DO AS I SAY DO, NOT AS I DO DO

If you say you are going to do something and then don’t do it, were you lying when you said you were going to do it? Do circumstances dictate whether or not it was a lie? Are there situations when failing to do what you said you were going to do is warranted?

Matthew wrote, “Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes ' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.” These are Jesus’ words from the Sermon on the Mount. His subject is “oaths,” specifically oaths to the Lord. This would seem to say that everything is black or white, wrong or right.

Remember, His sermon began with reference to man’s heart and what man’s attitudes should be. The heart is critical to understanding Scripture in general and specific passages in particular.

In Jeremiah we read “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

This Old Testament passage introduces the concept of the New Covenant, the time when God would lead His people not by tradition and not by a list of dos and don’ts, but by “writing” His word on their hearts. The book of Hebrews covers the subject of the New Covenant from chapter 6 through chapter 10.

So Matthew 5 is preparatory to the New Testament message of the New Covenant. It speaks of how we are to think, and that our thinking is evidence of our heart’s attitude.

Jesus says He has come to fulfill the law we could not fulfill; that if the law is not fulfilled we will be doomed and that His fulfillment of the Law is the beginning point of our salvation in Him.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that murder, adultery, divorce oaths, revenge, love, altruism, prayer, self-deprivation, our focus, worry, judging, and seeking God are all matters of the heart. It turns out that one or more of these issues exists in the heart of every man and that is why we need salvation through Him.

So, then, what about this business of saying we’ll do something and then not doing it? The short answer is we were either wrong in promising it to begin with, or we were wrong not to carry through with our intentions.

Either way, sin is at the bottom of it all, as is the inability of the heart to cause us to do what is right. That is the essence of sin.

The message of Scripture is that we are all sinners. By Scripture we know that anything that is not dead center in God’s will is sin. That covers more than most of us are comfortable with, for it means that we breathe in and exhale sin in everything we are and do. Scripture teaches that every sin carries with it the consequence of death and that its only remedy is the shed blood of Christ at the cross of Calvary.

In the end, the answers to the questions posed are “Yes,” “No,” and “Yes.” Truth is truth and everything else is not. Being a man of your word is hard. Not being a man of your word is sin.

The understatement of all of eternity is: “Thank God for Christ.”

SUNDAY SOUNDS OF PRAISE-O What a Savior-Larry Ford

A Study in Joshua

Chapter 6

Joshua was successor to Moses (Deuteronomy 31:23). The Talmud says that Joshua wrote all but the last 5 verses. Phineas wrote those. Joshua means “Jehovah is salvation” — the same word in the New Testament is Jesus (as in Hebrews 4:8).

God’s Character:

God is to be followed, even when we don’t understand what He is doing.

Verses 1- 5 - The people in Jericho were afraid of the God’s people. They knew how powerful God was. They did all that they could do to protect themselves. They built a wall that was better than the Titanic. It is strong and formidable and foreboding. They thought, “Even God can’t destroy these walls.

Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a famous archaeologist excavated Jericho. She concluded Jericho had been destroyed in about 1550 BC, at least 150 years before Joshua. And so the matter rested until recently. Then, in the March-April 1990 issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review, we find that Jericho really was destroyed during Joshua’s life time.

The faith of the believer does not rest upon the shovel of the archaeologist  Jericho represents the world to the believer.

God’s Love of His Creation:

He will show His creation the way. That way will not always be according to our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).

God’s Plan for the Redemption of His Creation:

Verses 6-11 – God revealed His plans to Joshua, not to the priests or the people. He laid out a preposterous plan: walk around, walk around some more and then shout. What kind of a plan is that?

God became a man, Jesus, who was attacked by His own religious leaders, was executed by them and placed in a borrowed tomb. What kind of a plan is that? It is the perfect plan of salvation.

Verses 12- 21 – Imagine what must have gone on in the peoples’ minds. Total silence for 7 days? Marching around the wall for 7 days? Then, marching 7 times around the wall on the 7th day? What would have gone on in your mind? How would you have reacted? Would you have followed God” What about today?

Verses 22-29 – The salvation of Rahab was early Biblical evidence that God’s salvation is available to anyone who would put their faith in God.

In Hebrews 11:30, we are told that the walls of Jericho fell by faith. Whose faith? Faith in whom?

The fall of Jericho is a picture of God’s love for and protection of His creation. Joshua’s faith is a picture of the faith we have in the salvation afforded by Christ.

On Reading Scripture

All Scripture must be interpreted in terms of the meaning of the word used, the verse, the chapter, the book, the Covenant and the Bible as a whole.

Homer and Jethro were out hunting. Night fell and they set up camp, ate dinner and climbed into their sleeping bags.

At about 2:00 AM Homer woke up and found himself gazing into the night sky. He reached over and shook Jethro, waking him up.

“Look up at the sky.” He said. What does it tell you?”

Jethro thought a minute then he said, “It tells me that the stars are out, that the universe is vast, that the North Star is right where it belongs and that God is still on His throne. Why, what does it tell you?”

“You numb chuck!” It tells me that someone has stolen our tent!”

See, everything Jethro said was true, but he completely missed the point.

This same thing happens when interpreting Scripture. We read the words, but because we do not understand the context, we miss the whole point.

Take I Timothy, for instance. Paul begins by stating his concern about false teaching in the church. He reiterates his concern in the middle of the book and states it again toward the end of the book. This should give us some hint that his subject is false teachings in the church. If we miss that, we miss the point of everything else he says.

Paul gives two examples of the false teachings that were going on: false teachings about marriage and false teaching about what foods may be eaten. Both of those topics are supremely important, because marriage is always a picture of Christ and the absence of restrictions on what foods we may eat is a picture of freedom and inclusiveness of the gentile in Christ.

There were other false teachings, but these two were of paramount importance in Paul’s mind, as they are to God. The discussion about overseers, deacons and women is totally surrounded by his discussion of false teachings. This is consistent with the teaching of Titus. Elders (church leaders) must be grounded in, trained in and steeped in correct doctrine. Their personal lives will reflect that grounding.

Be careful in reading Scripture that you do not ascribe meaning to passages that are not there. Be certain that you get the point, which is always, always the gospel.

SO WHERE'S IT ALL FROM?

So...Where did atoms come from?

Was there a time when bunches of electrons, protons, neutrons, fissiles, cations, quarks and other sub-atomic particles floating around in nothingness that suddenly combined in just the right way to form atoms? How did that happen enough times to form the 118 or so atoms in the Periodic Table? And what about the Lanthanides and the Actinides?

So...where did molecules come from?

Was there a time when the formerly mentioned atoms were floating around in nothingness that began to come together in just the right way to form the molecules present at the Big Bang?

So...where did silicone, graphite, iron, gold, silver, water and other entities in abundance on earth come from? After the Big Bang did they just happen to be attracted to one another differently from all other known entities in what is now the universe and get formed here on earth?

So...where did DNA come from? Did the formerly mentioned atoms floating around just happen to come together in 440 million nucleotides to form a single DNA molecule somewhere? If so, how did it know what to do without another DNA molecule made of 440 million nucleotides to join with?

So...maybe those formerly mentioned electrons, protons, neutrons, fissiles, cations, quarks and other sub-atomic particles floating around in nothingness just always were. If so, how do we know?

Ahh! I see. We just believe that's the way it was.

Sounds like faith to me.

So...where did cars come from?

Was there a time when the various formerly mentioned atoms, molecules and earthly elements just came together in such a a way as to form steel, plastic, rubber and other materials in just the right ways and with just the right combination to make a thingy that would crank up, run, roll and carry people?

Ridiculous? It seems obvious that cars are the result of intelligent design.............

SUNDAY SOUNDS OF PRAISE-Above All-Lenny LeBlanc

More about Elders

The following paragraph is from a discussion by a leading pastor/theologian about the position known as “elders” in the church.

“An overseer, then, must be above reproach.” Being above reproach means that there is nothing for which one can be accused or blamed; those things which could render a man as being validly accused of sinful behavior. He must not have a chargeable character; that is, he has an impeccable reputation. He lives his life in such a way that no one can accuse him of scandalizing the body of Christ in any way. This is the kind of man that, even with his critics, can find no fault in his character.”

The application comes from I Timothy 3 and Titus 1.

It is important to place the statement in the context of the book of Timothy, which is “false teachers.” This context makes Paul’s statement more about elders being men who properly interpret Scripture. Remember, both before and after this statement, Paul expressed concern about false teachers. He used marriage as an illustration of what some of the false teaching was. He was concerned that those who serve in leadership in the church are subscribed to correct doctrine.

The implication of this is that those who wish to serve in various leadership positions, pastors, deacons, teachers, etc. must teach right doctrine about marriage, what foods can be eaten and (by extension) other issues.

I Timothy 1:3b-7: “…command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer ⁴ or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith. ⁵ The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. ⁶ Some have departed from these and have turned to meaningless talk. ⁷ They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.”

I Timothy 4 1-3: “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. ² Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. ³ They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.”

Titus 1:5 – “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.”

So it appears that the discussion about elders is more about their understanding of the gospel from the scriptures than it is about divorce, remarriage, polygamy or anything else.

The purity of the gospel message is paramount to Christian leadership. All leaders of the church are “elders,” whether they are pastors, music leaders, Bible teachers or whatever position they hold. “Elder” is not an office and “elders” are appointed, not elected.  “Elders” are servants, not rulers.

Whether a church used the title “Elders” or not, it leaders must be schooled in correct doctrine and their doctrine must be in keeping with the gospel message. Wild, hair-brained philosophies and theosophies must not be a part of any leader’s repertoire.

LET THE CHURCH BE THE CHURCH

Which has more drawing power, music or the gospel?

Which has more drawing power, clothing or the gospel?

Which has more drawing power, lighting or the gospel?

Which has more drawing power, the audio or the gospel?

If anything has more drawing power than the gospel, it is false drawing power. It might look like more people are responding, but if they are not responding to the gospel, there is no hope to them.

“Well,” I hear you say, “If they don’t come (for the entertainment aspect of church) then they will not hear the gospel and thus can’t be drawn to it.”

Oh? So what if they come for the entertainment aspect of the church and don’t hear the gospel? Has there been growth?

And what about the music? If the music is not contemporary, will they come to hear it and thus hear the gospel? If the music is the draw, then any response will be to the music and not to the gospel.

Have you ever heard anyone say, “The style of music is not important. What is important is the worship.” The meaning seems to be that if we just play more contemporary music we will ‘meet the needs’ of this generation.

Oh? Doesn’t that ideology work both ways? If there should be no argument over whether to use contemporary music, why should there be an argument over whether to use “traditional” music (whatever that means)?

What about the clothing issue? Have you noticed that people dress in some pretty shabby looking clothes in our churches today. Is that worthy of coming before the King of Kings and Lord of Lords? Clothing is not the message, but should we not bring our best offering in everything we do, including clothes?

If the lighting is distracting, does that hurt or help getting the message out? If the audio is imperfect, is it helpful in getting the message out? Is it the special effects that attract people, or is it the gospel? Does the sophistication of the lighting and audio attract people?

Should the church even be trying to “attract” unbelievers? Is there any Biblical support for that? Did not the early church, beginning at Pentecost simply present the gospel message, and wasn’t that enough to attract about 3,000 in one place that day?

If your church is trying to attract unbelievers, it is seeking to build something that is not a church.

The well known, campy church called Willow Creek Church came to the conclusion that they had been doing things wrong all along (surprise?). They were struggling and decided to find a new way to attract non-believers to build their church.

I have news for you. The church is not a collection of non-believers. The church is a body of baptized believers. Don’t you understand that the message of the gospel is an offense to the world of nonbelievers?

Yet, if the Holy Spirit is working in a church, the church will attract people. If the church lifts up Christ, all
men will be drawn to Him. You are much more likely to build a church of baptized believers if the message is the gospel, and only the gospel.

A church does not need to be bipolar in its approach. It should just be who it is and yield itself to the movement of the Holy Spirit. He will bring the people in. The people He brings in will be responsive to the gospel message and people will be saved and the church will fill with baptized believers.

Remember that the church is not the pastor, staff, deacons or committees. The church is the people; the body of baptized believers who make up the Body of Christ.

Let the church be the church. Let the people rejoice. Christ’s church will never fail. The gates of Hell cannot prevail against it if its message is steadfastly the gospel.

I recommend to you a significant video: John McArthur on Church Growth

I do not agree with everything he says all the time, but this video makes a strong case for the purity of the message of the gospel.

What Prayer Is Not

In its basic form, prayer is communication with God. It is both speaking to and listening to God. Some things are necessary to pray about, some are not. The things that are not necessary to pray about are those things that have been commanded of us in the Bible. Far too often prayer is used for things other than communication with God.

Here are some things that are not appropriate in our prayers.

It is not appropriate to tell God what He does (or does not) know.  For example: “Lord, You know I need this new car. My car is run down and old.” He does indeed know the condition of your car and you don’t need to remind Him. He has a very good memory.

It is not necessary to tell Him His name every second or third breath. An example would be: “Lord, we come to you in praise and Lord, we love you and Lord, you are great and mighty and Lord, this, that or the other.” He knows who He is and only needs to be addressed once. We would not do that with a friend. We would not say, “John, I’m going to the movie tonight and John, I’m going to buy some popcorn because, John I really like popcorn and John movie popcorn is so good.” John would quickly get very tired of the conversation.

It is not required that we preach a sermon to others when we pray. We do not need to list all of the important doctrines of God in our prayers. Nor do we need to tell Him what those around us should be or not be doing. The focus of prayer should be God, not those around us.

Prayer does not need to be in Authorized King James English. We do not need to pray, “Father, thou are mighty and thou art merciful. We beseech thee, Father to show forth thine omnipotence this day.” He understands all languages, French, Arabic, Russian and all others, including 21^st Century English.

God does not need to be addressed with affected language. He is “Father,” just like your father is your father. He does not need to be called, “Fawther, Gowad, or Loward,” unless that is also the way you address your biological father.

It is wrong to present God with a laundry list of your desires in your prayers. He is not a great Santa in the sky. He declares that He knows your needs before you ask. There is nothing wrong with asking for certain things, but James cautions us that we often ask in disbelief or amiss. Our prayer should be designed to find out what God’s agenda is and to get on board with it.

“Praying the Scripture” is fine, so long as it is not done to manipulate God. God is sovereign, and it is wrong to try to manipulate Him to our needs or way of thinking. “Praying the Scripture” should be a way of expressing our agreement with His agenda as revealed in Scripture.

Jesus said that when we pray we should address God as our Father, praise Him in our prayer, submit to His will, provide our daily needs, confess our sins, make us forgiving, deliver us from evil, and close the prayer with praise.

We should not pray “The Lord’s Prayer” in some rote, vainly repetitious manner. There is nothing wrong with repeating the Lord’s Prayer, but it should be done with an understanding of what it says and what it means, not as something we memorized as a child. It is far more important to include the elements of the Lord’s Prayer in our own words from our own hearts.

Exodus 1, 2 and the Life of Moses

Moses In His Ark

We cannot understand the life of Moses without first understanding the book of Genesis and what it was all about.

In Genesis we learned that God created the world perfectly, but man messed it up. That introduced death through sin. As an illustration, we are told that Joseph was placed in a coffin (Genesis 50:26)

Redemption is the theme of Exodus. Redemption by the blood of the Lamb. Exodus is a picture of God’s redemptive character.

In the 400 years between Genesis and Exodus, 70 people in Egypt filled the land. They grew to about 3 Million people.

Two reasons they came to Egypt: To prepare his people for the land of promise through the safety of Egypt, and to prepare the land for His people.

In Genesis 15:16 Abraham was told he would become a huge nation. Then he would see that his offspring would go to Egypt until the iniquity of the sin of the Amorites, the Canaanites had risen beyond help. God was exceedingly merciful in giving the Amorites time to turn from their debauchery. But they did not. The destruction of the Amorites was like putting a rabid down to keep from infecting other dogs. After 400 years God  “put them out of their misery" to protect other people from their perverted sexual and moral sins.

The new king of Egypt (Seti the First) was afraid of Israel due to their numbers. So he made slaves of them, to keep them in check.. The more the Egyptians afflicted Israel, the more Israel grew, which grieved the Egyptians. Satan inspired Pharaoh to destroy the Jewish people because he (Satan) knows Messiah would be coming from Israel. Satan is always trying to get rid of Israel. He tried through Hitler and Hussein and now he's trying through Iran and the other radical Islamic nations.

God knew the only way to increase Israel’s strength was to allow them to go through a workout of their “faith muscle.” Faith grows through being exercised.

Pharaoh ordered that boy babies were to be killed, but the midwives refused to do so. The Israelite women feared God more than they did the Egyptians and would not kill the boy babies. God dealt well with the midwives because they obeyed Him instead of the Egyptians. God gave the barren midwives children, even thought they were not supposed to be able to. Doing what God says to do is always more important than doing what civil law requires.

Instead of focusing on the lying of the midwives, God focused on the good they did.  That is His character. He focuses on our excellence, instead of our failings. He is exceedingly kind. God is so kind that He provided a way of salvation for us.

Exodus 2:1-25

Moses’ mother was a great visionary and a great organizer. She knew Moses was a woman of the Word. She knew Israel was being judged. She knew male babies were being drowned in the river, yet that’s where she took Moses. She knew the story of Noah saved in an ark, and she prepared an ark for Moses. (The work for ark in the stories of Noah and Moses are the same, and these are the only places the word is used.) She believed God’s Word.

The daughter of Pharaoh just so happened to come down to wash herself and when she saw the arc she saw the crying baby she melted with compassion for him. Moses’ sister Merriam offered her mother to nurse her own baby and to be paid to do it.

“Moses” means “drawn out of the water.” (Would that make his name, Drew?) He was the first Baptist, drawn out of the water.

At age 40, Moses saw the burdens of the Israelites, and when he saw an Egyptians hit an Israelite, he killed him. Pharaoh sought to kill Moses to save face, so Moses fled to Midian. (Moses tried to help God our by killing the Egyptian, but although he wanted to be used in ministry, he looked sideways, instead of looking up.)

Moses had known greatness and then he knew rejection. Moses learned to be content with his exile. Paul said he had learned to be content in whatever situation he found himself.  If we are not content where we are, we will not be content with whatever happened, bad or good, in the future. Contentment comes from within, not from without.  It comes from, and only from, being satisfied having Jesus in our hearts.

Moses named his son, Gershom. Gershom means “I’m a stranger here.”  Become a Gershom. Realize that this world is not your home. You are a stranger here. You belong to Heaven, if you have Jesus.

Moses  – A Brief Overview of “The Lawgiver”

Moses was a prince of Egypt, but he became a shepherd in Midian. Had he not been humbled, he would never have been able to become the deliverer of Israel. If he had not been humbled, he would not have become an effective leader for God.

After the burning bush experience and the experience with rod becoming a snake and a rod again, Moses returned to Egypt.

One of the most significant events of Moses’ life was recorded in Exodus 4:21-27. The Lord tells Moses to tell the Egyptians that Israel is His “…firstborn son,” a picture that Christ is coming from Israel. He then is about to kill Moses when Zipporah circumcised him, drawing blood. She said, “Surely you are a bridegroom to me.” And the Lord allowed him to live.

Real life (eternal life) can only come with the shedding of blood. Once Jesus shed His blood for us, we were fit for Him to be the bridegroom and for us to be His bride.

The plague on the firstborn in Exodus 11 is a picture of the death of God’s firstborn. The Passover of chapter 12 is a picture of God’s love, mercy and grace. Jesus is the Passover Lamb, not like the lambs used in Israel’s Passover feasts (imperfect), but a perfect, spotless Lamb, whose blood is sufficient to cover our sins.

Just as God promised he would, Moses, after the plagues on the gods of Egypt, led the Israelites out of Egypt in the remarkable events surrounding the parting of the waters of the Red Sea. He eventually led them to the foot of Mount Sinai, where he received the Law.

The Law given to Moses was perfect in every way (as we are told in Romans). As Jesus revealed in His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 & 6), it could not be kept, for it was a matter of the attitude of the heart, not of the flesh. The entire book of Romans is about the nature of the Law, it inability to be kept, the resulting separation from God and the final solution found in, and only in, Jesus Christ.

The giving of the Law was the culmination of and the very essence of the Old Covenant. It set the stage for revealing the need for the New Covenant in Christ.

It is important to know that the Law is just as perfect today as it was when it was given to Moses. Not one jot or tittle of it has ever been changed or altered. If you want to be saved you have two choices: keep the Law perfectly by fulfilling it completely or having someone else fulfill it for you. Since you cannot fulfill it yourself, Christ fulfilled it for us. (“Think not that I have come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.”)

Our salvation is accomplished by the perfection offered to God by Christ through His death, burial and resurrection. We are saved from the penalty of breaking God’s Law given through Moses by trusting in, and only in, the finished work of Christ at the cross of Calvary.

A CONCEPTUAL LOOK AT ELDERS IN THE CHURCH

The word “elder” is used nearly 70 times in the New Testament. Of those times, almost half are clearly referring to leaders within the JEWISH community. “Elder” was used to speak of the “traditions of the elders,” “elders of the People,” “priests, scribes and elders.” Those were the respected leaders of the community, the Synagogues and the JEWISH Sanhedrin.

“Elder” in the New Testament comes from the Greek word Presbuteros (πρεσβύτερος), meaning “older person.” By itself, the word did not refer to an office in the church, just the men who were older in the faith. In some contexts, it seems to refer to a group of appointed older persons who watched after the spiritual needs of the church. No specific age is given to "elders," but the connotation of seniority and experience implies maturity, dignity experience and honor.

John Piper explains the background of the term “elders.” “Almost all early societies or religious communities were guided in some way by elders, that is, by the older, experienced wise men of the group. According to  Genesis 50:7, there were “elders of Egypt” and according to Numbers 22:7, there were elders of Moab and Midian. So there is nothing unique or unusual about having elders in positions of authority in JEWISH history.

“In general, then, we can say that, while through the long history of Israel the role of the elder no doubt changed, they were the older men of the community who, because of their wisdom in counsel and the natural honor due to them (Leviticus 19:32), became the official administrators or leaders of the community.”

Piper goes on: “The early church was born on JEWISH soil, its first members and leaders were JEWISH, its Lord was JEWISH, and it saw itself as the fulfillment of the JEWISH Scriptures and as the true JEWISH people of God. Therefore it is understandable that the church, as it emerged from Judaism, would in some ways pattern its life and structure on the life and structure of God’s people in the Old Testament of which they were now the true posterity.”

In Acts 11:30 (the first New Testament mention of “elders”), elders were apparently the older men responsible for the general welfare of the church. We know nothing about how they became elders, and we can only surmise that the reason they were elders at all is because of the pattern already set in Judaism.

The picture in Acts 15 is that the elders, along with the apostles, have the responsibility under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make decisions regarding ethical (Acts 15:29) and doctrinal matters. We may assume that these significant decisions were laid before the whole church where they were approved (Acts 15:22). I Timothy presents elders as those responsible for straightening out the wrong doctrines that had crept into the church. There Paul also urges the church to select elders who were able to refute those wrong doctrines with their life example.

The term “elder” as a title for a church leader occurs in the Pauline letters only three times: I Timothy 5:17, I Timothy 5:19 and Titus 1:5. The title, itself, does not seem of great importance to Paul.

We may note that in each church were appointed several elders; we don’t know how many. Their installation was by appointment, not election, a feature we will find true to elders throughout the New Testament. The responsibility of the elder/overseer is to “feed the church,” no doubt in the sense in which Jesus said to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” (John 21:17)).

Kelly suggests in his commentary that those who teach are the so-called “overseers” or “bishops” and those who don’t are the deacons. In other words, he thinks that the term “elder” embraces both bishops and deacons.

Elders’ role can perhaps best be summed up in the phrase “overseeing” and hence the term “elder” or “overseer” or “bishop” are sometimes used interchangeably. However, it is uncertain whether the term “elder” was a more inclusive one also embracing the role of deacon as well.
The elders’ oversight of the church involved guarding the flock spiritually, like a shepherd guards his flock from wolves (Acts 20:28), and feeding the flock. The feeding happens as the elders “labor in the Word and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17; 3:2, Titus 1:9; Acts 20:27, 32). But 1 Timothy 5:17 may mean that there were ruling elders who were not involved in preaching and teaching. In addition to the spiritual ministry, the elders were also responsible for certain physical needs of the flock (Acts 20:35).

Is there a Biblical requirement that the church have elders? No. Does it seem likely that the Biblical model for the ministry structure of the church can include elders? Maybe. That cannot, however, be dealt with on the basis of a doctrine or a requirement.

From the texts, as well as the contexts, it is important that elders must never be a short-cut to the congregational form of church polity that arises from the priesthood of the believer. In other words, elders are not to rule the church or .lord themselves over the church, but must encourage and support each member’s Biblical right to be a priest.

Note: Because there are almost 70 mentions of “elders” in the New Testament, I have not tried to present an exhaustive study, but a representative one. I would recommend Young’s or Strong’s Analytical Concordances for a complete list of the mentions of “elders” in Scripture.

Are Elders Compatible with a Congregational Form of Government?

The short answer to the title question is “Not really.” But there is a longer answer that is not quite so simple.

The term “elders” is Biblical, let’s make that clear. The issue is really about what the term means and how it is to be applied in churches. On this there is not wide-spread agreement. The word "elder" is consistently translated in the New Testament from the Greek work presbuteros. The English words "priest," "presbyter," and "elder" all come from presbuteros, which means an aged person.

A comprehensive look at the Biblical application of the word “elders” will be in tomorrow’s post.

Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., argued that a body of elders is the New Testament model of church structure. He made a clear distinction between "elder-led" and "elder-rule," flatly rejecting the Presbyterian model that makes a distinction between teaching elders and ruling elders. Instead, Dever offered a biblical argument for an elder-led form of congregationalism in which the congregation serves as a "final court of appeal" in the decision-making process.

The problem arises when we realize that under the elder-rule model, the congregation often has little or no say in the matters of the church. A select group rules and controls all or most of the decisions of the church. This is not consistent with the concept of a congregational form of government, nor does it agree with the substantial Biblical view.

James Leo Garrett, distinguished professor emeritus of theology at Southwestern Seminary, said the practice of elder rule in Baptist churches constitutes a serious erosion of congregational polity. He believes that congregational polity is being rejected in some Southern Baptist churches because it is time-consuming and sometimes difficult.

Garrett said, "Decision-making as to the life, ministry and mission of a church should not be rigidly separated from the living out of the life, ministry and mission. Members who are involved in one should be involved in the other."

Indeed, there have been incidents of the leadership of a congregational church encouraging a switch to an elder rule format in order to simplify the business of the church. Others have done so in order to reduce the power of the congregation to introduce issues and bring them to a vote for approval. This later is a very serious breach of the understanding a congregation might have as to how the church polity operates.

The elder-led model as a form of congregationalism does not present as many issues as the elder-rule model. This is partly due to a general consensus on the biblical teaching about the number of church offices.

David Dockery, president of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee has this to say: "It is commonly agreed by all that there are not three distinct church offices, but two in the New Testament -- that of deacon and that of elder/overseer/pastor, God intended for there to be at least one leader and perhaps a team of leaders in each congregation." That would correspond to a lead pastor and any number of co-pastors or associate pastors. Dockery said, “…being elder-led is quite consistent with congregational polity."

All things considered, the issue of elders in a congregational church boils down to one of motive. If the motive for using elders is suspect, the whole process should not be undertaken. If elders are chosen to assist the church in leadership, while maintaining the integrity of congregationalism, then it becomes a matter of preference.

The preference of the congregation, that is.

THE THEOLOGY OF MUSIC IN WORSHIP

Praising God with Joy

So often I have heard things like, "If the words can't be understood, there's little point in the song." I have also heard things like, "If it does not glorify Jesus, it's not worthy of worship." Those are both true, but there are other important points to be understood about worship music as well.

For one thing, if the congregation does not know the song, they have no opportunity to use it to sing praise to the Lord.

In worship the other day, I looked around the auditorium from the back where I was sitting. I noticed that for all three songs that were used, only about 20% were singing. I asked some of them about it after the service and their universal response was that they did not know the songs.

It is inexcusable to use music for praise that the congregation does not know or that is not really easy to pick up on. That is an anathema. They are deliberately excluded from the worship experience.

Now it is probably true that at no time will all of the congregation know the songs, even if they are well known hymns. New Christians might not know them. More mature Christians might have come from another denomination that did not use those particular songs. But the songs chosen for worship should always be songs that most of the congregation can sing most of the time. Otherwise, why bother?

New songs are great, but they should be introduced to the congregation over time, perhaps one week by the instrumentalist, the next week by the praise team or choir, then as an offertory. Once the congregation has heard the song often, it can then feel comfortable singing it.

That means it can take a long time to introduce a new song to the congregation, right? Right. That's a good thing.

I have often heard how the style of music is not important (a line of thought that ought to work both ways, but usually means, "We're going to force our style of music on you whether you like it or not). That may well be true. But if the song is not known by the congregation, it should not be used until they can worship with it.

That requires a lot of repeating of songs they already know while they are being exposed to the new song(s). That's very true. Repeats are fine. Nobody I know buys a CD, plays it once and then discards it. CDs are usually played over and over. The same is true of digital music on an I-Pod.

The second important feature of good congregational music is that it must be theologically correct. It is appalling how much abject heresy is allowed to be sung in our churches, in both new and old songs.

One song that is heretical in it message is a "great old hymn," named, "I Am Satisfied with Jesus." What an absolute travesty! Not because we should not be satisfied with Jesus. Of course we should. The issue is with the question that closes the refrain of the song, "The question comes to me as I think of Calvary: 'Is my Savior satisfied with me?'" The question implies a kind of spiritual behaviorism that pleases God, which is impossible. We cannot please God with our actions. We can only please Him with our faith. Righteous action should follow our faith, but it is with our faith that God is pleased.

Another song I've heard is not so old (but not really new, either). It reads: He became a man like me, laid aside his deity, to feel my every need. And all the hurts I ever knew, Jesus Christ went through,  to live his life through me.

Laid aside His deity? When did He do that? He never did that! He was from the beginning, is now and ever shall be one and the same with God! When the Son of God became a man in the womb of the Virgin Mary did He lay aside His deity? When God was born in a humble stable in Bethlehem did He become less than God? The answer to these questions is infinitely more important than the writer of these cleverly rhyming lyrics ever considered. “He became a man like me” is true, but “laid aside his deity”? No way!

“Shout to the Lord” is used widely in contemporary worship circles. It won Song of the Year at the Dove Awards in 1998. It has been estimated that it is sung by 30 million Christians around the world. It espouses the importance of world-wide unity, which, of course, is the false ecumenical philosophy. The overall theme of this song is in open and direct rebellion to the Word of God.

If a church uses songs by: GERON DAVIS, BRIAN DOERKSEN, RICK FOUNDS, KEITH AND KRISTYN GETTY, JACK HAYFORD, author of the song Majesty (which teaches the Pentecostal kingdom-now theology), GRAHAM KENDRICK, MICHAEL LEDNER, MARTY NYSTROM, MARTY SAMPSON, and even MICHAEL W. SMITH, you had better look closely at the words to determine whether they are doctrinally correct. People like CHRIS TOMLIN, STEWART TOWNSEND, VINEYARD CHURCHES, DARLENE ZSCHECH and the HILLSONG are worthy of scrutiny.

Sometimes the songs written by these people were never meant to be heretical. They were often written to force a rhyme in the lyric using some trite or spiritual sounding phrases. But people who learn these songs and memorize them are often memorizing false doctrines (see I Timothy for a treatise on false doctrine).

Far too much contemporary praise music is filled with great spiritual deception and apostasy, and central to that apostasy is the Charismatic movement. Its visions are false; its doctrine is corrupt; its practice is confusion and disorder. Fundamental Baptists and Bible-believing churches that use charismatic contemporary praise music will find that this music brings with it a philosophy that will soon change the character of any fundamentalist church.

SUNDAY SOUNDS OF PRAISE-Unfailing Love-Evie Karlsson (from out of the past)

A Study in Genesis - Chapter 37

One fourth of Genesis is about Joseph. It took only five words explain all of the cosmos “He made the cosmos also.” God’s priority with Joseph is to make him a picture of Christ. Anywhere you touch in the story of Joseph you’ll see Jesus. He is one of two of whom there is mentioned no sin (Daniel is the other). Joseph sinned, but his sin is not mentioned. He lived a life of integrity (not much of that around nowadays).

Verse 2 - Jacob (Jacob and Israel are the same person) lived in Canaan.  Joseph was in harmony with his father and accountable to his father (a picture of Jesus).  Being in harmony with God results from following the right course. We will either fear the Lord (the beginning of wisdom) or we will fear man. If we fear man we face a certain snare. Our concern is always: What do they think of me?

Verse 3 - The coat of many colors is literally a coat of big sleeves. That coat would indicate that Jacob put Joseph in charge of the family affairs. Usually the older child got the big sleeves. For this, Joseph was hated by his brothers like Jesus was hated by “his own (the Jews and Pharisees).”

Verse 4-11 - Joseph tells his brothers about his dream of his authority.  In verse 9, Joseph tells of his brothers making obeisance to him. In verse 10, He says that even mom and dad would bow to Joseph. Why? Joseph would speak the truth even if the truth was unpopular or offensive. In this picture, the sheaves are the world’s resources and the stars are the world’s rulers. Both will bow down to Jesus some day.

12 - 13 - Joseph's brothers went to Shechem where their sister had been raped and Levi and Simian became mass murderers. Great place to go.

Verse 14 - Jacob (Israel) sent Joseph to go check up on his brothers welfare. As Jesus did what His Father asked, so Joseph did as his father asked. Shechem was bad, but Calvary was worse. Joseph left the Valley of Hebron. Hebron means fellowship. I’m sending you out of fellowship and into Shechem. When Jesus cried from the cross, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” He left the fellowship of His Father to bear the penalty for our sins.

Look for Jesus in whatever Scripture you are reading. If you don’t you will miss the point and no matter what applications you might make, they will be wrong if they do not include Jesus.

Jesus told of the landlord who sent messengers to gather the rent. Each was killed. The landlord said, “I will send my son. Him they will reverence.” But they killed the son. The Pharisees had killed prophet after prophet (messengers) and they killed the Son (Jesus).

Verses 15-22 - Jacob thought his children would reverence his son. Joseph found his brothers in a place called Dothan. Dothan means “double sickness.” The brothers sought to kill Joseph. Reuben tried to prevent them from killing him. Reuben is a picture of Pilate. Do you remember when Pilate tried to get Jesus off the hook with the Pharisees? His “brothers” wanted Him dead, but Pilate saw no fault in Him. He had Him whipped but did not kill Him. Like Reuben tried to get Joseph off the hook.

Verses 23- 28 - They stripped Joseph of his big sleeved robe, like Jesus’ robe was ripped from Him. A company of Ishmaelites (do you remember Ishmael, the source of Islam?) came along and the brothers sold Joseph to the them for silver. That should bring to mind that Judas sold out Jesus silver.The Jews wanted the gentiles to rid them of Jesus. The Pharisees could not execute people (unless you were a woman caught in adultery or wanted to push Jesus over a cliff), so they convinced the Roman government to do it for them..

Joseph's brothers threw him into a deep hole from which they though he could not escape. (Pilate said Jesus would not be able to get out of the tomb. He put his seal on the tomb to ensure that it was secure.)

The brothers took the big sleeved coat and dipped them in blood. Jacob (Israel) thought Joseph had been killed by a beast. This is a picture of how the Pharisees paid the Roman soldiers to lie abut the empty tomb. They said someone had come and taken Jesus’ body.

Jacob (Israel) was deceived by his kids the same way he had deceived his own dad. Jacob mourned for his son. Jacob (Israel) rent his clothes.

Ever the mercenaries, the Midianites sold Joseph to the Egyptians as a slave.

Remember that all of Scripture looks at Jesus. God says every chapter of Scripture is important. As Christians, we are to personally become an illustration of Christ. That’s who we are to be individually and as the church.

The Church at Worship

The church is the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ. What does that mean? How does that affect what we do and how we do it?

Let’s begin with an understanding of who Christ is. Christ is from the Greek word for the Old Testament Hebrew word Messiah. Jesus is Christ. As Christ, He is one with God. If you know Him you know the Father. According to John 1, He is the one through whom God created all that has been created.

Christ is not just some religious leader who lived and died. He is the Son of God. He is the embodiment of Yahweh. He is alive and worthy of both our praise and our best.

If He is to get anything done on this earth, He will get it done through His body, the church. If He is to be honored, He will be honored by His bride, the church. That is how He has chosen to work.

Each Sunday we meet to worship Him and to celebrate His resurrection. His resurrection on the first day of the week is why we meet on Sunday and not on the Sabbath.

Because of who He is, Jesus deserves our very best, not our hand-me-downs. If He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, is He not more important than a governor, a prince, a king or a president? Isn’t He worthy of our entire being? Of course He is.

So why are our worship services often so sloppily put together as though “…after all, it’s just us poor little Christians doing something for sweet Jesus. He’ll understand.” Do you think He understands that attitude?

Worship services should be great, grand, majestic and filled with real heart-born praise. They should not be fraught with distractions, stumbling progressions and thoughtless mistakes.

There are significant differences between the ability of many small churches and many large churches to accomplish well executed worship services. Some small churches do not have a staff that is trained, members who are proficient or the resources to put together a well ordered worship service.

Sadly, far too many large churches, who have more resources, treat worship as though it were nothing more than a church-wide fellowship, a time of fun and chaos.

A well planned worship service deliberately invites the congregation’s participation. It is devoid of long pauses between the events of worship. It is not distracted by squeals and shrieks from the sound system. It has no long waits while the next person on the “program” walks from half-way back in the auditorium to mount the stage and give his testimony or whatever. The announcements are well rehearsed and presented effectively, not with sterility, but with excellence and enthusiasm.

In a well “orchestrated” worship service, the progression is seamless. Participants are where they belong when they belong there. They know what they are to do, how to do it and how much time they have to do it. As the old saying goes, “Proper prior planning prevents poor pitiful performance.”

Great worship does not just happen. It does not occur “when God shows up.” (Ahem…if He is omnipresent, He was there all along, wasn’t He?) Great worship is hard, even exhausting work. Just the laying out of a given worship service can be expected to take several hours of intense, focused planning. Implementing it requires even more time and effort. It takes rehearsal, practice, communicating and execution.

The purpose of all of this work and quality is not to show off how well leaders can do things. It is to lead the congregation in a deliberate, fulfilling worship experience that they can know they’re a part of. It is to find the line that distinguishes between “worldly professionalism” and true, spiritual excellence.

We take care of our bodies, don’t we? We feed them, clothe them and cover them with a roof. Does not a bride want to present her best to her groom?

Should we do any less for the one who is the head of the Body, for our Bridegroom, Christ?

A COMMENTARY ON I TIMOTHY

Matthew 15:9

These are the words of the one who introduced the idea of the New Covenant: “I am against the prophets who wag their own tongues and yet declare ‘The Lord Declares.’” (Jeremiah 23:31). He is speaking about false prophets who teach false doctrines.

The book of I Timothy is often presented as a collection of instructions about grace, worship, servers, pastors, widows, elders, slaves and money. All of those things are in I Timothy, but they are not what the letter is about.

Some have presented I Timothy as a book on how to be a leader. That approach requires that one ignore what the book actually says. It is actually a book on how to avoid having leaders who espouse false doctrines in their lives and in their teachings in the church. That's important because the church is rife with teachers, deacons and other leaders who actually teach hypocrasy. Their false doctrines should have been known and they should never have been put in office.

If God says something once, it is important. If He says it twice, it is very, very important. If God says something three or more times, you can count on it, it is supremely important.

Paul mentions ONE TOPIC three times in his letter to Timothy. He introduces the subject, develops the subject and reiterates the subject. That subject is false doctrines in the Body of Christ. Everything in I Timothy relates to that one issue.

In chapter one, Paul introduces the subject of false doctrines. As a point of reference, he reviews what Christ has done for whom. In other words, he presents the gospel. He then speaks about orderly and respectful worship followed by the selection of leaders.

Why does Paul spend so much time dealing with sound worship and the careful selection of leaders? Paul did not want Timothy to have to deal with teachers of false doctrine in the leadership of the church.

In chapter 4, Paul delves more deeply into the nature and characteristics of false doctrine. He calls those teachers “hypocritical liars” with no conscience. He gives two very significant illustrations of what they are teaching. They are forbidding marriage and are calling some foods unclean. There are other false doctrines being taught, but Paul chooses these two for a very important reason: they are illustrative of the relationship between Christ and the church.

The concept of marriage, from Genesis to the Revelation, is a picture of Christ’s relationship to the church. The church is the Bride of Christ. To consider marriage something to be forbidden would be to deny that relationship. It would mean some would be prevented from becoming a part of the Body by marriage.

The idea that some foods are forbidden is contrary to Peter’s vision when all sorts of “unclean” animals were lowered before him and he was commanded to eat of them. When he resisted, God said that he was not to dare call unclean that which God had called clean. That is a picture of the universal availability of salvation. Anyone, Jew or Gentile, can be saved.

The teaching that some cannot be part of the Bride of Christ and the teaching that some cannot be saved because they are “unclean” are false doctrines. Paul tells Timothy to gently correct those who teach such nonsense. He tells him to stand strong, even though he is young and might be ridiculed. He says Timothy should preach the gospel and only the gospel, and have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales.

Paul tells Timothy to diligently teach the gospel and to watch his life and his doctrine as a strong witness to the grace of God.

In chapter 5, Paul explains how Timothy is to deal with those who teach false doctrines and how to live in a way that gives testimony to the doctrine he had been taught. His leadership will be recognized and accepted.

Paul wraps up this discourse on false doctrines with a further revelation about false doctrine. He draws a picture of those false teachers as conceited and understanding nothing. He exposes them as fakes who are really seeking financial gain. They love of money results in their willingness to take all kinds of unethical practices and teachings.

In contrast, Timothy is to flee all false doctrine, especially for monetary gain, and is to steep himself in the sound teachings of the gospel of eternal life.

In closing, Paul reminds Timothy that he has been entrusted with exposing false teachings and pointing people toward Jesus Christ. He is to turn away from false doctrine that pretends to be wise and knowledgeable. He is to be steeped in God’s grace.