Truth Magazine

By Dan King

When Paul addressed his second letter to the Christians at Thessalonica, he did so in the midst of feverish excitement. Some measure of this excitement may be explained by what he had written in his first letter. In writing about the second coming of Christ and other matters having to do with the end of the present order of things, the apostle evidently touched upon a tender spot for some of his readers. They were people who enjoyed delving into the future and so were crazed by these delightful tidbits, some to the point that it was all they cared about. Paul had talked of Christ’s coming with His saints (3:13); he told them not to be concerned about their departed love ones who had died in the Lord, since they would also share in the resurrection when Christ came again in glory (4:13-18); and he had warned of the sudden doom of the wicked at the return of Jesus on account of their lack of preparation (5:1-11, also 23). Either Paul was misunderstood about these matters, or else someone had maliciously circulated a rumor or letter suggesting this return, about which he had had so much to say, was imminent (1 Thess. 3:6-12). However it happened, a number had apparently forsaken work to become dependent upon the church for their survival (2 Thess. 3:6-12). This may have been the first case of people becoming frenzied about the subject of eschatology or “last things,” but history on this count has repeated itself many, many times.

This matter of the “Man of Sin” has itself proven a thorny question about which much ink has been spilled and many long and tedious arguments made. That is true in spite of the fact that Paul intended his remarks to settle the matter for the brethren at Thessalonica. With the language of a removed future, he spoke of the arrival of a figure upon the scene of history whose dark shadow would fall upon the church and remain there until the very coming of Christ. Who this person was (or is to be) has troubled expositors throughout the centuries. Many elaborate theories have been spun to reply to the question. It is the purpose of the present article to pursue the inquiry, noting the various possible identifications and concluding with what we deem to be the appropriate answer to the problem. We believe that it has too often been the case that students have been overly concerned about hurting the religious feelings of someone else and too little concerned with making the right choice among the alternatives. We shall try not to fall prey to that temptation in the present study. It is not our desire to injure the sensitivities of others, either, but the truth ought to be of paramount importance on this issue as on all others which touch the faith once delivered to the saints.

Preliminary Comments

In 2 Thessalonians 2 Paul warns that Christ will not come until the appearance of the “Man of Sin” or “Son of Perdition.” He also specifies that his coming is to be attended by a falling away. The term apostasia is used by him to refer to this event. It is the Greek equivalent ofour term “apostasy” and the word from which our term derives. It appears that there is obvious and intentional connection to be made between its usage here and in 1 Timothy 4:1 where Paul writes that “in later times some shall fall away from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons . . . .” There is little likelihood that he would have in mind two separate apostasies, even though it is true that in 2 Thessalonians 2 only the “Man of Sin” is mentioned. The “Man of Sin” figure is himself merely a single feature of a much larger phenomenon which Paul alludes to as “the falling away” (2 Thess. 2:3). The fact that apostasy has occurred makes his appearance possible in the first place and allows it to continue and even prosper in the second.

We may summarize the outline of what Paul has to say about the “Man of Sin” and his arrival with the following:

(1) He arises out of the great apostasy or rebellion (v. 3).

(2) He is a person; more specifically, a man (v. 3).

(3) He is an object of worship and veneration by his own wish (v. 4). In this way he compares favorably with the person described in Daniel 11:36, though the two are not the same.

(4) He sits in the temple of God boasting his own godhood (v. 4).

(5) His appearance is encouraged by the “mystery of lawlessness,” already at work in Paul’s own time (v. 7).

(6) He is only revealed after that which restrains is removed (v. 7). When mentioned in the abstract, the neuter, impersonal, “that which” is used. When mentioned in personification, the masculine gender, “he who” is used. In all probability this refers to the principle of order which restrains the working of evil. So long as that order which God ordained remains intact, he is hindered from making his appearance.

(7) He is not overthrown until the parousia (“coming” or “presence”) of Christ (v. 8). Whether this is to be taken as referring to the second coming of Christ or of some “return” for purposes of judgment is a question answered differently by different writers. Mention of God’s coming judgment upon the Jews in I Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the accompanying use of the word parousia in v. 20 of the same chapter has led to speculation that in both cases he means the same thing. But parousia in v. 20 has no obvious connection with what Paul describes in vv. 14-16. Moreover, the excitement at Thessalonica was not over the fall of Jerusalem and collapse of the Jewish state, but had to do with the return of Jesus and the resurrection of the dead in Christ (cf. 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:13-18; 5:1-10, 23-24). The idea that the fall of the Roman Empire is under consideration has even less to be said on its behalf.

(8) His own “coming” (parousia) is “according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders” (v. 9). Fake miracles thus characterize the reign of the “Man of Sin.”

(9) His continued success in keeping followers in his control and under his spell is based upon the “working of error,” lies, and the carnal desire to enjoy the pleasure of unrighteousness (vv. 10-11). False doctrines, and those who love to believe them and are devoid of the love of truth, are what sustain him and his position.

The expression “Man of Sin” is replaced in some of the ancient manuscripts by “Man of Lawlessness.” Some exegetes have concluded that this is the preferable reading, being that it seems to fit in better with v. 7-8. But lawlessness is failure to conform to the law of God and this is what sin is (I Jn. 3:4). I, therefore, fail to see that there is a great deal of difference which of the two possible readings is elected. The other phrase used to describe this person, i.e. “Son of Perdition,” is both textually and definitionally secure. The meaning, as Moffatt’s translation bears out, is “the doomed one.” Hell is his eventual place.

Paul’s first motive for introducing the discussion of this figure is also worth noting here. He attempts by introduction of the “Man of Sin” to wean the Thessalonians away from the idea of absolute immediacy in dealing with the subject of “last things.” Christ will not come “except the falling away come first.” For him it becomes a simple matter of God requiring more time to fulfill a prophetic forecast than imminency will allow. Thus, if it may be shown that this prophecy has seen its realization, then nothing has remained from the time of its fulfillment to the present hour that would hinder the return of the Lord.

What makes difficult our efforts at specifically identifying the one under consideration is the fact that no one of the views which has been put forward is able to take every part of the prophecy literally. This is not at all odd in dealing with prophecy for it is regularly filled with symbolism. But to many people the very fact that a view requires some close study and a text does not yield its meaning upon first glance gives them the impression it is somehow less legitimate than it would be otherwise. In the case of the “Man of Sin” one soon finds out that no one can take -literally every part of what is found here and that everyone must learn to live with the essential, though at times complicated, nature of biblical prophecy.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 140-141
March 3, 1983

By Aude McKee

Olan Hicks, in his tract on divorce and remarriage, gives considerable attention to 1 Corinthians chapter 7. We reproduce the second paragraph on page 8:

But someone will ask, what about verses 10 and I1? Is it not an order to remain unmarried if one separates from a mate? No. She has the option of being reconciled to her husband. But the key, which many overlook, is the fact that verse 10 says this is intended to be applied “to the married.” The conflict comes when this instruction is taken out of that category 4nd forced into application to the divorced and other categories than the married. The inspired apostle here said that Jesus spoke this for married people. He, by the Holy Spirit, gave a different instruction “to the unmarried and widows” in verses 8-9, as well as to the “loosed” in verse 28, and other categories. We ought to accept this position of interpreting what Paul said.

Instead of this being a passage favorable to Olan’s position, it destroys it. Who are in the “unmarried” category? Scripturally, those who have never married, those who have been married but their mates have died, and those who have put away a mate for the cause of fornication and have not formed another relationship. How does Olan define the “unmarried” group? Those who have never married, those who have been married but their mates have died, and those who are divorced! This passage in 1 Corinthians 7 teaches that a husband is not to leave his wife and a wife is not to leave her husband. But if either of them does, they are to remain unmarried or be reconciled. Now, if this passage is harmonized with Matthew 19:9 (as it must be), then if either the husband or the wife puts away the other for the cause of fornication, then that person (the one who did the putting away) would not be bound to remain unmarried.

In verses 8 and 9 of this chapter the Holy Spirit said that if the unmarried and widows could not contain, they were to marry, “for it is better to marry than to burn.” But again, this must be understood in the light of who is “widowed and unmarried.” Why the wife or husband who puts away (with the exception of Matt. 19:9) is to remain unmarried or be reconciled. If every passage is given the consideration it deserves, then the Holy Spirit’s teaching becomes simple.

Verses 27 and 28 must be handled in the same way that is, by harmonizing other passages that have a bearing on the subject. How can a man be loosed from a wife? The Bible says there are two ways this is accomplished. First, by death, and Romans 7:2-3 teaches this clearly. The second way is by the wife being guilty of immorality (Matt. 19:9).

Olan also pays his respects to verse 15 of 1 Corinthians 7. He says: “His (Paul’s, a.m.) ruling of verse 15 that the believer who is deserted by an unbelieving mate is `not under bondage in such cases,’ would have to be negated to say that this person is under bondage to remain celibate for the rest of earthly life.” In other words Olan is saying that 1 Corinthians 7:15 teaches that a Christian who is deserted by an unbeliever has the right to remarry. The difficulty is, this view flies up in the -face of the other plain teaching of the chapter. Verses 10 and 11 deal with situations where there is no immorality involved and in such cases “remain unmarried or be reconciled” is the command. Then observe the verse immediately following verse 15: “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” If we take Olan’s position and say that the deserted partner is free to remarry, then we have the Lord teaching that remarriage would contribute to the unbeliever’s conversion!

It is almost always the case that once men misunderstand a scripture passage, it then becomes necessary to take the uninspired pen also to some other Bible verses, because a disharmony with several statements of Paul, particularly in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians. His command at verse 2 that every man be allowed to have his own wife and every woman be allowed to have her own husband, must be modified to read, “except those guilty of marriage violations.” What he says at verses 8-9 concerning the unmarried and widows, that if they cannot contain they must be allowed to marry, would have to be changed to, “only if they are not guilty of previous marital infractions.” His ruling of verse 15 that the believer who is deserted by an unbelieving mate is “not under bondage in such cases.” would have to be negated to say that this person IS under bondage to remain celibate for the rest of earthly life. At verse 28 Paul said that one who is “loosed from a wife,” does not sin in marrying, but we must add, “provided he did the divorcing and provided it was on the ground of fornication.” Here are four express statements, absolutely clear in what they say, and all given without any hint whatever that they might not apply to some, but according to the traditional concept we must not accept a single one of them exactly as it is written, let alone all four of them. And why? Because they seem to conflict with what men think Jesus meant in Matthew 19:9.

Let’s suppose that an unbelieving husband has deserted his wife, who is a Christian. Now the lesson of 1 Corinthians 7:15 is simply this: if the unbeliever is not content to dwell with the believer because of her faith and determination to serve the Lord, then the believer is not under obligation to fulfill what otherwise would be her responsibilities to her husband. Some of these responsiblities are set forth by the Spirit in verses 3-5 of the chapter. She is “free” from her marital obligations, but certainly nothing is said about her being at liberty to marry again. This has been added by those who want to escape the limitations placed on remarriage by the Lord in Matthew 19:9.

Another point we feel needs to be made is in regard to the “burden” imposed by the Lord’s instructions. We seem to get the impression that Olan is saying the limitations are too great for a man to bear if he can’t marry again after an unscriptural divorce. But what about a man whose wife (say in her early 30’s) develops a mental disease and she is confined to an institution the rest of her life. Are we supposed to try to twist some scriptures so the husband can divorce his wife and form another relationship? Are we to feel so much pity that we will torture God’s Word so the man can find relief? We say to Olan, and all the rest of us, that the answer to the marriage problem in America and around the world, lies in a renewed investigation of God’s regulations regarding that relationship, and a sharp increase in respect for the Lord’s authority.

In his tract on divorce and remarriage, Olan Hicks accuses those who teach that the word “adultery” in Matthew 19:9, means “unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another” are guilty of “forbidding to marry.” We reproduce paragraphs 2 and 3 from page 10:

A Mark of Apostasy: Perhaps the most objectionable feature of this tradition is the fact that it simply means a great many people must be forbidden to have a mate at all. They are judged to have become ineligible to ever participate in marriage relationships again. And this is held to be unchangeable, regardless of their repentance or any other consideration. Once placed in this category, they must remain forever so, as long as they live on the earth. Thus, instead of respecting the divine will which from the beginning noted that “it is not good that the man should be alone,” we wind up with two categories of people, those who may have mates and those who may not have mates.

It would be hard to imagine a more serious indictment that could be brought against a doctrine than to identify it as a feature of the great apostasy of the last times. But this doctrine is so identified in the scriptures. Paul, in predicting the great falling away, that some would give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils and speak lies, specified two features that would characterize that departure as “forbidding to marry” and “commanding to abstain from meats” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). It is biblical to regulate marriage. Urging people not to sin against marriage is, in fact, the content of what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9. But forbidding them to have a mate at all as a consequence of having committed that sin, is a different thing altogether. This is a human judgment, not a Bible teaching, and is identified in 1 Timothy 4 with having departed from the way of God entirely.

We hope our readers will open their Bibles and examine the passage in 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Our brother has made a “serious indictment” (as he says), but the thing that makes it so serious – it just isn’t so! Now it is true that there are certain religious groups that forbid marriage to certain individuals. The Catholic Church, for example, forbids their officials to marry from the Pope down to the parish priests. We certainly agree that the passage in 1 Timothy would have application to them. But to apply it to those who teach that adultery means what the Greek scholars say it means, is indeed a radical position. Those who read the tract must look deeper than emotional appeals such as this.

But to get right down to the real issue, the statement in 1 Timothy 4:3, “forbidding to marry” would have application only if the person under consideration was forbidding that which the Lord allows. The Lord does not allow a second marriage when the first one was terminated for some reason other than fornication (Matt. 19:9), and those who say that He does are adding to God’s word.

I do not know who came up with this position now being taught by brother Hicks, but whoever did certainly covered a lot of ground. By defining “adultery” as “the act of divorcing and remarrying,” then just a number of false positions taken by preachers over the past years are encompassed. One brother argued a number of years ago that alien sinners are not amenable to God’s law of marriage. And so whatever relationships a person may have formed before obeying the gospel didn’t count. He could keep whatever wife he happened to have when he was converted. Olan’s position takes care of all who may have believed this.

Then there have been those who believed that when a couple were unscripturally married, the first time they went to bed a sin was committed, but from then on it was not adultery. So all they had to do was repent of that one act and they could remain together. Olan’s position takes care of all who have believed this.

And there have been those who took the position that baptism “washes away sin” and so baptism would take care of any divorce and remarriage (not realizing that Acts 22:16 has to do with sin and not husbands and wives). Those who believed that idea would have Acts 22:16 read: “Arise and be baptized and wash away thy first husband (wife).” But Olan’s definition of “adultery” makes it great for all those who hold that position.

Also there have been those who. propagated the idea that since the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:9 were not repeated after the cross, they are not binding. The teaching that Olan does on Matthew 19:9 certainly makes it comfortable for these folk.

There are those who teach that the guilty party of Matthew 19:9 has the same right of marriage as the one who does the putting away. Of course, Olan’s definition of “adultery” opens the way for those who believe this.

Surely whoever came up with this idea that Olan is teaching must have had an IQ bordering on the genius area. The only thing wrong with the position – it just isn’t so! Matthew 19:9 still reads: “And 1 say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. “

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 138-139
March 3, 1983

By Jimmy Thomas

During October 25, 26, 28 and 29, 1982 a public debate was conducted in the circuit courtroom of the Pike county courthouse in Pikeville, Kentucky between Olan Hicks of Searcy, Arkansas and Rick King of Cromona, Kentucky. Joe Mattney of Richlands, Virginia served as moderator for brother Hicks and I served for brother King.

The first two nights King affirmed the following proposition: “The scriptures teach that the one who puts away his mate and marries another, except for fornication, continues to commit adultery as long as he lives with the second mate.” The last two nights Hicks affirmed: “The scriptures teach that couples who commit adultery by unscripturally divorcing and remarrying, may be forgiven of that adultery without separating.”

Observations

This discussion was held in an area which has been disturbed for sometime over the issue of divorce and remarriage. Brother Hicks’ approach to the question was novel to most who attended; yet he has lectured widely, written several booklets and had engaged in at least two prior debates on this subject. It appeared to many that he entered this discussion underestimating his opponent, who as a young man was engaging in only his second debate.

Since the discussion, reports have been received of those who have been strengthened in their opposition to unscriptural divorce and remarriage. A few, including area preachers, have changed their views and are now standing opposed to such marriages. Some who were responsible for brother Hicks’ part in the debate have openly expressed their dissatisfaction with his efforts. On the other hand, nothing but praise has been heard for brother King’s thorough preparation and powerful presentation.

Arguments

Rick’s main argument was that in a scriptural marriage “God joins the man and his wife together in a covenant relationship witnessed by Him” (Mal. 2:14; Prov. 2:17). This covenant, he insisted, “binds them to one another as long as they live” (Rom. 7:2, 3), “God joins,” he said, “and only God can release. We read that He releases one from the bond by reason of marital unfaithfulness by one’s mate (Mt. 19:9).” He then concluded that the Bible reveals no other cause for which God releases one from “the marriage bond.”

Olan charged that Rick’s position was the same as the “Catholic sacrament theory.” He demanded the Scripture where any apostle ever required the unscripturally married to separate. Rick responded that repentance called for giving up an adulterous relationship (Acts 26:20). He also stated that polygamists and homosexuals could not continue with such illicit mates, yet there is no specific incident of their being told to separate.

Hicks contended that the relationship of those unscripturally divorced and remarried was not wrong although it was entered by sin. He insisted that “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 had nothing to do with a sex act. According to him, to “divorce” and “remarry” constituted “adultery.” When Rick persisted in calling for one lexicographer who gave such a definition of “adultery” he read Thayer’s secondary meaning (p. 417) where the word for “adulteress” is used figuratively in James 4:4. Rick pointed out that even in the figurative use, the literal meaning is under consideration, i.e. “unlawful intercourse with another’s wife.” He also showed from Hicks’ writings that he did not really know himself where the sin is, as he one time wrote: “He does not sin if he marries” and again “marrying is where the sin is.” Furthermore, Hicks stated that “divorce is a sin” yet wrote that it was not.

Hicks claimed that Paul gave “100 percent of men and 100 percent of women” the right to marry (1 Cor. 7:2). He charged that to forbid marriage is to teach “the doctrines of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). He argued that Paul allowed all divorced people to remarry (1 Cor. 7:27, 28); yet he also insisted that Jesus said the two acts – divorce and remarriage – were adultery (Mt. 19:9). King pointed out that Hicks’ position was unclear and contradictory throughout.

On Romans chapter seven Hicks claimed that Paul was talking to those under the law of Moses, which did not allow women to divorce their husbands. King stated that it was the law of her husband to which she was bound (Rom. 7:2). He explained that Paul was showing how the Jews were now free from the law to be married to Christ, since they had died to the law, just as a wife is free to marry again when her husband dies. Hicks said that “the law did not die and it did not commit adultery.” He asserted that the Jews were divorced from the law and married to Christ. Rick charged Hicks with teaching that Christ came in and broke up the marriage of the Jews to the law and stole away the law’s bride.

This is not intended as a full review of the debate but only to give a brief overview. If you wish copies of the tapes send four quality 120 minute blank tapes to Rick King, Box 185, Cromona, KY 41810. I suggest that you send plenty of stamps along to cover postage.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, p. 137
March 3, 1983

By Dorval L. McClister

Introduction

Christ is the chief shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4) over the saints with the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1).

Elders In Every Church

The eldership of the local church is always a subject of discussion. Problems arise, decisions must be made, and the elders are the men upon whom much responsibility rests in trying to solve problems, uphold truth, and keep unity among those who comprise the local congregation.

These articles are designed as an aid in the study of selecting elders and in getting acquainted with their work and their problems. I have chosen this title, SHEPHERD STAFFS, simply because the contents of the book relate primarily to the work of elders. As a preacher and as one who also serves as an elder, I have experienced the difference between preaching a sermon directed toward a particular problem and the literal application of the sermon to the problem. Experience is a great teacher. Serving as a preacher may not make you a better elder, but serving as an elder will make you a better preacher.

I have not written this material as a source of advice to elders or anyone else, nor as a source of infallible information upon the subjects discussed. However, as elders of the church there comes a time when both sides of a matter must be weighed carefully and on the bottom line a decision made. If something can be gleaned from these pages which will give you a better understanding of the topics discussed, then the effort will have accomplished its purpose.

What Is An Elder?

The word elder carries a dual meaning in the New Testament Scriptures. The word may have reference primarily to an older person, hence an elder or older. The word is also used. to designate a special work or function of certain men within the church. The Greek word presburteros is the word from which we get the word elder, or the idea of an older person, one advanced in age. These were the heads, rulers, and leaders of the tribes and families of Israel portrayed in the Old Testament (Num. 11:16; Deut. 27:1). This concept is carried over into the New Testament in such passages as 1 Timothy 5:17. The work of an elder in the church in described by another word, episkopos, and is translated “bishop” in 1 Timothy 3:1, and “overseer” in Acts 20:28. The word “bishop” is not a title, but rather describes the work as that of an overseer. A plurality of men is required by the New Testament Scriptures to oversee the local congregation. Paul ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23), and instructed Titus to ordain elders in every city (Titus 1:5). The work of elders is also described as the work of shepherds or pastors (Eph. 4:11). These are not titles of preachers, nor do they describe the work of an evangelist. Elders are older men who have the abilities (qualifications) to oversee, lead, guide, and shepherd the local church. In the New Testament church Christ is the chief shepherd (1 Pet. 5:4) over the saints with the bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1).

Elders In Every Church

The church at Philippi was complete in its organization, being comprised of saints, bishops and deacons (Phil. 1:1). Paul and Barnabas ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23). There is something seriously lacking in a local congregation which does not produce men who are qualified to serve as elders. This may be due to a lack of teaching and preaching on the subject, or in some cases men who have the qualifications just do not desire the office of a bishop. They are often reluctant to take the position of leadership because they fear the usual criticisms that are heaped upon the elders, or they may have seen godly elders abused and slandered by members of the church. It does require a great amount of courage to stand up against error, apathy, hypocrisy, unbelief, and every other evil that enters in among God’s people. But a strong, united eldership can conquer these foes and maintain the doctrinal and moral purity that is required within the church. If you meet the qualifications for serving as an elder, let it be known that you desire the work and that you are willing to give your strength and your talents in this service. If there are no elders in the local church where you worship, then begin to encourage men of the congregation to strive for this important work.

Authority Of Elders

The eldership of a local congregation is not a legislative body. Elders make no laws. The New Testament is the law of the Lord in the church, and elders are required to carry out or apply that law without addition to it or subtraction from it. Yet some have reached the conclusion that elders serve only as .examples for others and have no right to make scriptural demands that require others to comply. The Hebrew writer says, “Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account” (Heb. 13:17). Peter says, “Feed (shepherd or pastor) the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof . . .” (1 Pet. 5:2). Elders have the authority to rule and take the oversight. Elders are authorized overseers (Acts 20:28) of the local church, and members are to submit to elders in the application of God’s Law. The authority of elders is the authority to demand compliance to the laws of Christ within the church. Elders may become corrupt and abuse their responsibilities, and in such cases they are to be rebuked before all (1 Tim. 5:20). Sermons dealing with the relationship of the elders to the flock ought to be preached often, and members of the church ought to understand that elders have the authority to demand that they conduct themselves as is becoming the gospel of Christ.

It also must be pointed out that elders oversee only the flock of God which is among them (1 Pet. 5:2). Elders of the local church have no say in any matters which involve another congregation. Their rule and oversight begins and ends with the local congregation. When congregations enter into cooperations by combining their resources and functioning through a sponsoring church arrangement, and where elders of one congregation oversee the work of other congregations, then there are elders over elders and results in the formation of an unscriptural organization. This is the erroneous foundation upon which all sponsoring church type of organizations rests. Elders have no biblical authority to form sponsoring church organizations in which funds from other congregations are collected and spent at the discretion of the elders of one church. The sponsoring church arrangement simply places many congregations under the oversight of one eldership, and the elders of a local congregation ought to have sufficient wisdom to see the unscriptural scheme and reject it.

Selecting Men To Serve

Men are to be selected from within the congregation to serve as elders. This is a place and a work designed for men, not women, as the qualifications set forth in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 clearly show. It is not the intent of this discussion to enter into lengthy definitions of all the qualifications set forth in these passages. You may read these passages and determine the characteristics demanded. However, based upon my personal experience, I would like to discuss some thoughts which I believe to be important and which are sometimes overlooked in the selection of men who are to serve as elders.

How Old?

One such thought has to do with the question of how old one should be before he is to be considered as elder material. Here is where the idea of elder, or older, comes into focus. While the New Testament does not set a definite age, it does imply the exclusion of younger men. The idea of elder, or older men, implies wisdom, knowledge, and spiritual maturity and stability. Sometimes a man is considered or expresses his desire for the work of an elder because he has children who have been baptized. He may be a man of thirty-five who has been a member for ten or fifteen years and has a twelve year old son and a ten year old daughter. During the past year the son and daughter were baptized, so now he has believing children. The conclusion is often stated that if a man is old enough to have believing children, then he is old enough to serve as an elder. This, I believe, requires some serious thought. We must realize that the crucial test in raising children is that period between the ages of 12 and 17. It will be during this period when his ability to rule his own house will be seen.

Another thing to notice with younger men is, although having young children who have been baptized, does he show laxity with his children? Are they allowed to miss services of the church to attend ball games, social functions, camping trips, etc.? These thoughts are not set forth as picking with a fine-toothed comb, but rather to cause those who select men to serve as elders to look for stability and spiritual wisdom in the one selected. A man of thirty-five may qualify to serve, but a fifty year old man will present a much broader view of his life, convictions, and ability to serve than a man much younger.

Not Covetous

A covetous man is not fit in character to serve as an elder. Not covetous of course means not a lover of material things, but the word has an application in many realms.’A man may covet power, position, esteem, and opportunity. Some men seek power and position as a boss, and a man who holds such a position in the secular world will often make a poor elder. He will have a tendency to be harsh and demanding and will become dominant unless checked occasionally. Another characteristic of covetousness is stinginess. If a man is stingy with his own money in regards to the needs of himself and of his family, he will probably be the same in regards to the money in the treasury. If he has a good job and a big bank account and hates the idea of spending his money, it will be difficult for him to spend freely the money collected for preaching the gospel and assisting needy saints. He will have a tendency toward maintaining a big bank account at all times and will panic when the funds get below a thousand dollars.

Does The Man Have Time To Be An Elder?

This is an important question cause being an elder in the church requires much time. ~ he must work six or seven days each week (and all the overtime also) he will not have the time to serve as an elder. He may be sufficiently qualified in the other areas, but if he does not have the time to perform the work he will be useless as an elder. Take this thought into consideration before you announce your desire for the work and office of a bishop.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 5, pp. 135-136
March 3, 1983