Rule

by J. Miller | Category: Rule | May 1933

In recent times we have seen many changes in government and governments. Democratic and autocratic forms of rule have been put to the test, and in certain cases both have been set aside, sometimes by a process of bloodless revolution and at other times in the most sanguinary fashion. Change is in the air everywhere, and Gentile rulers peer into the future with no measure of certainty as to what the dark clouds on the horizon of their world may portend. To rule human beings is no easy task. Those who rule may adopt various methods; they may seek to reduce the people to a mass of serfs who toil under the rigour of those who govern by force, or they may seek to adopt various devices to cajole the public, or they may, by personal disinterestedness and with a desire for national righteousness, seek to rule for the welfare and peaceful development of the people, the good of the people being their sole objective in holding the reins of government. No one can fail to appreciate, to a greater or lesser degree, the blessings and benefits good government brings. Those who steer the ship of state are by Divine command to be prayed for, that under such rule God's people may more fully carry out His will than it would be possible to do were things aggressively adverse to the will of God.

But it is not my intention to deal further with such a line of things as world government and the relationship of the people of God thereto ; what I wish in this article to deal with, is rule as it affects the people of God in their direct responsibility to God and to His will. That rule amongst God's people is a divine institution is beyond all question. God has not made all men alike. He made some to rule and some to be ruled, some to be guides and some to be guided; and whilst all are to see, some are to oversee.

But before we deal with the collective form of rule, let us for a brief moment consider the individual-man. Man is a complex being, so complex that he requires to take himself in hand and rule himself. Thus Solomon writes- "He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty,

And he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city"

(Proverbs 16. 32).

And again, he says- "He whose spirit is without restraint,

Is like a city that is broken down and hath no wall."

(Proverbs 25. 28).

In recent years there have been some pitiful exhibitions in that assembly of men who seek to rule this nation (not to speak of other assemblies of lesser spheres of responsibility), by men who seemed to have no control of their own spirit. They wished to control others whilst they themselves were quite beyond control. The most humble peasant who is able to control his spirit and rule himself is better than the greatest world conqueror, who, whilst able to subdue cities, is unable to conquer his own lusts and passions. Rule begins with one's self, and no one should put his hand to the sceptre, the marshall's baton, or the ruler's staff, who has not first learned to rule himself, to bring himself within the operation of law and order which in his rule of others he would seek to do.

"Wherefore thou art without excuse, 0 man, whosoever thou art that judgest for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest dost practise the same things."

(Romans 2. 1.)

From the individual we pass to the rule of parents. Here we have joint rule, the rule of two. Children are exhorted- "Children, obey your parents in the Lord; for this is right" (Ephesians 6. 1). It is not obey your parent (sing.); sometimes, one fears, it is read this way. It may be that the father is careless and indifferent to his home responsibility and finds his pleasure elsewhere, leaving the management of the home and family to his wife. This is a colossal blunder which. will rebound with disastrous results. On the other hand it may be that the wife gets round behind her husband's back and encourages the children to do what she right well knows the 'husband would not approve of, and she sows in the children's hearts the seeds of deception and lying with all the blighting effects on the moral character of the children that this is sure to have. I emphasize again that it is "obey your parents," and let parents hearken that they may hear, for it involves joint responsibility for them ; their family cares are mutual; they must consult together and pray together for the well being and proper training of their children. Let the children hear Solomon's wisdom on the matter

My son, keep the commandment of thy father,

And forsake not the law (teaching) of thy mother

Bind them continually upon thine heart,

Tie them about thy neck.

When thou walkest, it shall lead thee;

When thou sleepest, it shall watch over thee;

And when thou awakest it shall talk with thee.

For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light;

And reproofs of instruction are the way of life.

(Proverbs 6. 20-22).

Note how father and mother are brought in, and note, too, how them of verse 21 are fused together and become it in verse 22; the commandment of the father and the law of the mother form one it, which will " lead," "watch over " and "talk with" those who give the joint rule of parents the place in their hearts it should have. And, moreover, the injunction to obey the

rule of parents is the first commandment with promise- "Honour thy father and mother (which is the first commandment with promise), that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth" (Ephesians 6. 2, 3), and let children inherit the blessing by their obedience to the divine command.

We pass now to a wider sphere of rule, namely, ecclesiastical rule, and we are well aware that some of our readers, whilst quite in agreement with what we have written thus far, may at once adopt a critical attitude, for it is obvious to even the least observant that there are many forms of ecclesiastical rule extant differing one from another. We have the hierarchy of Rome, with its supreme pontiff, and all the shades and grades of church government by an organised priesthood; and at the other extreme that democratic rule of meetings where such meetings are professedly supposed to rule themselves. These are the two extremes in government, but between them you will find various models adopted. The Church of England largely copies that of Rome. Then we have Presbyterianism, which is partly democratic in as far as the minister, elders, and deacons, are voted into their respective positions by the vote of the people. We need not specify other forms of government.

It would be an impossible task to reach truth as to Divine rule by either a lengthy general survey of the religious world, or an accurate dissecting of each sect bit by bit; we should at last find ourselves in a perfect maze where we might wander till we dropped exhausted, without finding a way out.

We turn to the clear flowing fountain of truth-the Word of God. It is quite clear that the New Testament makes no distinction between the man who is described as a Bishop (episkopos-overseer) and an Elder (presbuteros-presbyter or elder). (In Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the following is said on episkopos "An ecclesiastical superintendent in the apostolic age equal to presbuteros in the New Testament.") A slight examination of Acts 20. will prove this. Paul called the elders of the church in Ephesus to himself at Miletus, and amongst the things he said to them were the following words-"Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock in the which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops (overseers), to feed the church of God" (Acts 20. 28). The elders were set, placed or constituted, overseers in the flock which in Ephesus was described as the church of God. See, too, how Peter in chapter 5. 1, 2 addresses the elders and exhorts them: "The elders therefore among you I exhort, who am a fellow-elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, who am also a

partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: tend the flock of God which is among you exercising the oversight" (episkopountes).

The most ill-informed person knows that a flock of sheep cannot take care of itself. Wild sheep may by their natural instinct and the wild fastnesses in which they live eke out an existence, as the sinner did when it was true that all we like sheep had gone astray and turned each to our own way, but having come under the reign of grace, each one of us individually, it is the Lord's will that such should form a flock-a little flock, to whom He said, that it was the Father's good pleasure to give them the kingdom (Luke 12. 32).

This little flock was cared for by the Lord till He was seized in Gethsemane when they were offended in Him, and then was fulfilled : " I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad" (Matthew 26. 31). Note that on that night it was the sheep of the flock that were scattered. Many sheep had left the Lord at an earlier time and had been scattered, some of His sheep seem never to have followed Him at all, whilst others continued to the last, and these were scattered when He was betrayed. But they came together again and "mourned and wept "(Mark 16. 10), a sad and melancholy company, whilst the Lord was numbered with the dead. Truly their attitude was fitting for such as knew not that He would soon rise again. Had they believed His word it would have assuaged their grief. What a blessed thing faith is it sees beyond the tomb. Men who dwell in time may live in eternity, and who die yet live-live by faith, a faith which nothing can kill, whose sight is not limited by the narrow confines of this terrestrial scene.

Then He arose, and what a change! "they mourned and wept," but now they "pray "-" These all continued stedfastly in prayer" (Acts 1. 14), and no doubt whilst they prayed - for "they were all together in one place "(Acts 2. 1)-the Spirit descended, and" they were all filled with the Holy Spirit." To this company about 3,000 were added (Acts 2. 41), and more and yet more as the days sped by. In the early days the apostles cared for the church in Jerusalem, for both Peter and John describe themselves as elders (1 Peter 5. 1 ; 2 John 1 3 John 1). The apostles were the teachers, for it is said that those together continued in the apostles' teaching (Acts 2. 42). The apostles cared for the church in Jerusalem and they remained in Jerusalem following the scattering consequent on the persecution which arose on the day of the death of Stephen. Then, later, it is evident that other men were associated with them in the care of the church in Jerusalem, and the churches throughout Judea, for we read of the apostles and elders in Acts 15. 2, 4, 6, etc.

Paul, who was saved as recorded in Acts 9., had with Barnabas been sent forth to the work (Acts 13. 1-3), and having passed through many cities proclaiming the word of God, first in Cyprus, then in Pamphyhia, they came to Antioch of Pisidia, and to Iconium, Derbe and Lystra; in these they made many disciples and- planted churches, and on their return journey besides confirming and exhorting the disciples "they ... appointed for them elders in every church." This appointing elders by the Apostle is like the work with which he charged Titus : " For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge" (Titus 1. 5). Then he gives a description of the character and conduct of the men who should engage in such a work--having the care of God's people. Timothy, too, is given a description of the moral qualifications required of the man who would seek the beautiful work of oversight. It is not an office-" the office of a bishop" - the word "office " is not in the original, it is "the work of an overseer." There might be plenty of officials, but no workers. Certainly God's saints never had room for officialdom. Men who wrought were to be esteemed highly for their work's sake. The overseer is to care for the church of God. "But if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" If he is a failure in the lesser sphere of rule, how can he succeed in the greater?

From these passages it is quite clear that elders or overseers are contemplated as being in churches of God and more than one bishop or overseer in each church-" appoint elders (plural) in every city." "They appointed for them elders in every church." This is far removed from the episcopacy of the episcopal church, and also from meetings governing themselves. No church of God is contemplated as ruling itself by church meetings convened for the purpose of such democratic government, far less is it that all things should be discussed and settled at the meeting of the Assembly when together for the breaking of the bread. Nowhere in Scripture is such a thing contemplated. The rule of assemblies by elders is what is in view.

Paul's words to Timothy are -" Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in the word and in teaching" (1 Timothy 5. 17). And again, in Hebrews 13. 17, the word is-" Obey them that have the rule over you and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you."

J. Miller | May 1933
Rule