What is the difference between an elder and an overseer (see Acts 14.23 and 20.28)?
Scripture makes clear that the persons mentioned as elders in Acts 14 are those described as overseers in Acts 20. Both persons have the same position in the church of God and are responsible to do the same work in the assemblies where God had placed them. That they are the same is very clear from the apostle Paul's words in Acts 20. Notice the elders mentioned in verse 17 and then, in verse 28, where the Holy Spirit is mentioned as the One who makes men overseers in an assembly. This is very important, as it makes clear that elders or overseers are not appointed by man. While these men are the same, there is a difference between the terms elder and overseer. The word 'elder' emphasises the man in relation to his experience, while the 'overseer' is the same man in relation to his exercise.
The work of overseers is clearly defined in 1 Peter 5.1-3. They are to "feed [tend, RV¹] the flock of God" (v 2), "exercising the oversight" (v 2, RV), and to be themselves "examples to the flock" (v 3, NKJV²). To such men the younger are to be in subjection. The implied reference to the shepherd here is the same person as an overseer and elder, but now with the emphasis on his pastoral care. He seeks to guide and guard the saints. Elders, overseers and shepherds are all synonymous terms, and give indication of the kind of work in which they engage. We are exhorted to "know" them and to "esteem" them very highly for their work's sake (1 Thess 5.12-13), and also to "obey them" (Heb 13.17). Elders are not a board of legislators imposing their mind on the assembly, but are seen in Scripture as labourers among the saints. What a difference! Eldership is not an office to fill, but a work to be done. Our part is to pray for the elders, and to do everything to support them in their work.
¹ Revised Version.
² New King James Version.
John J Stubbs
If the Lord Jesus could not sin, what was the point of His temptation in the wilderness?
Luke tells us that the Lord Jesus "was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, being forty days tempted of the devil" (Lk 4.1-2). Thus the Spirit of God took the initiative. It was at the end of this period that the three specific temptations were given, each in a different location. Luke's description of the testings follows a moral order, whilst Matthew presents them in a chronological sequence.
The first temptation was 'Please Thyself'; "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread" (Mt 4.3). The second was 'Display Thyself'; "the devil ... setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down" (Mt 4.5-6). The final one was 'Glorify Thyself'; "the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me" (Mt 4.8-9).
There was, however, nothing in that Holy One to respond to the evil from without; the tempter was repelled by the dependent Man and His use of the Word of God, in each case quoting from the Book of Deuteronomy, the book of the common people. There is a sense in which the words of Hebrews 2.18 will always be a mystery to us; "he himself hath suffered being tempted [tested]". These were holy temptations; they were, in themselves, sufferings. The holier the person, the greater the degree of suffering when tempted of evil. The purer the metal, the more intense is its test by fire. The point of His temptation in the wilderness was not to see whether He would sin, but rather to prove that He could not sin. There are those who profess that it is more honouring to Christ to say "He was able not to sin", than to say "He was not able to sin". Others say "He could sin, but would not" or, "as a man He could sin, but as God He could not sin". All such statements are a serious perversion of the truth, and a grave aspersion upon the impeccability of Christ.
David E West
