How much education should a woman pursue?

To what extent should a woman pursue an education?

God can use each of His children, no matter how limited. Nevertheless, God evidently used the education of a Moses or a Saul of Tarsus for His glory. Higher education prepares believers for honest occupations (Titus 3:14," TARGET="_blank">Titus 3:14, Weymouth) and, in Gods hand, can be effective in developing a believers usefulness. All believers, male or female, need to exercise care that career aspirations do not eclipse their appreciation of the will of God.

A sister may never marry, may marry and be widowed, or may need to work because of an injury to her husband or some other difficulty. She should be adequately prepared for this, consistent with her abilities.

If married, the development of her capabilities through education enables her to more fully understand the field in which her husband works. She is better suited as his helper (Genesis 2:18)." TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:18).

A good education may likewise enable wife to contribute more to the mental development of the children the Lord has given to her.

A believer, whether male or female, should pursue an education to the degree it is consistent with these three conditions: it is within his means; it is appropriate to his capabilities; it will enhance his usefulness to the Lord.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How can we deal with in-law problems?

It is important always to remember that you and your in-laws are all children of God and loved by Him so much that He gave His Son for each of you. We are commanded in 1 John 4:11," TARGET="_blank">1 John 4:11,12 to love one another, thus proving the reality of our salvation. If problems have developed between believers, the Lord Jesus taught in Matthew 18:15" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15 that we should discuss and clear up the problems privately. If that doesn't work (verse 16), then one or two brethren with spiritual wisdom and experience should be invited to give unbiased advice. Every effort should be made to avoid involving others in the assembly.

Sometimes the problem is that parents have been so accustomed to the subjection of their children in the home that they forget that their married "child" is now a member of a new family with the husband as the head. The situation should never be left to fester and become worse, or it can develop into strife not only within the family but also in the assembly

A. Joyce

Other pages in this section

About this site

Who can be the object of railing?

Who can be the object of railing?

Railing is derisive speech intended to destroy an individual’s reputation or undermine his will. Therefore, railing may be directed to the individual (1 Pet. 2:23)" TARGET="_blank">1 Pet. 2:23) or spoken to another person regarding that individual (1 Tim. 5:14)." TARGET="_blank">1 Tim. 5:14). Railing against divinely appointed authority has a special seriousness (Acts 23:4;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 23:4; Psa. 105:15; 1 Chron. 16:22)." TARGET="_blank">1 Chron. 16:22). God has protected assembly elders against gratuitous accusations (1 Tim. 5:19)." TARGET="_blank">1 Tim. 5:19). However, it is sadly true that a believer can rail against any believer (illustrated in the OT passages above). Railing could be directed toward unbelievers (1 Pet. 3:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 Pet. 3:9).

The question of whether a spouse or child could be the object of a believer’s railing is more difficult. In many ways, abusive language destroys the will of a child and belittles him. The environment is contentious, but is the intent to vilify the child to others? Is it really "character assassination"? It is almost unbelievable that a parent would do this consciously and intentionally. As to a spouse, all abusive language is sinful, but not all is railing. Where the persistent intent is to "break" the marriage partner, and that is very difficult to judge, it could be railing. Where one spouse establishes a trend of defaming or vilifying his spouse to others, this also may be railing.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why do some object to the expression the old nature?

Why do some object to the expression the old nature?

For most of us, our earliest Christian teaching included "the Christian’s two natures: the old nature and the new nature." This was the accepted and handy way of explaining the struggle within a believer that drew him to sin when he genuinely wanted to please the Lord. Some of us may have found this confusing when we learned that orthodox Christians have historically upheld that our Lord possessed two natures. In this case, the expression means that He was truly human - although without the possibility of sin - and truly God in one unique Person.

Actually, the vocabulary of the New Testament does not use two natures to describe either teaching. That Christ is both God and man is foundational, essential truth. Godly men, who labored to defend and clarify this profound truth, distilled the Bible’s teaching into the expression two natures.

The New Testament, however, does provide the terms that describe the struggle within the believer. "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would" (Gal 5:17)." TARGET="_blank">Gal 5:17). Paul also deals with this at the end of Romans 7." TARGET="_blank">Romans 7. The problem is the flesh with its unchanged and unchangeable disposition toward sin (v 18). He perceives a law in my members, a governing principle linked with fallen humanity. This principle wars against the law of my mind, which is the result of the Spirit’s regenerating work.

Using the New Testament’s vocabulary may help us in at least two ways. Speaking about our old nature may isolate us from the problem, as though the responsibility lies with my nature, but not with me directly. Paul says, "In me (that is, in my flesh) . . ." (v 18). I am directly responsible for the problem. Second, the teaching about the flesh embraces our hope of deliverance. The flesh refers at times to our physical body of flesh (Rom 1:3; 2:28; 3:20)" TARGET="_blank">Rom 1:3; 2:28; 3:20) and at other times to our moral disposition toward sin (Rom 7:5, 18; 8:4, 5)" TARGET="_blank">Rom 7:5, 18; 8:4, 5) , a principle presently inseparable from our physical body. The death of Christ has legally severed us from Adam and the consequences of his disobedience. The results of that death will eventually deliver us completely from both the physical consequence (the condemnation of death) and moral consequence (sin dwelling in me - the flesh) of the Fall. This physical and moral problem elicits Paul’s question at the end of Romans 7" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7 (v 24). Deliverance from this body of death (JND) is what God had in mind when "the old man was crucified with Him, [in order] that the body of sin might be destroyed (brought to nothing, WEV)" (6:6). In chapter 8, Paul expands his answer, "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (7:25).

The objections to using the term the old nature are likely intended to bring us to a clearer understanding of New Testament truth.

D. Oliver

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it just believers in the free world who seem to be spared from the persecution?

Is it just believers in the free world who seem to be spared from the persecution?

Apart from the availability of international news, believers in the "free world" would likely assume that persecution for Christ is an ancient concept. Mass murders, economic oppression, social isolation, and immoral harassment consistently face many believers. The persecution is systematic, violent, and persistent. Our Christian brothers and sisters in some countries know by experience that "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:22). Some who come from foreign shores to the "free world" hear and receive the gospel message. As a result, they face strong opposition from their family. Sometimes, returning to their native country involves the threat of death. "Remember... them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body" (Heb 13:3)." TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:3).

The Scriptures also remind us, "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2Ti 3:12)." TARGET="_blank">2Ti 3:12). In subtle ways, believers living in the "free world" face coercion to conform to ungodly thinking and practices. Their beliefs draw scorn, belittlement, dismissal, and isolation in the classroom and workplace. When they make every attempt to be considerate, reasonable, consistent, and faithful, their testimony, although blessed by God, may often meet the stone wall of condescending sneers. Our God still places highest value on faithfulness (1Co 4:2)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 4:2).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Specifically, how does the Spirit lead us in our gatherings?

Specifically, how does the Spirit lead us in our gatherings?

A highly respected elder once responded to this question by saying that the Spirit’s leading is the application of scriptural sense. As large a subject as this is, a few scriptural principles will cover most situations. Every one has an obligation to prepare to contribute as guided by the Spirit (1Co 14:26)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:26) and in keeping with his Spirit-given capabilities (1Co 12:11)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 12:11). A servant mind (Phi 2:5)" TARGET="_blank">Phi 2:5) recognizes that this functioning is not about self (1Co 13:4, 5)," TARGET="_blank">1Co 13:4, 5), but to glorify the Lord (1Co 1:29, 31)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 1:29, 31) and to help others (1Co 12:7)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 12:7). We function as part of a priesthood (1Pe 2:5)" TARGET="_blank">1Pe 2:5) and therefore all that we do must coordinate with others (1Co 14:29" TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:29a). We recognize the value of the discernment of others whom the Spirit has gifted (1Co 14:29" TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:29b). All is done with courtesy and consideration for others (1Co 14:32)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 14:32). We act in response to a touched spirit that is genuine (John 4:23)," TARGET="_blank">John 4:23), an overflowing heart (Psa 45:1).

Observing these principles with a prayerful and submissive heart will cover most of the circumstances. The mystical prompting of the Spirit will handle the rest.

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 does an assembly recognize its elders?

How does an assembly recognize its elders?

Paul gives the qualifications for men who will join an existing oversight in Ephesus (1 Timothy 3:1-7;" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1-7; Acts 20:17)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17). These still guide an assembly in recognizing its elders. In God’s design, an assembly operates on theocratic, not democratic, principles; it is subject to God’s will, not the people’s. The Lord, the Chief Shepherd, is supreme in each assembly. To produce this subjection to God, He supplies the assembly with a plurality of shepherds. By their own example and by divine enablement, these shepherds lead (1 Timothy 5:17," TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 5:17, "rule," lead, attend to, WEV) the flock in recognizing elders the Lord provides for them. Elders affirm the Spirit’s work in making men overseers (Acts 20:28);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28); they do not authoritatively make overseers. Unitedly dependent on the Spirit of wisdom (Isaiah 11:2)," TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 11:2), they communicate to the assembly their perception of God’s choice. In this way, the assembly recognizes its elders.

Overseers encourage the spiritual development of every young believer, perceive when a shepherd’s heart develops in some, and discern when that work has reached appropriate maturity in individuals. The Lord doesn’t "graduate" a class of new overseers. God’s work in each soul reaches maturity in its own time.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is British Israelism?

BRITISH ISRAELISM
What are we to think of “British Israelism,” and what should be our attitude towards adherents of it?

The hypothesis is that “Anglo-Saxons are the lineal descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel and inherit the wonderful promises made to them. These promises the Anglo-Saxons possess nationally.” This can hardly be “dignified” with the name of “heresy”; it is rather one of those “imaginations” which we are to seek to cast down in the Name of Christ. As far as truth is concerned, it is of “the stuff that dreams are made of;” a simile not so far-fetched, when we consider that the B.I. theory’s prime foundation stone is, as we shall see, confessedly, an invented dream.

Alas! how sad it is to see even pious Christians thus snared by the great fowler, as also numbers of wordlings, taking up as a sort of fashionable pastime the slogan, not “We are lost sinners,” but “We are the lost tribes.” It thus provides for the world another gospel, which captivates and hypnotises them with the thought of capturing great earthly blessings for themselves and the British Empire, apart from repentance and faith in Christ, as though He had never died and risen to procure us blessings, and we must needs make out a fancied identity with the lost tribes (bereft of blessings themselves) in order to get a few for ourselves and the British Empire. Certainly Christ did not die for the glory of the British Empire. If God has blessed our country so signally in the past, the reasons are not far to seek: (1) His Sovereignty; (2) the comparative good treatment England has bestowed on the Jews; (3) the fact that she has been a harbour of refuge for persecuted Continental Christians; (4) because, by His mercy, the Word of God was accepted at the Reformation, and became our national Book for centuries; (5) and because of His many people in our country and their prayers; though now she is on the way to forfeit all this by her national sins and apostacy.

But not one blessing did Britain ever inherit for the “British-Israel” reason, because even if she were the lost tribes, she has not kept God’s laws and statutes, the very condition of blessing (see Deuteronomy 28:15)" TARGET="_blank">Deuteronomy 28:15) and would have put herself outside the covenant, if ever under it, by neglecting circumcision. British Israelism is no mere harmless delusion; its logical effect is virtually to exclude Christ (not He, but the British Empire looms at the centre of things), and to supersede the gospel to sinners with some fancied national position, with its naked abandonment of the heavenly calling of the church and a complete confusion between her and Israel. Even, if we were Israel, she is set on one side nationally for the present so far as earthly blessing goes, and j so should we be. If space allowed, I would gladly take up the general arguments for or against the much vaunted “identifications,” but before . examining the ornaments of a building, it is well to enquire as to the foundation. I believe no castle-in-the-air ever had a flimsier base than this theory. Is there any historic proof that the ten tribes migrated from the latitudes where the Assyrians placed them, to England or anywhere else? There is not a scintilla. No mention is made of their doings either in Scripture or secular history from about 720 B.C., when their Assyrian captors settled them in Assyria, etc., though we have promises in the Scripture of their future restoration, e.g. Isa. i i • iz, where Jehovah promises to gather back again to their only land of blessing the “outcasts of Israel,” along with “the dispersed of Judah,” from whom they are thus carefully distinguished. We may be sure the Assyrians, as long as they had the power, would not allow their captives to wander away at their own sweet will to some other land. Until we have some serious proof that the ten tribes ever started on their journey for the British Isles, it is futile to spend time in proving they never arrived there. On what then does the B.I. theory rest? On a passage in an Apocryphal book, the 2nd of Esdras, (Eadras, Greek form of Ezra. ) purporting to have been written by Ezra the scribe, but really forged 700 years after the captivity by some unscrupulous impersonator living in Egypt. The passage (see chap. 13. 1-12 39-46) purports to be the interpretation of a fictitious dream ascribed to Ezra, to the effect that the ten tribes took counsel to leave the heathen country where they were in captivity and go off into a land where no one dwelt; where they might keep God’s statutes. They crossed the Euphrates miraculously and after a year and a half arrived at some unknown region called Arsareth. “Then dwelt they there until the latter time.” The whole chapter reads like an unholy parody of Scripture, as indeed it is, naturally bereft of all spiritual power, and bristling with the wildest improbabilities. And yet this fake dream and its fictitious interpretation is admitted by the writers of “British Israel Truth” (chap. 7.) to be the “one only tradition of their fate (i.e., of the lost tribes) which past ages have handed on to us.” That a whole system should rest ultimately on a “tradition” would be bad enough, but when that “tradition” is a dream, that nobody really ever had, the edifice must be in a parlous state. As to how to deal with a Christian “in fellowship,” who becomes inoculated with this unscriptural, unhistoric theory; it may be said that as far as is apparent, it does not effect directly fundamental truth as to the Person of Christ, though what it may lead to is difficult to say. Any attempt to propagate it in an assembly, could not be tolerated and anyone persisting in such a course would bring himself or herself under the open rebuke of the elders. Certainly the theory “causes divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine, which we have learned” and we should “mark” and “avoid” those who are in active sympathy with this sad delusion.

William Hoste

Other pages in this section

About this site

Were the 7 men appointed in Acts 6 "deacons"?

Were the 7 men appointed in Acts 6" TARGET="_blank">Acts 6 "deacons"?

Two words related to the word "deacon" appear in this passage. Twice the word, "the service of deacons," is used: "neglected in the daily ministration" Acts 6:1);" TARGET="_blank">Acts 6:1); "to the ministry of the Word" (verse 4). The other word, "to serve as deacons," is in verse 2: "leave the Word of God, and serve tables." Administering the care of widows in the assembly became an issue. To the Twelve, their deacon service with God’s Word had higher priority, so this deacon work should be entrusted to others. The qualifications for this work are all spiritual and moral (verse 3). Later, the issue in Antioch was Jews eating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:12, 13)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 2:12, 13). Here, although all were saved Jews, some distinction - based on whether or not they spoke the language of the Gentiles, Greek - affected the widows eating. Seven men whose names indicate that they spoke Greek met the qualifications. The Spirit guided in this doctrinal issue by beginning to remove ethnic distinctions among believers. The apostles identified themselves with the seven men (verse 6) and the transfer of deacon work took place seamlessly. These seven did deacon work, but they did not have the title, "deacons." They did not assume an office; they had the responsibility of a work.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu