As a Christian, what is my definition of success?

As a Christian, what is my definition of success?

This is a broad question and many answers compete evenly as expressions of "Christian success."

Is a Christian successful whose life doesn’t reflect the beauties of the life of our Lord Jesus (Ephesians 4:17-25)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:17-25)? Wouldn’t it be success if the Word of God controlled every aspect of our life (Colossians 3:16)" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:16)? To live in the power of the Spirit of God, to be "full of the Holy Spirit" (Ephesians 5:18)," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:18), would produce true success. If God has a specific purpose for each believer and has given each one potential capabilities to reach that goal (Psalm 139:16)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 139:16), living successfully would mean fulfilling God’s plan for the life. Daily walking with the Lord would be a consummate success in life (Genesis 5:22)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 5:22). Bringing continued pleasure to our Father’s heart (Hebrews 11:5)" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 11:5) would make life worth living. Effectively serving others (Romans 13:10)" TARGET="_blank">Romans 13:10) during a lifetime would likewise make life a success. The presence of any one of these in a life would necessitate the presence of all the others.

Were a prospective boss to ask a Christian this question in a job interview, he could simply answer, "Success for me is to express the nobility of good character in every choice I make."

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

In what ways could the Lord experience pain in a sinless body?

In what ways could the Lord experience pain in a sinless body?

Clearly, the Lord suffered for sin (1 Peter 3:18)" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:18) in His holy body. Because He relied on divine protection and was morally perfect, He had no inward walls of self-protection. His experience of physical pain from the time of His arrest through His death was thus heightened. He suffered more than any other who experienced the same maltreatment. Further, His holy soul grieved deeply over the ravages of man’s sinfulness expressed in those events. That caused emotional pain beyond our comprehension, because we share in that sinfulness. The source of those pains was external and sinfully intentional.

In other ways, He was preserved from suffering. Psalm 91" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 91 promises protection for those who know the secret place of communion with God (vv 1, 2). The Lord counted on angels to preserve Him from injuring Himself, "lest Thou strike Thy foot against a stone" (Psalm 91:12)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 91:12). He trusted divine care to preserve Him from calamity: "There shall no evil befall thee" (v. 10). This did not, however, exempt Him from pain before His arrest. In Gethsemane, as at the grave of Lazarus, He experienced extreme emotional pain (Mark 14:33, 34;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:33, 34; John 11:33)." TARGET="_blank">John 11:33). In addition, He was hungry (Luke 4:2)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 4:2), weary (John 4:6)," TARGET="_blank">John 4:6), and thirsty (19:28), all of which imply that His body communicated some degree of discomfort due to physical needs.

Peter observed that the multitudes surrounding the Lord both closed Him in and pressed upon Him (Luke 8:45," TARGET="_blank">Luke 8:45, JND). Did His omniscience make it impossible for someone to accidentally step on His foot? Did He ever use His omniscience to protect Himself?

Adam didn’t have omniscience, but he lived in a sinless body. Is it inconceivable that a bear could step on Adam’s foot in paradise? Without laboring in the realm of the hypothetical, the point is that pain is not necessarily a foreign intruder due to sin. The Lord never mistakenly caused pain to others, but He used pain to remove animals from the temple (John 2:15)." TARGET="_blank">John 2:15). Pain can be a friend that expresses the body’s legitimate needs.

We can conclude with caution and reverence that, even apart from the results of sin, He experienced bodily pain. The cause of His pain was both external and internal, intentional and potentially unintentional.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Are there ways to improve our singing?

Are there ways to improve our singing?

Hopefully, the answer is yes. If we are preparing our children for usefulness in divine things, experience with choral music in school can prove very instructive. Singing together as families while driving or while sitting at the table encourages singing. Singing along with wholesome Christian recordings is helpful. Getting together in fellow-believers homes to sing the hymns we love is uplifting and beneficial to assembly singing. Learning about music could hardly be harmful.

More important than the art in our singing, though, is the heart in our singing. Since singing is so entwined in our past (Psalm 40:3)," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 40:3), present (Mark 14:26;" TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:26; Ephesians 5:19;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16)," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:16), and future (Revelation 5:9)," TARGET="_blank">Revelation 5:9), it is difficult to believe - despite ample evidence -that a believer who puts his mind to it and his heart into it cannot sing. If we grasp that our songs express our praise of God, no believer would mumble along or not even mouth the words during the singing (heavenly conditions!). Our Lord deserves our best. Singing "with the spirit" (1 Corinthians 14:15)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:15) means that the songs come from the deepest part of our being; they are heartfelt. Is it wrong to say that singing "with the spirit" will produce spirited singing? A Christian who enjoys his salvation and joyously sings hymns from the Believers Hymn Book while hoeing his beans or driving his car will start the assemblys singing in a manner that will draw the others to join in the singing. In a small assembly, singing may be difficult, but whatever their number, worshipful hearts will cultivate "a joyful noise unto the Lord" (Psalm 100:1)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 100:1).

Those responsible for the public worship included some David "set over the service of song" and they "ministered . . . with singing" (1 Chronicles 6:31, 32)." TARGET="_blank">1 Chronicles 6:31, 32). Evangelical congregations are hiring those with a "song ministry" Will redeemed hearts not gladly volunteer for this service and "serve the Lord with gladness, come before his presence with singing" (Psalm 100:2)" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 100:2)?

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Judas partake of the Lord

Did Judas partake of the Lord’s Supper when it was instituted?

The only reference to the actual time when Judas left the upper room occurs in John 13:30," TARGET="_blank">John 13:30, where we learn that he did so “immediately” after the conversation as to who would be the traitor, a conversation which ended by the Lord giving the “sop” to him.

This conversation, according to Matthew 26:21-26" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:21-26 and to Mark 14:18-22," TARGET="_blank">Mark 14:18-22, took place before the institution of the Lord’s Supper; and if we possessed these three Gospels only, we should have no doubt that Judas did not partake of it.

But when we turn to Luke 22: 19-23," TARGET="_blank">Luke 22: 19-23, we find the order reversed, and the paragraph regarding the institution of the Supper (vv. 19, 20) placed before the one which mentions the conversation about the traitor (vv. 21-23); and thus an element of uncertainty is introduced. It is evident that either in Luke on the one hand, or in Matthew and Mark on the other, the order followed is not that of time; and from what we know of their Gospels elsewhere, it is much more probable that the adoption of an order other than that of time is in Luke.

In the circumstances, however, we cannot say with certainty that Judas did not partake of the Supper; but why it should be a stumbling block to any if he did so, is not apparent. His profession of being a believer in and a follower of Christ was as loud and as clear as that of any of his fellow-disciples. They had accepted him as their treasurer (John 13:29)." TARGET="_blank">John 13:29). One or other of them had preached the Gospel in company with him (Matthew 10:1-5)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 10:1-5). And he certainly in any case partook of at least some portion of the Passover feast (Matthew 26:23)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 26:23).

If he did partake of the Lord’s Supper, we have in that fact the most solemn warning possible that our being accepted by brethren as worthy to partake is not, however careful they may be, a sure proof that our hearts are right with God, and that we have been truly born again. Luke elsewhere mentions those who shall say, “Lord, Lord, we have eaten and drunk in Thy presence”; and to whom Christ shall reply, “I know you not,. . . depart from Me.”

W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

How long will the Spirit abide with believers?

How long will the Spirit abide with believers (John 14:16)" TARGET="_blank">John 14:16)?

Mr. Newberry’s margin points out that the literal meaning of "forever" (the Comforter "may abide with you for ever") is "to the age." Does this then imply that the Spirit’s relationship to believers in this age remains only until the kingdom age, similar to the servant’s relationship to Rebekah in Genesis 24" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 24?

The exact expression, "to the age" appears 28 times in the New Testament. These include 1 Peter 1:25" TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:25 ("the Word of the Lord endureth forever") and Hebrews 7:17, 21, 24," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 7:17, 21, 24, 28 (relating to the Lord’s everlasting priesthood), neither of which are limited in duration. John 14:16" TARGET="_blank">John 14:16 is the last of 12 times John uses this expression. Every other time it has the full force of "forever." For instance, "they shall not perish to the age" (10:28, YLT) doesn’t endanger our eternal security. "Never thirst" (4:14), "live forever"(6:51, 58), "the Son abideth ever" (8:35), and "never see death" (8:51, 52) can’t suggest a future limit. Peter (13:8) wasn’t thinking of the Lord’s future service (Luke 12:37)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 12:37) when he said, "Thou shalt never wash my feet."

The Spirit’s relationship to believers in this age, the Bride, will never terminate.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should a Christian wife work outside the home?

Is it right for a wife to be employed outside of the home?

Some have taken the expression, "keepers at home" (Titus 2:5)" TARGET="_blank">Titus 2:5) to mean staying at home. M. R. Vincents "Word Studies in the New Testament" disagrees with this and indicates it means of the household." There is support for translating the expression "workers at home." The other words in this series of descriptions are moral characteristics: discreet; chaste; good. The verses surrounding it are primarily the same. Rather than a command for a woman to stay at home, Paul seems to be addressing her character. In a similar setting in 1 Timothy 5:13, 14," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:13, 14, where young women are to "guide the house," this responsibility is a preservation from idleness, wandering from house to house, and being a busybody. Wholesome character in a young wife will keep her focus on her responsibilities in the home. The principle of 1 Timothy 2:15" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:15 likewise directs a sister to her domestic cares. If, therefore, a sister manages her home (1 Timothy 5:14)" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:14) and cares for her children (1 Timothy 2:15)," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:15), working outside her home does not violate the teaching of these passages. Her industriousness is commendable. She is carrying on the traditions of the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 31 and joins that noble sister who with her husband, was a tentmaker.

On the other hand, a sister who places equal or greater value on her career than on her home and family has stepped outside Scriptural guidelines.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How old was Abraham when his father died?

In Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 we read, “Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran,” and in V. 32, “and the days of Terab were two hundred and five years and Terah died in Haran.” Now, taking 70 from 205, would make Abram 135 years when Terah died, while we know from Gen. 12:4" TARGET="_blank">Gen. 12:4 that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran, and from Acts 7:4" TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:4 that he did not leave Haran till Terah died.

It is not necessary to believe from Genesis 11:26" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 11:26 that Abram, Nahor, and Haran were all born in the same year, but simply that Terah had no children till he was 70, and then had three sons born at intervals. In Genesis 5:32," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 5:32, we have an instance of the same thing, when we read that “Noah was five hundred years old, and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth,” and yet Genesis 10:21" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 10:21 tells us Japheth was older than Shem. It is equally clear that Abram was not the eldest of the three brothers. He and Shem are put first because of their importance as the progenitors of the chosen race and the Messiah. It is generally held that Haran was the eldest, born when Terah was 70, and that Abram came into the world 6o years later. This would account for the fact that he and his nephew Lot, son of Haran, seem to have been much of the same standing. Besides, we are distinctly told that Abraham was 75 when at the death of Terah, he departed out of Haran. He was born, therefore, when his father was 130 years of age.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What name should I call God when I pray?

Does an understanding of the Biblical significance of divine names guide us in prayer?

A sense of both forcefulness and heavenly reasoning characterizes Biblical prayers. Their requests result from what God has revealed Himself to be. The first man in the Bible whose prayers are recorded stood as an intercessor between the Lord and Sodom. Through the Flood, God revealed that He is the Judge of all the earth. Abraham based his intercession on behalf of Sodom on this, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Genesis 18:25)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 18:25). How mightily he interceded!

Moses prayed mightily to the Lord when He spoke of consuming His people because they worshiped the golden calf: "Lord, why doth Thy wrath wax hot against Thy people?" (Exodus 32:11)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 32:11). He addresses him as Jehovah, the faithful One Who had promised to bring Abraham’s seed into Canaan (Genesis 13:14, 15; 15:16);" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 13:14, 15; 15:16); Moses speaks of those promises (Exodus 32:13)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 32:13). Jehovah, Who is always the same, could not fail to keep His word. Moses, therefore, beseeches God to act consistent with His name. "And the Lord (Jehovah) repented of the evil He thought to do unto His people." This principle in prayer continues through the Scriptures.

In one other example, Daniel employs the names of God deliberately and cogently in his noteworthy prayer of confession and intercession (Daniel 9:4-19)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 9:4-19). Here is the climax of his prayer: "O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for Thine own sake, O my God: for Thy city and Thy people are called by Thy name" (v 19). The name "Lord" (Adonay), used here indicates reverence, submission, and recognition of the sovereign control of God. Its first mention (Genesis 15:2)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:2) is "Lord (Adonay) God, what wilt Thou give me?" Here, Abram contrasts the Lord with the king of Sodom, from whom he refused to take anything. The sovereign Lord Who controls all events and people was Abram’s only resource. Thus, Daniel acknowledges God’s right in judging His people, His control of nations and seasons and His strength to carry out His sovereign will (Deuteronomy 3:24," TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 3:24, "Lord"). As frequently as he addresses God in this prayer, Daniel is not repeating God’s name aimlessly. An increased understanding of the names by which God has revealed Himself to us would enable us to pray more deliberately, mightily, Biblically, and reverently - whether in private or public.

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

Were Jesus "brothers" actually his cousins?

Were “the brethren of the Lord” in such passages as Matthew 12: 46," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12: 46, Matthew 13: 55," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13: 55, etc., His actual brethren? or were they his cousins, as some teach?

Were it not for controversial reasons I do not think any such question would ever have been raised. The word for “cousin” is distinct, and that used for the Lord’s “brethren,” though sometimes meaning “stepbrother,” is the ordinary one for brother, and there is no hint in the Gospels of Joseph having been married before. This effort to make the word mean “cousin” is supposed to be necessary in order to defend the miraculous birth and the false idea existing that it is holier not to have children, than to have them; whereas the two thoughts—the Virgin Birth and the perpetual virginity of Mary, are quite distinct and independent. While we believe unswervingly in the former, we hold that the testimony of Scripture is against the latter. The expression, “the brethren (adelphoi) of the Lord,” occurs nine times in the Gospels and once in the Acts. In Matthew 12:46" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 12:46 and its parallels in Mark and Luke (where His mother and brethren come to Him); Matthew 13:55" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 13:55 and its parallel in Mark (where the brethren are named Jacob, Joseph, Simon and Judas, four common Jewish names), in connection with His mother and sisters. The four others are: John 2:12" TARGET="_blank">John 2:12—”His mother and His brethren,” and chap. 7. 3, 5, io, where His brethren are said not to have believed in Him. However, it is asserted by the advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that “these brethren” were the sons of Alphus, the husband of the sister of the mother of our Lord, and therefore his cousins. If this were so, it is remarkable that they should be so consistently found with the mother of Jesus, their aunt, rather than with their own mother, the wife of Alphus or Clopas, who was still alive. Now, it is nowhere affirmed that any of the Lord’s brethren were among the twelve apostles; indeed it is plainly stated in John 7," TARGET="_blank">John 7, “Neither did His brethren believe on Him.” But among the apostles there were at least two sons of Alphus, James and his brother Judas, and possibly Matthew, who in Mark’s Gospel is said to be “the son of Alphus,” and these certainly could not be among those who did not believe on Him. The two things are inconsistent. Afterwards the brothers did believe, but they never entered the ranks of the twelve apostles. In fact they are in some places distinguished from the apostles, e.g., in Acts 1:14," TARGET="_blank">Acts 1:14, where they were present in the prayer meeting, but apart from the eleven. See also 1 Corinthians 9:5," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 9:5, “As well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas.” In reality there are two verses in the New Testament which state implicitly that Mary had other children besides our Lord, namely Matthew 1" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1: 25 (“till she had brought forth her first-born son”); and Luke 2:7" TARGET="_blank">Luke 2:7 (“And she brought forth her first-born son”). Now, though the Revisers have omitted, “first-born,” in Matthew 1:25," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 1:25, the word is not a plain and clear error, and therefore by the canon of authority laid down for the Revisionists,* it ought to have been left alone. The Luke passage is not disputed and is very emphatic. Had our Lord been the only Child of Mary, He wouldcertainly have been called her only Son—her “monogenës.” As it is, He is called in both these passages her first-born, her “prötotokos.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu