What does "the husband is the head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23) mean?

What does "the husband is the head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:23) mean?

This statement occurs between two calls for the wife to be subject (verses 22 and 24). The reason for submission is her husband's headship. The pattern for this headship is also mentioned: "even as Christ is head of the church." The headship of Christ, as explained in Ephesians 1:20-23" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:20-23 and 4:16, involves authority and supply. The same is true here. A husband's headship involves authority. Since Christ is the pattern, this will preserve the relationship from becoming tyrannical. His authority over the church is matched by His affection. His control is coupled with care. Such should also apply in the human relationship. Also, as the physical head supplies the human body with direction and nourishment, so the husband in his role of head gives his wife provision, protection, and guidance.

D. Gilliland

Other pages in this section

About this site

How does an elder’s role differ from a deacon’s?

Deacons are servants who have a particular work to do. The assignment of the work is often evident in the use of the word (Ephesians 3:7, 6:21;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 3:7, 6:21; Colossians 1:23, 25, 4:7;" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:23, 25, 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2;" TARGET="_blank">1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 4:6)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:6). The deacons in 1 Timothy 3" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3: are responsible to hold the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience (v 9). They are to be faithful with the truth that God has revealed. While the elders care for the flock and hold "fast the faithful word" to both comfort the believers and protect them from those who contradict the truth (Titus 1:9)," TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:9), deacons have a more general responsibility to "the faith." They serve in communicating God’s Word. The assembly looks to them for spiritual service with preaching the gospel, teaching the saints, working with children and young people, and various related responsibilities. Elders, because they are "apt to teach" (1 Timothy 3:2)," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:2), may also serve as deacons, but deacons are not necessarily elders.

Wise elders will encourage as many as possible who have the ability (or even the potential of ability) and qualifications (vv 8-13) to serve in deacon work. This is not an official position or a title to claim. It denotes a responsibility entrusted by the assembly’s guides. Elders make a mistake when they limit deacon work to themselves, even if it seems easier or others seem hesitant to accept deacon work or the elders have greater ability than others.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How could Josiahs 4th son have been born when his father was 16?

How could Josiahs 4th son have been born when his father was 16?

Jehoahaz (called Shallum), fourth in the list of Josiahs sons (1 Chronicles 3:15)," TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 3:15), was 23 when he began his 3 month reign (2 Kings 23:31)." TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 23:31). His father had reigned 31 years (22:1), So Jehoahaz was born in the eighth year of his fathers reign, when his father was about 16. At 25, Jehoiakim succeeded Jehoahaz three months (2 Chronicles 36:2)" TARGET="_blank">2 Chronicles 36:2) after his father died. Allowing for differences in birthdays, Josiah must have been 15, at most, when Jehoiakim his second son was born.

2 Kings 24:18" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 24:18 shows that Zechariah was 13 years younger than Jehoahaz. So Jehoahaz was the third son, not the fourth. Since Jehoahaz and Jehoiachim had different mothers (2 Kings 23:31, 36)" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 23:31, 36) and Johanan may have had a different mother, Josiah may have been, at most, 15 when his first son was born. This is still very young, but may be easier to understand.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

How many years were the children of Israel in slavery in Egypt?

How many years were the children of Israel in bondage in Egypt?

Genesis 15:13" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:6 indicate that the Israelites would be afflicted 400 years. Exodus 12:40 states the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt was 430 years; Galatians 3:17" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:17 states that from the giving of the promise to Abraham to the giving of the law by Moses was 430 years. How can the above Scriptures be reconciled to one another? What does Genesis 15:16" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:16 mean?

There is no real discrepancy, but we must note what is said in each case, and take into consideration the universal permission of an occasional use of round numbers. The difficulty of Genesis 15:13 arises from limiting the “four hundred years” to the AFFLICTIONS in Egypt, whereas the expression governs the whole verse, and I feel sure that the earlier expression, “thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,” would go further back even than Egypt, to what characterised the lives of Isaac and Jacob and his sons, even before they went down there. That this number—400 years—then is to be taken in this general and round number way, seems clear from Galatians 3:17," TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:17, which dates the 430 years exactly from the promise to Abraham (Gen. xv.) to the giving of the law in the third month of the Exodus (see Exodus 19:1)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 19:1). This tallies with the 430 years of Exodus 12:41," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:41, a verse generally read as though it affirmed that the children of Israel sojourned that period in Egypt, whereas it says that the sojourning (i.e., I take it as including the whole period of their sojournings either in Canaan or Egypt) of the children of Israel (who dwelt in Egypt) was 430 years. That is, they were always characteristically “sojourners.” This is shown, I believe, to be the case in Genesis 15:16," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:16, where the Exodus is specified as to occur not 400 years after their arrival, but “IN THE FOURTH GENERATION.” This harmonises with the genealogies of Exodus 6" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 6: , where we learn that Kohath was a son of Levi, and that Amram, the father of Moses and Aaron, was the son of Kohath, i.e., four generations. Notice the ages of Levi (v. 16), of Kohath (v. 18), of Amram (v. 20), which specify this.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the Song of Solomon a figure of the church?

Who are the speakers in the Song of Solomon?

Some say they are Christ and the Church; others, God and Israel. Who is the questioner In Song of Solomon 5:9" TARGET="_blank">Song of Solomon 5:9?
The Song of Songs is not, of course, a mere love-song; nor is it a song of espousals, but a marriage song. Certain companies of persons are introduced and take part in the dialogue, e.g., the watchmen, the daughters of Jerusalem; but the Bridegroom and the bride are the principals. Who are they? The Church was an unrevealed mystery in the Old Testament, so may safely be ruled out. Surely there can be no doubt that we have in this Book, a beautiful picture of the affections of Jehovah toward the true Israel, and the response of the bride. “I am married to you, saith Jehovah” (Jeremiah 3:14)." TARGET="_blank">Jeremiah 3:14). “Thy maker is thy husband” (Isaiah 54:5). The watchmen of the city seem to represent men of the world with no sympathy for the bride, while the daughters of Jerusalem may stand for nominal Israel. These distinctions being made, the inspired language of the Book fits in well with the affections of a believer to-day toward Christ, when enjoying communion with the “Lover of his soul.” The spiritual believer knows how to use the Book in this way to his own soul’s blessing and to the glory of Christ.
W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6 the angels of Jude 6?

Are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6 the angels of Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6?

Capable men have differed on this for years. Here are three suggestions for differentiating between these passages.

First, the phrase, "sons of God," does not necessarily mean angels. Three times it does (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7)," TARGET="_blank">Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but at least 4 times this word describes Israels relationship to God as "sons" (Exodus 4:22;" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 4:22; Hosea 1:10;" TARGET="_blank">Hosea 1:10; Deuteronomy 14:1;" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 14:1; Psalm 73:15)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 73:15). This expresses a relationship of favor with God, distinguished from all others; that may be its thought in Genesis 6." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6.

Second, in their context, these verses are the bridge between the genealogy of the godly in chapter five and the corruption that demanded the righteous judgment of the flood. Since other passages hold men - not fallen angels - responsible for the evil of those days (Genesis 6:12, 13;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6:12, 13; Job 22:15-17;" TARGET="_blank">Job 22:15-17; 2 Peter 2:5)," TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 2:5), the context favors the view that a lack of separation by a favored generation hastened the corruption.

The context in Jude also seems to differentiate the two passages. With Egypt and Sodom, these angels form part of one of Judes many triplets. As with those referred in Jude 4," TARGET="_blank">Jude 4, these all sinned while privileged and then suffered judgment, as those in verse 4 would. If Lucifers thought brought immediate judgment (Isaiah 14:12, 13)," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 14:12, 13), the sin of these in Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6 must likewise have called for immediate banishment to everlasting chains. Even if the "sons of God" in Genesis 6" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 6 were angels, they were previously fallen (judged) angels, who for a prolonged period - as is supposed - cohabited with women. This is not an illustration of those who sin while privileged and therefore suffer severely.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does "having faithful children" of an elder mean?

What does "having faithful children" (Titus 1:6)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6) involve?

1 Timothy and Titus give us God's spiritual and moral standard for elders. The requirements in Ephesus and Crete are similar, yet the circumstances differ. In Ephesus, elders already existed (Acts 20:17)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17). Timothy was to teach how to add to their number. The man aspiring to the work (1 Timothy 3:1)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1) must evaluate himself by the necessary qualifications Paul lists; he must also have the respect of the believers, being "above reproach" and superintending his own home well.

Titus, with spiritual discernment, was to appoint elders, who must be blameless. As in I Timothy 3:4-5," TARGET="_blank">I Timothy 3:4-5, his home life will indicate much about his character and suitability to be a leader in the assembly. The phrase "faithful children" in this context (Titus 1:6)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:6) probably means that they are believers. The word may "pista" mean either mean trustworthy or believing. In any case, they are to be of good reputation, "not accused of riot or unruly." This contrasts with the Cretians who are "always liars, evil beasts, gluttons" (Titus 1:12)." TARGET="_blank">Titus 1:12).

If the assembly disciplined his child, an elder would not necessarily be disqualified on that basis. The circumstances would have a bearing. If the elder's child is no longer in the home, then he is not directly under the "rule" of the parent. The elder should examine himself in the fear of God; by prayer and the counsel of other godly elders, he could expect wisdom from God (James 1:5)" TARGET="_blank">James 1:5) to make the best decision.

J. Abernathy

Other pages in this section

About this site

In what sense, if any, did our Lord confess His people

In what sense, if any, did our Lord confess His people’s sins? Is Psalm 69:5" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 69:5 distinctly applicable to Him? How are we to understand the phrase, “He was made sin for us”? (2 Corinthians 5:21)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21).

These questions open out very important points which are spoken of very loosely to-day and which need careful handling. As for the first, I believe it to be far from scriptural to assert any such thing. Hymn- writers have said so, and the saints have allowed themselves at their bidding, to sing wrong doctrine. I have long shrunk from singing the words of J. G. Deck’s, otherwise beautiful hymn,

“Our sins, our guilt, in love divine
Confessed and borne by Thee.”

To confess sins makes them our own, and that the Lord never did. Is it necessary or proper for one paying a debt for a friend, to confess that he incurred it himself? It would be untrue and quite gratuitous and would detract from the favour. The words in question, might be altered to some such phrase as, “All known and borne by Thee.” Our Lord Jesus was always the sinless One, and He suffered vicariously for our sins; but they were always ours, not His “Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2: 24)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 2: 24). There was always a vast distinction between the Saviour and the sinner, He became surety for sin, but never identical with the sinner. As for applying Psalm 69." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 69. to our Lord—”O God, Thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins (Heb. guiltiness) are not hid from Thee”—it is, I believe, most improper to do so. We must remember that even the Messianic Psalms represent to a certain degree the experience of the writer, but go beyond this to any godly ones, brought low before God, on account of their sins, especially the faithful remnant of the last days. Bearing this in mind, there is much of the Psalm which can be applied to Christ. But it is exceedingly dangerous, in my judgment, to attempt to apply all to Him. Fancy applying such words as above to “Christ the Wisdom of God” and “the Holy One of God”
As for 2 Corinthians 5:21" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:21 we can perhaps best see its meaning by negatives, it cannot mean that our Lord became personally that abominable thing called sin. But even had such a thing been possible, it would not have helped us in any way; clearly the Lord was made sin, in such a way as to affect us and cause us to become the righteousness of God in Him. There was only one way to effect this, namely, to take our place, or in other words, be treated as we deserved as an offering for sin. Thus He atoned for sin on the cross, and became our righteousness on resurrection ground.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Lazarus die again after being resurrected by Jesus?

Does Hebrews 9:27" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 9:27 ("once to die") mean that those the Lord raised, like Lazarus, did not die again but went to heaven at Christ's ascension?

At the Fall, God appointed death as the one-time penalty for sin (Romans 5:12;" TARGET="_blank">Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:21, 22). That compares to the one-time offering of Christ for sins (verse 28).

This verse states that in the natural course of events, death is a one-time occurrence. At the Rapture, supernatural power will alter this. Living saints will never die (John 11:26)." TARGET="_blank">John 11:26). In the case of those raised from the dead before the Lord's incarnation, during his ministry, and in the apostles' ministry, supernatural power contravened this order. Only a divine intervention can reverse death.

Scripture gives no reason to believe that any raised from death before Christ's incarnation or after His ascension had a miraculous exit from earth. They returned to life in a world ruined by sin; along with Lazarus, they died again.

The Lord is the only One thus far raised "out from death" ("out resurrection," Philippians 3:11)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:11). He is alive forevermore (Revelation 1:18)" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 1:18) and is the Firstfruit (1 Corinthians 15:23)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:23) of a new and distinct harvest. Others before Him were raised from the dead. He was raised out from death - a resurrection. At His coming, the sleeping saints will not merely be raised from the dead, they will be resurrected never to die again, having changed bodies like the Lord's body of glory (1 Corinthians 15:51-56;" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 15:51-56; Philippians 3:21)." TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:21).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What can believers do for a believer who is the subject of damaging rumors?

What can believers do for a believer who is the subject of damaging rumors?

If the rumors are just passing stories that no one would take seriously, let them drift into nothingness. More harm than good might come from telling the person what others said. For example, if the person insisted on knowing who repeated the rumor, he would either be upset with you if you refused to tell him or upset with the person who told the rumor. You have become a talebearer who stirs up strife (Proverbs 26:20)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 26:20).

We should always ask for evidence to substantiate rumors about others, especially for persistent, harmful rumors. If supporting evidence is not available, make your disapproval clear. And never repeat damaging rumors (Titus 3:2;" TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:2; James 4:11)." TARGET="_blank">James 4:11). Wrongly damaging the reputation of others is serious (Proverbs 6:16-19)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 6:16-19).

Discussing the rumors in a friendly manner with the accused, without assuming the truthfulness of the rumors, would be a kindness, especially when accompanied by a sincere expression of concern that anyone would say such a thing. That would make it easier for the individual to admit that the rumor is true or partly true or else to affirm that it is totally false. Depending on its seriousness, you could even mention the supporting evidence you had been given. Every attempt should be made to contain the problem (Matthew 18:15)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15). If the rumor arose from a clear case of misunderstanding, don't give the wronged person a case against the source of the rumor, but volunteer to try to correct the misunderstanding yourself.

If the rumor appears likely to be true and involves issues of concern to the assembly, a believer is responsible to go to an overseer and kindly, humbly, confidentially, carefully inform him. If the believer did not inform the assembly's leadership, he would be responsible for wrongfully covering the sin (Acts 5:2, 8-10)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 5:2, 8-10). It is a mistaken kindness to support a believer in sinning against God.

When the overseers become aware of a possible problem, they are responsible to thoroughly investigate (Proverbs 25:2)," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 25:2), visit the individual, and guide the assembly to act in keeping with the facts. The believer who passed on the information to the overseers has no further responsibility and must submit to their judgment (Hebrews 13:17)." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 13:17).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu