, he is responsible to nourish her (verse 29). "A woman’s job" and "a man’s job" are not absolute definitions, but a husband and wife define them by mutual agreement. The couple makes these and all decisions in the marriage with the understanding that God has entrusted to the husband both leadership in the relationship and responsibility for the health of the marriage and for the spiritual, physical, emotional, mental, and financial well-being of his wife.

Exactly how this works will differ in each marriage, but true subjection is a wife’s glad participation in this God-ordained arrangement.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is my responsibility regarding my convictions?

What is my responsibility regarding my convictions?

To be meaningful, convictions must express Gods will (Matthew 7:21-27);" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 7:21-27); they must be based on truth. Truth is not relative (John 14:6)," TARGET="_blank">John 14:6), decided by each persons viewpoint. When believers differ on matters of Christian teaching, either one or both are wrong. In applying Christian principles to exactly the same circumstances of daily living, only one "behavior" will embody all the relevant biblical principles, only one can be totally Christ-like. This demands modesty, for whose behavior is totally, consistently like Christ? God has empowered the assembly, guided by its elders, to administer Gods will (Matthew 18:18)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:18). Some behavior so clearly denies Christian truth that it requires assembly action, as in 1 Corinthians 5." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5. In contrast, our individual responsibility is not to enforce truth, but to help others obey truth.,, Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy" (2 Corinthians 1:24)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 1:24). The apostle encouraged and enabled his errant childrens obedience to the Lord, because in that lay their greatest joy and blessing, but he was not their lord. We build up others by effectively "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:15), but, having done that, we are responsible to submit to truth ourselves and to commit to the Lord the affect of truth on others.

If teaching requires other means to make it effective in the lives of believers, it lacks the power of truth.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why is Joseph

Why is Joseph’s genealogy given in Matthew's Gospel, instead of that of Mary, seeing that Joseph was not the father of the Lord Jesus?

There are, as is well known, not one but two genealogies of Christ in the Gospels. In Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: His royal descent is traced from Abraham, through David and the kings of Judah, down to Joseph, His legal, though not His actual father. But in Luke 3" TARGET="_blank">Luke 3 His natural descent is traced from Mary’s own father, Heli, through a different branch of the Davidic family up to Adam. The phrase, “Being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph,” which is parenthetically inserted in Luke 3:23," TARGET="_blank">Luke 3:23, really answers the questions asked above. For since He was supposed, or legally reckoned, to be Joseph’s son, it was necessary that there should be what might be called an official genealogy, through him to David and Abraham, as well as that through His mother, in order that all objections to His claim to be “Son of David” should be silenced. In Matthew’s Gospel Joseph is prominent, and in Luke’s, Mary, not merely in the genealogies, but in the entire narrative, which in each case is as it should be, in view of the Jewish character of the former, and the Gentile character of the latter.

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How can a couple balance a busy life and the care of their children?

How can a young couple balance a busy life and the care of their children?

The value the world apparently places on children differs from the Lord’s in Psalm 127:3" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 127:3: "Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord." A child is potentially the greatest heritage a couple will leave behind them. Viewing children in that light elevates the priority of nurturing them in God’s truth. Rather than a heritage of money or renown, parents whose child loves and lives God’s truth have left a wealthy heritage. The child has true riches; the coming generation is richer; the work of God prospers.

Personal interaction with a child in which the parent models God’s character and mentors the child in God’s truth is time well spent. Many things that clamor for our time will pass away unnoticed. This child is a God-given responsibility and opportunity.

Allowing a child to manage his parents’ time will likely spoil him. Providing time for a child’s spiritual, moral, social, and mental development will likely enrich him.

It may be a very trying experience for a couple if the Lord doesn’t entrust them with a child. It may involve deep trials and disappointments if He does. Nothing parents can do will guarantee a child’s salvation or spiritual enrichment, but a parent can increase the likelihood of these blessings. The best parents fail to some degree. How wonderful to be able to commit a child to God in prayer! We always expect the best from Him.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is respectable Christian behavior a prerequisite for baptism?

Is becoming Christian behavior a prerequisite for baptism?

Four cases come to mind. If a believer expects himself to be perfect before being baptized, he will wait for the Rapture. At that point, it will be too late to obey the Scriptures. Willingness to unreservedly obey the God’s Word is a sufficient condition for baptism (Acts 2:41)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:41). If a believer carelessly persists in self-will, he is not giving evidence that he is a Christian. For that person, baptism is inappropriate. If, in the third case, a person is obviously unaware of New Testament teaching regarding some aspects of Christian behavior, then patience, support, and counsel are appropriate, but not baptism. If he gladly receives further teaching, baptize him. Fourth, if a person still struggles with an addiction, such as smoking, baptizing him seems inconsistent. Baptism declares that the believer has died with Christ and been raised with Him to walk in "newness of life" (Romans 6:4)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:4). This newness of life is not merely a life that has changed, but a life energized by a different kind of power; it is resurrection life. To suffer under the power of a visible, addictive sin denies the power professed in baptism. Apart from daily salvation from the power of sin, any believer could founder. However, to baptize a person who is smoking, for instance, publically states that smoking is acceptable Christian behavior. Some think being baptized will help break their habit. That’s seldom the case. Breaking the nicotine habit is admittedly difficult for some, especially when they have suffered other "more serious" addiction. Perhaps the real difficulty is in confronting the fact that this "lesser" addiction is as unacceptable and sinful as the "more serious" addiction is.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu