If a sister meets with the elders, should her head be covered?

If a sister meets with the elders, should her head be covered?

When elders meet to receive help from the Word of God regarding their responsibilities (Acts 20:17-35)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:17-35) or to make decisions regarding the care and direction of the flock, a sister should not be present. It is a meeting of elders. When the elders meet with a person to shepherd him (in this case, her), to hear how the individual was saved, or to discuss that individual’s coming into the fellowship, a sister who is present is expected to talk with them. If she is not expected to be silent, she should not be expected to wear a covering. These two truths are united in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and 14:34, 35, both being in the section of 1 Corinthians that deals with assembly gatherings.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is it not dishonoring to the Lord for a brother to pray publicly with a hand in his pocket?

Is it not dishonoring to the Lord for a brother to pray publicly with a hand in his pocket?

Some may wonder if this question is the kind that should be answered in a forum like this. It is taking place when the eyes of all should be closed. The man praying may be completely unconscious he is doing this. Even if he is conscious of this, he may not regard it as dishonoring to the Lord.

Some relevant Biblical principles may, however, merit mention here. First, as a suggestion to listeners, we know that God has given instruction as to the content of public prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-2)." TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 2:1-2). Therefore, observers should be concerned, as God is, with the content of a brother’s prayers. Since the Scriptures anticipate that believers will say "Amen" when a brother prays (1 Corinthians 14:14-16)," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:14-16), believers should listen carefully to what is said so they can affirm their fellowship with each of the brother’s petitions. Individuals assumed various postures in prayer. The Lord fell on His face (Mat 26:39)," TARGET="_blank">Mat 26:39), Paul kneeled (Acts 20:36)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:36), and the publican stood with his hands smiting his chest (Luke 18:13)." TARGET="_blank">Luke 18:13). Our posture in prayer conveys a message of intensity or submission or respect, but the message in the words is of greater importance. Some find it very difficult to speak publicly and we could well overlook their nervous habits for the joy of hearing them leading us in prayer.

On the other hand, the reminder of some principles could help those of us who pray publicly. Bible characters who were conscious of God’s presence were overwhelmed (Isa 6:5;" TARGET="_blank">Isa 6:5; Luke 5:8;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 5:8; Rev 1:17)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 1:17). Speaking to God is of far greater moment than speaking in the presence of fellowmen (Eccl 5:2)," TARGET="_blank">Eccl 5:2), therefore focus on Him rather than them. A greater familiarity with the Lord in private prayer would deliver us from filling the time with well-worn sayings and whatever thoughts come to mind. If prayer grows out of a relationship to our Father (Luke 11:2)," TARGET="_blank">Luke 11:2), consciously speaking to a Father Whom we know will keep us from senseless repetition of "Father," "our God and Father," "our God," and "Lord." Knowing that He is omniscient and is completely aware of our hearts and thoughts (1Ki 8:39)" TARGET="_blank">1Ki 8:39) might prevent us from posturing in prayer or stretching out our prayers when we have little to say.

Most of all, the purpose of responding to this question is not to foster criticism of public prayers, but to encourage all of us to a greater appreciation of moving and speaking in the presence of "the great God." Let all who can respond to the privilege of praying publicly do so, but ever aim for deeper acquaintance with our Father, more genuine awe of His presence, and greater power with God in prayer.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Did Christ become the image of the invisible God when He was born or before?

Was it only at His incarnation that our Lord became

(1) “The Image of the invisible God”; (2) “The Firstborn of every creature”; and (3) “The express Image of His Person”?

I believe that all three expressions were true of Him before then; and this is the opinion of most commentators on the passages, both ancient and modern.

With regard to Colossians 1:15-20," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:15-20, it seems to me that the simplest and most useful division of the attributes of Christ contained in these verses, and of the verses themselves, is into two groups.

(i) Those which were true of Him from the beginning (vv. 15-17).
(2) Those which were true of Him from the Cross (vv. 18-20).

In the first of these groups He is “The Image of the invisible God”; in the second He is “The Head of the Body, the Church.” In the former He has the title, “Firstborn of every creature”; in the latter He has that of “Firstborn from the dead.” In each case a reason is appended for the application to Him of these titles. He is “Firstborn of every creature, for by (or ‘in’) Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are in earth.” He is “Firstborn from the dead . . . for it pleased the Father . . . by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself. . . things in earth or things in heaven.”

Now since the reason assigned for the title, “Firstborn of every creature,” is that all things were created by Him, I cannot see how that title, or the one coupled with it, “Image of the invisible God,” can be referred to His incarnation only. Both declare His dignity as Originator and Sustainer of the first creation, just as those in verse i8 declare His pre-eminence in connection with the new creation.

As to Hebrews 1:3," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 1:3, it is agreed by Mr. Hoste that Christ was always ‘The Brightness of His glory,” and when once this is granted I cannot Conceive how the next clause, “The express Image of His Person,” is to be divorced from its fellow, and referred to something which only became true of Him at His incarnation. Both clauses hang closely united Upon the same participle, “Being,” which precedes them; and if the view mentioned were correct, this participle would be bearing its literal meaning in the one clause, and then would have to be thought of as though it meant “becoming” in the next clause. On the other hand, when we take them together, as is usually done, we get in them an interesting contrast with the two opening expressions of v. x. In time past God spake in the prophets “by divers portions” (a portion now and a portion again), and “in divers manners” (some less clear and some more clear than others). But now God has spoken in His Son, in whom is, not merely a few rays shining out from time to time, but the whole effulgence of His glory; and not merely dim outlines and shadows, but the exact “image” of His substance. And of course it is implied that the revelation thus made is, like Himself, both full and perfect. On this the subject matter of the entire epistle is based. The passage should be read in the R.V., and its connection noted with the word “enlightened” in Hebrews 6:4," TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 6:4, and “illuminated” (same Greek) in Hebrews 10:32." TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 10:32.

William Rogers

Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a connection between the resurrection and the timing of the Levitical offerings?

Is there a connection to the Levitical offerings?

We are familiar with the truth that the Lord rose from the dead as the Firstfruit (1Co 15:23)." TARGET="_blank">1Co 15:23). This fulfilled the Feast of Firstfruits (Lev 23:10)." TARGET="_blank">Lev 23:10). On the exact day that feast was fulfilled by Christ’s resurrection, the citizens of Jerusalem saw people alive whom they knew had died. These who came back from death were not part of the "harvest" of which Christ is the Firstfruits. He is unique as the Firstfruit. These returned to death. They are a reminder of that Feast of Firstfruits and its promise of a coming harvest: this sheaf of wheat is a first fruit, and other sheaves will follow. Just as that first fruit was especially for God, so our resurrected Lord has precedence over all others. Those who have part in the first resurrection (Rev 20:5)," TARGET="_blank">Rev 20:5), like Christ, will never die again.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should a divorced brother in the Lord be allowed to preach the Word in the church?

What should be our attitude towards a brother who is divorced and remarried, while his first partner is alive?

Should he be allowed to minister the Word to the saints? What saith the Scriptures?

It entirely depends on the circumstances of the case. If the person in question was granted a divorce by the Courts against his wife, on account of marital unfaithfulness, then I believe the divorce was according to Scripture, because the above cause is specifically admitted as sufficient by our Lord Himself (see Matthew 5:32;" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9)." TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:9). In this case the divorced persons are not to be regarded as merely separated, but as no longer married. If this were so in the case before us, then I hold the brother was quite free to remarry, and should certainly be allowed to minister to the saints, if otherwise qualified to do so. But if he were the guilty party, or if he obtained a divorce on any less plea than the scriptural one mentioned above, he violated God’s Word in being remarried; he is an adulterer (see Matthew 19:9)," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 19:9), and should not be allowed to break bread, and, of course, not to minister to the saints.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Was the serpent

Was the serpent’s subtlety (Gen 3:1)" TARGET="_blank">Gen 3:1) due to its native ability or Satan’s powers?

Three clues suggest the subtlety was due to the prudence or sense God had given it. First, the comparison of the serpent to "any beast of the field which the Lord God had made" indicates that not just this one serpent, but the entire species of serpents was "more subtle." Second, the curse on the serpent (v 14) extends to all its kind, not just the serpent Satan used; and God’s judgments are just. Again, addressing the serpent, God moves (v 15) to the instigator behind the scenes and is actually speaking to Satan. That relates to the third clue. Without assigning a human will to the serpent, we note that Satan easily finds allies among those specially enriched with advantages (see previous answers). Satan spoke through the serpent, but in some way took advantage of its native subtlety, so that neither Eve nor Adam expressed surprise that a serpent should approach them as he did.

D. Oliver
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

What is a good commentary for Genesis and Daniel?

Which commentaries are the best helps to study these books?

The series, "What the Bible Teaches," is a valuable first resource for each book it covers. At present, it covers Genesis, but not Daniel. Most general commentaries recommended in Truth and Tidings January, 2001; February, 2001) have some help on these books.

For Genesis, commentaries on the Pentateuch recommended by J. McColl (April, 2001) will provide help. W H. Griffith Thomas on Genesis is highly recommended by both Wilbur M. Smith and Cyril J. Barber, whose evaluations of Bible study books are widely respected. Barber writes that Thomas book is "possibly the most helpful devotional exposition of Genesis available." Henry M. Morriss book, "The Genesis Record," is valuable, especially for scientific data.

On Daniel, Wilbur Smith (who had about thirty commentaries on Daniel, a favorite book of his) said that, if he could have only one book on Daniel, it would be Arno C. Gaebeleins, "The Prophet Daniel." Interestingly, Harold Paisley (before he wrote his good book on Daniel) considered Gaebelein to be the best on Daniel. Wilbur Smith wrote of Charles Boutfiowers book, "In and Around the Book of Daniel," that "in historical matters, it is the finest work of its kind in our language.

W. Gustafson
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is the head covering a symbol to teach the angels?

Is the head covering a symbol to teach the angels?

The passage simply states that a woman "ought to have a symbol of authority on her head because of the angels" (v. 10, ESV). If we confuse this passage with Ephesians 3:10," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 3:10, we might add to it the thought of teaching the angels.

Elect angels are very aware of the value of accepting the sphere of responsibility God has assigned to them. This is the principle of headship. They see this principle expressed in the woman’s head covering and appreciate it.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible phrase mean - "The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous"?

What is the meaning of Proverbs 21:18," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:18, “The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright”?
Compare the following passages, in which a similar thought is more clearly expressed: “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead” (Proverbs 11: 8)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11: 8).
“I gave Egypt for thy ransom, . . . I have loved thee, therefore will I give men for thee and people for thy life” (Isaiah 43:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 43:3, 4).
“They hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai” (Esther 7:10)." TARGET="_blank">Esther 7:10).
“Those men which had accused Daniel. . . cast. . . into the den of lions” (Daniel 6:24)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 6:24).
And note the use of the same word “ransom” in the Isaiah passage, and of “in his stead” in Proverbs 11." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11.
The above Scriptures, and others which might be added, suggest two things. First, that God may sometimes deliver His own at the cost of severe suffering, or even destruction, to the unsaved. Second, that the wicked at times suffer the very fate which they themselves had prepared for the righteous. Proverbs 21:18" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:18 contains the first of these thoughts, and probably the second as well.
W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu