1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

Ver. 1. If a man desire ] As no woman, so neither may every man desire the office of a minister, but such only as are gifted and fitted for such a service.

He desireth a good work ] But a hard work. The ministry is not an idle man’s occupation, but a sore labour; Onus ipsis etiam angelis tremendum, saith Chrysostom, a burden too heavy for an angel’s shoulders; a pains nothing short of that of a travailing woman, saith Melancthon after Paul, Gal 4:19 . There were those who read this text thus, Quicunque desiderat episcopatum bonum, opes desiderat. But this was a foul mistake at best. That is a good observation of Estius, that the former word, , rendered desire, importeth a more earnest desire (such as is that after meat when one is hungry) than the other following, . “He desireth a good work,” quod eadem res nomine Episcopatus desideretur ardentius, quam nomine operis et officii, because the same thing by the name of episcopacy is more ardently desired than by the name of work and duty. That hypocrisy of the Canonists is very ridiculous, not admitting any to personal government in the Church, unless he either seem to refuse it, or unwillingly to undertake it, though he had never so much laboured it. The Bishop of Metis answered cunningly, when being demanded whether he desired a bishopric, he replied, Nolens volo, et volens nolo, I do, and I do not. One reporteth of a priest that used to have a net spread upon his table where he dined, that he might mind St Peter, that fisher of men. But when by his diligent preaching he had gotten a bishopric, he did take away the net, for he had got what he fished for.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 13 .] Precepts respecting overseers (presbyters) ( 1Ti 3:1-7 ), and deacons ( 1Ti 3:8-13 ).

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1 .] Faithful is the saying (see on ch. 1Ti 1:15 , from the analogy of which it appears that the words are to be referred to what follows, not, as Chrys., Thl., Erasm., al., to what has preceded): if any man seeks (it does not seem that he uses with any reference to an ambitious seeking, as De W. thinks: in Heb 11:16 the word is a ‘vox media,’ and even in ch. 1Ti 6:10 , the blame rests, not on , but on the thing sought; and in Polyb. ix. 20. 5, the word is used as one merely of passage, in giving directions respecting the office sought: . ( ). So that De W.’s inference respecting ambition for the episcopate betraying the late age of the Epistle, falls to the ground) the overseership (or, bishopric; office of an ; but the of the N. T. have officially nothing in common with our Bishops . See notes on Act 20:17 ; Act 20:28 . The identity of the and in apostolic times is evident from Tit 1:5-7 ; see also note on Phi 1:1 , the article Bischof in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopdie, and Ellic.’s note here), he desires a good work (not ‘a good thing :’ but a good employment : see 1Th 5:13 ; 2Ti 4:5 ; one of the so often spoken of (reff.)). It behoves then ( is best regarded as taking up , and substantiating that assertion: “bonum negotium bonis committendum,” Bengel) an ( generic, singular of ) overseer to be blameless (Thucyd. v. 17, , where the Schol. has, . Thdrt. draws an important distinction: , ), husband of one wife (two great varieties of interpretation of these words have prevailed, among those who agree to take them as restrictive , not injunctive , which the spirit of the passage and the insertion of surely alike forbid. They have been supposed to prohibit either 1) simultaneous polygamy , or 2) successive polygamy . 1) has somewhat to be said for it. The custom of polygamy was then prevalent among the Jews (see Just. Mart. Tryph. 134, p. 226, . : and Jos. Antt. vii. 2 (so cited in Suicer and Huther, but the reference is wrong), ), and might easily find its way into the Christian community. And such, it is argued, was the Apostle’s reference, not to second marriages, which he himself commands ch. 1Ti 5:14 , and allows in several other places, e.g. Rom 7:2-3 ; 1Co 7:39 . But the objection to taking this meaning is, that the Apostle would hardly have specified that as a requisite for the episcopate or presbyterate, which we know to have been fulfilled by all Christians whatever: no instance being adduced of polygamy being practised in the Christian church, and no exhortations to abstain from it. As to St. Paul’s command and permissions, see below. Still, we must not lose sight of the circumstance that the earlier Commentators were unanimous for this view. Chrys. is the only one who proposes an alternative: , , . . Thdrt.: , . . . . . . , , . . , , . , , , . And similarly Thl., c., and Jer 2 ) For the view that second marriages are prohibited to aspirants after the episcopate, is, the most probable meaning (see there) of in ch. 1Ti 5:9 , as also the wide prevalence in the early Church of the idea that, although second marriages were not forbidden to Christians, abstinence from them was better than indulgence in them. So Hermas Pastor, ii. 4. 4, p. 921 f., ‘Domine, si vir vel mulier alicujus discesserit, et nupserit aliquis eorum, numquid peccat?’ ‘Qui nubit, non peccat: sed si per se manserit, magnum sibi conquirit honorem apud Dominum:’ and Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 12 (81), p. 548 P., ( 1Co 7:39-40 ) . , . , , . And so in Suicer, i. p. 892 f., Chrys., Greg. Naz. ( () , , . , . Orat. xxxvii. 8, p. 650), Epiphanius ( ( ) . Doct. compend. de fide, p. 1104), Orig., the Apostolical Canon xvii. ( , , , , , ), &c. Huther cites from Athenagoras the expression applied to second marriage. With regard to the Apostle’s own command and permissions of this state (see above), they do not come into account here, because they are confessedly (and expressly so in ch. 1Ti 5:14 ) for those whom it was not contemplated to admit into ecclesiastical office. 3) There have been some divergent lines of interpretation, but they have not found many advocates. Some (e.g. Wegscheider) deny altogether the formal reference to 1) or 2), and understand the expression only of a chaste life of fidelity to the marriage vow: “that neither polygamy, nor concubinage, nor any offensive deuterogamy, should be able to be alleged against such a person.” But surely this is very vague, for the precise words . Bretschneider maintains that is here the indefinite article, and that the Apostle means, an should be the husband of a wife. This hardly needs serious refutation. Winer however has treated it, edn. 6, 18. 9 note, shewing that by no possibility can the indefinite stand where it would as here cause ambiguity, only where unity is taken for granted. Worse still is the Romanist evasion, which understands the of the Church.

The view then which must I think be adopted, especially in presence of ch. 1Ti 5:9 (where see note) is, that to candidates for the episcopate (presbytery) St. Paul forbids second marriage. He requires of them pre-eminent chastity, and abstinence from a licence which is allowed to other Christians. How far such a prohibition is to be considered binding on us, now that the Christian life has entered into another and totally different phase, is of course an open question for the present Christian church at any time to deal with. It must be as matter of course understood that regulations, in all lawful things, depend, even when made by an Apostle, on circumstances: and the superstitious observance of the letter in such cases is often pregnant with mischief to the people and cause of Christ) sober (probably in the more extended sense of the word (‘vigilantem animo,’ Beng.: , , Thdrt. , , , , . . . Chrys.), as in 1Th 5:6 ; 1Th 5:8 ; a pattern of active sobriety and watchfulness: for all these adjectives, as far as , are descriptive of positive qualities: giving the negative and more restricted opposite), self-restrained (or, discreet ; see above on ch. 1Ti 2:9 ), orderly (‘quod est intus, id est extra,’ Beng.: thus expanded by Theodoret: ), hospitable (loving, and entertaining strangers: see reff. and Heb 13:2 . This duty in the early days of the Christian church was one of great importance. Brethren in their travels could not resort to the houses of the heathen, and would be subject to insult in the public deversoria), apt in teaching ( , , Thdrt.: so we have , Xen. Sympos. ii. 10: not merely given to teaching, but able and skilled in it. All might teach , to whom the Spirit imparted the gift: but skill in teaching was the especial office of the minister, on whom would fall the ordinary duty of instruction of believers and refutation of gainsayers):

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Ti 3:1-13 . The qualifications of the men who are to be ministers; and first ( a ) of the episcopus (vv.1-7) secondly ( b ) of the deacons (1Ti 3:8-13 ) with a parenthetical instruction respecting women church-workers (1Ti 3:11 ).

, . . .: Having given elementary directions concerning the scope of public prayer, and the ministers thereof, St. Paul now takes up the matter of Church organisation. He begins with the office of the episcopus, or presbyter, because that is of the very essence of Church order. On the question as to the terms presbyter and episcopus, it is sufficient here to state my own conclusion, that they represent slightly different aspects of the same office, pastoral and official; aspects which came naturally into prominence in the Jewish and Greek societies respectively which gave birth to the names. This seems the obvious conclusion from a comparison of Act 20:17 ; Act 20:28 ; Phi 1:1 ; Tit 1:5 ; Tit 1:7 ; 1Ti 3:1-2 ; 1Ti 3:4-5 ; 1Ti 5:17 ; 1Pe 5:1-2 ; Clem. Rom 1 Cor . 44; Polycarp, 5; Clem. Al. Quis Dives , 42.

: The R.V. ( seeketh desireth ) indicates to the English reader that two distinct Greek words are used; a fact which is concealed in the A.V. ( desire desireth ). So Vulg. has desiderat in both places; but [263] 47 , cupit desiderat . , which occurs again in 1Ti 6:10 of reaching after money, is not used in any depreciatory sense. Field (in loc.) notes that “it has a special application to such objects as a man is commonly said to aspire to ”. The sanity of St. Paul’s judgment is nowhere better seen than in his commendation of lawful ambition. A man may be actuated by a variety of motives; yet it is not inevitable that those that are lower should impair the quality of the higher; they need not interpenetrate each other. In any case, St. Paul credits the aspirant with the noblest ideal: He who aspires to be an episcopus desires to perform a good work , “ Est opus; negotium, non otium . Act 15:38 , Phi 2:30 ” (Bengel).

[263] Speculum

: and (see reff.) are not peculiar to the Pastorals (Mat 5:16 ; Mat 26:10 = Mar 14:6 ; Joh 10:32-33 ); but, as the references show, the phrase is found in them only of the Pauline Epistles. On the other hand, occurs six times in the Pastorals. See reff. on chap. 1Ti 2:10 . We perceive in the use of it a qualification of the earlier depreciation of the works of the Law, induced by a natural reaction from the abuse of that teaching.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Ti 3:1 . : This refers to the exegesis of Genesis which has preceded. (So Chrys.). We may compare Barnabas, 9, where, after an allegorical explanation of Abraham’s 318 servants, the writer exclaims, . See note on 1Ti 1:15 .

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Ti 2:8 to 1Ti 3:1 a . The ministers of public prayer must be the men of the congregation, not the women. A woman’s positive duty is to make herself conspicuous by good works, not by personal display. Her place in relation to man is one of subordination. This is one of the lessons of the inspired narratives of the Creation and of the Fall. Nevertheless this does not affect her eternal position. Salvation is the goal alike of man and woman. They both attain supreme blessedness in the working out of the primal penalty imposed on Adam and Eve.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1 Timothy Chapter 3

The character and qualifications for the local charges of bishops and deacons are next laid down. Timothy, though not an apostle, had a position superior even to the higher of the two, and he is here instructed in that which was desirable for each office. The prohibition of women from the exercise of authority naturally led the way, when their case was fully disposed of, to the due requisites for such as might desire the good and weighty work of overseeing the house of God. It is a question of government here, rather than of gifts, whatever the importance of gifts for the right discharge of the office. Women were excluded: but all Christian men were not therefore eligible. Certain weighty qualifications, and circumstances morally clear, were to be sought in such as desired to do this excellent work.

Hence one sees the mistake such as Calvin make when they talk of “ordaining pastors.” For “pastors and teachers” the apostle treats in Eph 4:11 as Christ’s gift for the perfecting of the saints. Ordination there was where either government or even service in external things was the object, and the only lawful authority descended from Christ through the apostles whom He chose (or apostolic delegates, such as Timothy or Titus, specially commissioned to act for an apostle in this respect) to appoint the bishops or elders and the deacons.

No doubt apostles hold an unique place. They stand the first in point of gifts ( , 1Co 12 ; , Eph 4 ); but they were also the chief of appointed authorities with title to appoint subordinate authorities in the Lord’s name. Hence they, and they only, are seen in scripture appointing presbyters and deacons, either directly or through an authorized deputy in a given sphere like Titus. Never is such a fact heard of as a presbyter ordaining a presbyter or a deacon. It destroys the whole principle of authority descending from above as stated in scripture; but, whatever else may or must go, scripture cannot be broken. (Joh 10:35 ).

If we are familiar with scripture, we shall soon learn that evangelists and pastors and teachers are simply Christ’s gifts, without question of ordination any more than prophets, whom none (but fanatics that neglect scripture for their own quasi-divine communications) would think of ordaining. They are all alike bound to exercise their gift in immediate responsibility to Him Who gave and sent them for ministerial work, for edifying the body of the Christ.

Ye men who call for order in this matter, why do you not heed the order of the Lord, alone recognised in holy writ? Is it that you are so prejudiced as to see nothing but the traditional order of your own sect? Beware of giving up all principle, and if you know your own order to be scripturally valueless, of being content with any order, provided it be human and contrary to God’s word. I am grieved deeply for you, my brethren, if the only order you decry is that which is solely founded on and formed by obedience to scripture, alike in what is done or not done. Search and see where you are as to this good work; search the scriptures whether these things are so. God caused His word to be written that it might be understood and obeyed.

The Catholic error is the confusion of ministry and rule with priesthood, and this error is fundamental. It flows from ignorance of the gospel, and is of either Jewish or heathen extraction; where the living relationship of children reconciled to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is unknown. All Christians are priests (Heb 10:19-22 ; 1Pe 2:5 , 1Pe 2:9 ; Rev 1:6 ). Nor is it a question of words or title only, but of fact. They are brought nigh to God by Christ’s blood. Having a great High-priest they are exhorted now to come boldly to the throne of grace (Heb 4:16 ), yea, into the holies by the blood of Jesus, by the way which He dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil. None but a priest of the highest dignity of old did so, tremblingly and once a year; whereas “brethren” as such are now free to do so habitually (Heb 10:19-22 ). But all Christians are not ministers in the word, only those to whom the Lord by the Spirit has given the gift: “Having gifts then differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy . . .” (Rom 12:6-8 ).

The Protestant mistake is the confusion of gifts with offices or charges.* The gifts were in association with the body of Christ, as we see wherever they are spoken of. Local charges are never found mixed up with gifts, though individuals might have both. It was when Christ ascended on high that He gave gifts, some beyond controversy to lay the foundation, as the apostles and prophets; others, as evangelists, pastors, and teachers, to carry out the work in its more ordinary shape. Such is the true source and character of ministry in the word. For ministry is serving Christ the Lord in the exercise of whatever gift may have been given for any purpose of His love. Hence, even in its humblest form, it is essentially in the unity of His body, and not limited to this or that locality: whereas local charge, which has government for its aim, is based on the possession of qualities chiefly moral (with or without specific gift in the word) which would give weight in dealing with conscience, or righteous aptitude in the discharge of external duty.

* Some try to eke out the error by the argument that “presbyter” is priest writ large. Very likely the English word is etymologically due to that Anglicized exotic. But in fact of usage they are wholly distinct, and “priest” in every version, save the corrupt Rhemish, represents not its ancestor which really means “elder,” but the sacrificial officer .

The importance of this distinction is great because men quite ignore the real permanence and universal character of gifts, and merge all in the local charges, which have come to be regarded as inalienable and exclusive fixtures, one of them the minister, the other (singular or plural) being a subordinate office, and in some places the noviciate to the higher grade. The truth seen in scripture is that where the assemblies had time to grow up a little, the apostles used to choose elders or presbyters for the disciples ( never the disciples for themselves); which as clearly shows that there were assemblies which as yet had them not, and might, as some, never in fact have them, for want of apostolic authority (direct or indirect) to appoint them: a comforting consideration for those who cleave to scriptural order and shrink from make-shift, believing that the Lord Who so ordered things is worthy of all trust, without inventions of our own in default of that order.

“Faithful [is] the word: if anyone is eager for oversight, he is desirous of a good work. The overseer [or bishop] therefore must be irreproachable, husband of one wife, temperate, sober, orderly, hospitable, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker,* but gentle, not contentious, not fond of money, one that ruleth well his own house, having children in subjection with all gravity, (but if one knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he care for God’s assembly”), not a novice lest being puffed up he fall into the devil’s charge [or judgment]. But he must also have good testimony from those without, lest he fall into reproach and a snare of the devil” (vers. 1-7).

* Text. Rec. has here the clause, , “not seeking gain basely,” taken apparently from ver. 8 where it is all right, yet more probably from Tit 1:7 .

“Bishopric,” or “office of a bishop,” misleads here; because the modern office, with which most are familiar, so greatly differs from the primitive reality. For. there were in each assembly several, with co-ordinate governmental duties of a circumscribed nature, however valuable and to be honoured in their place. Hence it appears best and wisest, as well as most consistent, to call the function “oversight” and the functionary “overseer,” in accordance with the Authorized Version of Act 20:28 , where the elders of the Ephesian assembly (ver. 17), who met the apostle at Miletus, are so designated. There it will be observed that it is not episcopal rulers of many dioceses or of separate assemblies, still less the several chiefs! that are styled and called presbyters, because they must have been of the lower grade to attain the higher. But the elders, or presbyters, are called “overseers” or bishops; and this of the single assembly in Ephesus.

What honest man of intelligence can deny that this passage is incompatible with either Episcopacy, or Presbyterianism, or yet Congregationalism, the three distinctive claimants of Christendom? For it is death to “the” minister of the latter two no less than to the “prelate” of the former. They are, all of them, manifest inventions since apostolic times, in collision irreconcilable with the plain facts and the all-important principles of the days when the divine word regulated those who called on the name of the Lord. And wherein is antiquity to be accounted of, if it be human? What are they but shades of contending earthenware, a pretender higher than any of these, the Papacy, being by far the weakest and the worst of all spiritually, Other scriptures as Act 14:23 ; Act 15 ; Phi 1:1 ; 1Ti 5:17 ; Tit 1 might readily be enforced in confirmation; but to an upright soul I feel it enough to stand on the footing of a single passage of God’s word, and so no more is added now. “The scripture,” we repeat, “cannot be broken” (Joh 10:35 ).

The formula, “Faithful is the word”, with which the apostle here opens recurs in this Epistle, though found but once respectively in the Second to Timothy and in that to Titus. Here it appears three times; on the first (1: 15) and third (4: 9) occasions with the suited addition, “and worthy of all acceptation,” which could not properly be in the case before us, any more than in the Second Epistle (2: 11), or in that to Titus (3: 8).

It is a question of government in the assembly; and faithful is the saying: whoever is eager for oversight desires a good or honourable work. Moral qualities, not gifts, are the requisite; and also personal or relative circumstances of good report. Hence to be husband of one wife was sought as well as a character free from reproach. How many evangelists God has deigned to bless, who had once been shameless sinners in violence or in corruption! Not such could the overseer be. Again, if a man had more than one wife, he was (not to be then refused fellowship; for many a Jew or Gentile so situated might believe the gospel; but) ineligible to be a holy guardian of order according to God among the saints. Self-restraint and moderation and modesty or good order were sought in one set over the rest: else the appeal to others must be undermined by his own shortcomings. It was also of moment that active love should be proved in hospitality, as well as intelligence or aptitude to teach, if one were not necessarily a teacher. Yet sitting over wine, and the quarrelsome character it breeds, could not be tolerated for this work, but a gentle uncontentious spirit, free from the love of money, and used to rule well his household, with children subject in all gravity. For there too practical inconsistency would be fatal; and so much the more, as God’s assembly needs far more care than one’s own house.

Further, one newly come to the faith, “a novice,” was objectionable (not of course for the exercise of any gift confided by the Lord, but) for this delicate position in dealing with others, “lest being puffed up he fall into the devil’s charge (or judgment, ). “Condemnation” is too strong an expression and not the sense intended. The allusion appears to be to the remarkable passage in Eze 28:11-19 , where the king of Tyrus is set forth in terms which seem to reflect a still more exalted creature’s fall through self-complacency and self-importance.

The whole is wound up by the demand that he should also have good testimony from those that are without “lest he fall into reproach and a snare of the devil.” This of course has nothing to do with creature vanity or pride, occupied with its own position as compared with that of others. It points to the danger from an ill reputation; for if not kept in the presence of God, and how hard is this in having much to do with others! what advantage the consciousness of that would give to the enemy, both to calumniate and to entangle! For one in so public and responsible a place, if the report be not good, Satan knows how to cover him with shame in his desire to avoid hypocrisy, or to lead into at least the semblance of hypocrisy, if he shrink from shame.

It is not an ordinary saint who suits the serious and honourable work of overseeing; nor can one be surprised, unless vitiated by ecclesiastical tradition or by the pride of man unjudged, that an apostle, or a specially qualified apostolic man, is the only one seen in scripture competent to nominate presbyters. Never was the assembly, whatever the piety or intelligence of those who made it up, entrusted with a choice so difficult to discharge. Such are the facts of God’s word; which entirely fall in with the principle that authority does not come from below, whatever may be the theories of men ancient or modern, but from above. It is from Christ the Lord, Who not only gives gifts as Head of the church, but is also the source and channel of all true authority, as has been already noticed.

It is generally assumed that “deacons” or “ministers” (as some prefer to translate, in order to guard from confounding them with the lower or earlier grade of clergy, so familiar in modern times) answer to “the seven” (Act 6:3 ; Act 21:8 ) who served tables in the daily ministration at Jerusalem. It is true that “the seven” are not so styled; and that elsewhere there is no thought of “seven” deacons. It is also true that in Jerusalem at the first there prevailed a state of having all things common wholly peculiar to that place and time, which created the necessity for the apostles to appoint the same, both to allay murmuring of others, and to allow themselves leisure for continuing steadfastly in prayer and in the ministry of the word. Admitting however all due to the early form and order in Jerusalem, I agree with others that substantially the same office is in view. “The seven” served as deacons in the circumstances proper to that day; as others served elsewhere in a more ordinary way. In Jerusalem at least they were chosen by the disciples, and the apostles laid their hands on them with prayer.

“Deacons likewise [must be] grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of base gain, holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also be first proved, then let them serve as deacons, being blameless. Women likewise [must be] grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let deacons be husbands of one wife, conducting (ruling) [their] children and their houses well, for those who have served well as deacons gain for themselves a good degree, and great boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus” (vers. 8-13).

Manifestly the requirements for the deacons are not so high as those for bishops or overseers, though there be somewhat in common. Their duties are of a lower character. Gravity was sought as well as the absence of deceit. These would naturally be required even in the commonest intercourse of life; and failure in them would bring contempt upon such an office. For if every Christian is called to walk after Christ, surely not less is a deacon to reflect His light even in the commonest things he has to do. Again, he must not be given to much wine, nor be greedy of base gain: either would be ruinous to the due fulfilment of his functions, and to the confidence which he ought to inspire in others. Far fuller we have seen to be the demand for the bishop, who must be without reproach, temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach: which are not said of the deacon save so far as gravity may approach. In this they do strongly meet – that as the bishop was not to be long (or quarrelsome) over wine, so the deacon was to be “not given to much wine.” And as the deacon was not to be greedy of base gain, so the bishop was to be no lover of money. There is no question of aptness to teach for the deacon as for the bishop; but even deacons must hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. So indeed is it binding on every saint; but if laxity were allowed in office-bearers, what could more stumble the world, grieve the saints, and dishonour the Lord?

It may be worth while to remark that “mystery,” as it never means what is unintelligible, so it is never applied to an institution or sacrament. “Stewards of the mysteries of God” means those called and responsible for bringing out the special truths of Christianity. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are never so described; and the term cannot be with propriety predicated of them as rites but at most only of the truths represented by them. Deacons, however, are not called “stewards” of the mysteries of God, though they must hold the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience, that is, the distinctive truth of Christianity. Of course the Old Testament abides of divine authority for every conscience and of exceeding value for every Christian. But we have further revelation in the New Testament, and that of truth wholly unknown to saints before Christ. “The mystery of the faith” expresses the truth which had never been revealed before, the general system of that which is commonly called Christianity beyond what was known of old, though of course confirming it in the most interesting manner and in the highest degree. That truth deals with the conscience in the closest way and purges it.

But it is also possible that high truth might be held with habitually low practice. This could not be in a deacon as it is unworthy of any Christian. He was called to hold the mystery of the faith “in a pure conscience.” Others might not be able to judge directly of the state of his conscience, but an irregular walk is the clearest proof that a man’s conscience cannot be pure. Where that was evident, it was permitted, yea incumbent, to judge this.

Even here there was to be care in the gradual introduction of deacons to their duties: “and let these also first be proved, then let them serve as deacons, being blameless.” Proving them first might bring out their unfitness for the work; for there are many saints even, who cannot bear a little brief authority, and that which outwardly raises such soon exposes to moral degradation. To walk blamelessly in the least of such new duties was no small testimony of their fitness to serve in all.

Women in the nearest relationship with them are not forgotten. They in like manner “must be grave, not slanderers, sober (temperate), faithful in all things.” The duties of their husbands would give them opportunities of knowing much of a delicate nature; they were therefore to be both grave and not evil-speakers, sober or temperate, faithful in all things. None but such could help their husbands aright; those who were otherwise would not only hinder but lead to constant difficulty and scandal.

Nor was it only that the bishop must be husband of one wife, deacons must be the same. Polygamy was thus being dealt a death-wound. No matter what might be the qualities and competency of a Christian, he could not even be a deacon if he had, like many in those days, more than one wife. This was strictly ruled for all who held office in the assembly, whatever might be the forbearance of grace whilst “the powers that be” tolerated things otherwise.

Further, like the bishops, deacons must rule their children and their houses well. It was not allowable in those that served even in outward things that disorder should reign among their children or in their households. The assembly of God is set in this world, till the Lord come, to manifest His will and to please Him.

But deacons, like the seven, were not tied only to that service which they were appointed to fulfil; for those who have served well as deacons gain for themselves a good degree and great boldness in faith which is in Christ Jesus. So we see in both Stephen and Philip who were of the seven: the one being greatly honoured of God as a teacher of the truth; the other being largely used to spread the gospel where it had never yet penetrated. This,was to gain for themselves a good standing, and no one who reads the Holy Spirit’s account of their testimony and its effects can doubt their great boldness in faith that is in Christ Jesus.

The presence of an apostle was an incalculable boon both for founding and for building up the assembly in any place. But what do we not owe also to his absence? Therefore he wrote, as here to Timothy, so at other times to this or that assembly, and thus he gave us in a permanent form the mind of the Spirit as applied to the instructive wants, difficulties, and dangers of the saints here below.

“These things write I to thee, hoping to come unto thee rather quickly; but if I should tarry, that thou mayest know how we ought to behave in God’s house, seeing it is a living God’s assembly, pillar and ground-work of the truth” (vers. 14, 15). Thus the loss of the apostle’s presence is turned to profit, not of Timothy only but of us also. From detailed duties we are now in presence of the great truth that God has a house on earth where each Christian has to conduct himself aright. Our relationships are always the measure and mould as well as the ground of our duty. How solemn, yet how precious it is to know that God has His dwelling-place on earth with which every believer has to do in faith and practice!

No doubt this was meant to act on Timothy’s soul; but the form of the phrase indicates that it was not limited to Timothy; it is so expressed as to take in any and every saint in his own position. It is no longer now an overseer, or a deacon, or their wives. All is on the broadest ground, yet what could act more powerfully on conscience than to find oneself called to behave suitably to God’s house? All the English versions from Wiclif to the Authorized refer the call to Timothy only and his personal duty. I cannot but agree with the Revisers that the application is purposely left more general. Perhaps however “how men ought to behave themselves” is hardly so happy as “how one ought to behave oneself.” It seems too vague, even as preceding English Versions are rather too limited.

In the Old Testament God had His house on earth. It was not so always. In the earlier dealings of God with man He had no such dwelling-place here below. There was none when man was unfallen in the brief sojourn of Eden; still less was there during the long sorrowful years of fallen man’s history till the flood. Nor was it a privilege vouchsafed to Noah when God established His covenant and “set His bow in the cloud for a token between Him and the earth.” Not even the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, had it yet vouchsafed to them, though Jacob did say in his fear, “How dreadful is this place! this is none other than the house of God and this is the gate of heaven!” More correctly did he add “This stone which I have set up for a pillar shall be God’s house.” As yet, God had not actually any house which He could own on earth, though faith might anticipate it.

On what then is God’s house based? On redemption. Hence as Exodus is pre-eminently the book of redemption, it is precisely that book of the Old Testament which first and most fully treats of God’s house. For the second book of Moses naturally divides into three parts: first, the evidence of the people’s need of redemption; secondly, the accomplishment of redemption in all its fulness; thirdly, the great consequence of redemption in the founding and ordering of God’s house or tabernacle with all its appurtenances, and the surpassing glory of His presence filling that in which He was then pleased to dwell.

But, in accordance with the general character of the Jewish economy, the dwelling of God was but typical, manifesting itself after an external sort. And as the law was the ground-work of God’s government of His people, so the glory that dwelt in the sanctuary had a judicial character, whatever the long-suffering that bore with a stiff-necked and guilty people from generation to generation. When patience with the idolatry in the people, the priests, the kings, even of David’s house, must be, if continued longer, the sanction of their apostasy and of His own dishonour, that very glory judges them by the power of Babylon (mother of idols) and is seen slowly departing from their midst, though not for ever, but assuredly till He come Whose right it is to restore this and all things. Compare Ezekiel 1-11; Ezekiel 40-48.

Meanwhile Christ has come; but the people would not have their King, the Anointed of God. For the time they have forfeited all, having both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and driven out the apostles, “pleasing not God and are contrary to all men, forbidding the Gentiles to be spoken to that they might be saved, filling up their sins always, so that wrath is come upon them to the uttermost” (1Th 2:15 , 1Th 2:16 ). But their greatest evil is the occasion of God’s greatest good to man. Israel’s rejection of the Messiah has brought about the redemption that is in Christ Jesus through His cross, blood-shedding, and resurrection.

And now God deigns to dwell not merely in the midst of a people externally, but most really and intimately in His own and with them for ever by the Holy Spirit sent down from heaven. “Ye are God’s building,” says Paul to the Corinthian assembly. . . . “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?” (1Co 3:9-16 . Compare also 2Co 6:16 ). The same truth applies also individually, as we have seen it collectively: “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own, for ye were bought with a price; glorify God therefore in your body” (1Co 6:19 , 1Co 6:20 ). In both cases God’s dwelling-place is maintained by the presence of His Spirit, not by a mere outward display. “Ye also are builded together for God’s habitation in virtue of the Spirit” (Eph 2:22 ), the reality and permanence of which indwelling is measured by Christ’s having obtained an eternal redemption. What a call to holiness, not only in personal walk but in our joint responsibilities! Those who truly believe and appreciate this incomparable favour are of all others under the deepest obligation to behave accordingly.

But the apostle adds “which” (or “seeing that it”) “is a living God’s assembly.” This description gives great force to God’s house, placing it in direct contrast with that of a dead idol, the boast and shame of all Gentiles everywhere. Form without life is valueless under the gospel; though life acts and shows itself in forms for which scripture is the only adequate authority, for it is God’s word and not man’s. And “wherein is he to be accounted of?” Nor does a dead assembly suit a living God. But the point above all remains – not what they are, but what He is. It is His assembly: let those there never forget it.

Further, the assembly is characterized as “pillar” and as “groundwork,” or support, of the truth. Christ is the truth, and so is the written word, as well as the Spirit. They all are the truth, either objectively, or in power. But the assembly is the pillar on which the truth is inscribed and upheld before the world which believes not in Christ, receives not the word, and neither sees nor knows the Holy Spirit. The truth is not in faithless Judaism; nor is it in Mohammedan imposture; if possible yet less in the abominable vanities of heathendom. The church is the responsible witness and support of the truth on the earth. There only might men see the truth (compare 2Co 3:2 , 2Co 3:3 ), if they could not read a letter of the scriptures. Alas! how great the ruin of the pillar, if we judge the privilege and the responsibility of the church by the word as it bears on its actual state. He who so weighs before God all the failure will never take things lightly, but will search the same word in order to find how grace provides for the path of the faithful in such circumstances; so that one may neither acquiesce in evil nor give way to unbelieving despair, but may judge oneself as well as the departure of Christendom in order to do God’s will in faith.

There is not a single good reason to sever the last clause from the assembly, and to connect it with “the mystery of godliness,” as is done chiefly by Germans of the 17th and 18th centuries (including even Bengel). Not only do I agree with Alford and Ellicott in their rejection of a dislocation so abrupt and artificial, but I maintain that it would strip the assembly of its essential place which is here defined, and that it would detract from, instead of adding to, the true dignity of “the mystery of godliness.” It is a construction therefore burdened with almost every conceivable objection, without one genuine merit, and in my judgment the offspring of not ignorance only but deplorably low and wrong views of the church’s place and duty here below. Scarcely better is the reference to Timothy as made by some ancients and moderns. To the assembly alone is the true application.

The assembly, or church, of God then is in no way the truth, but is its responsible witness and its support on the earth before all men. Not the church but Christ is the standard and expression of what God is and of man and all else, as revealed in Holy Writ, the one daily and perfect rule of faith, the word that abides for ever. So far from being before the word, so as to formulate the truth, it was the word making known Christ which the Spirit of God used to quicken and fashion those who compose the church. Thus to the truth the church in God’s grace owes its being; without the truth, or rather by abandoning it (for, to be the church, the truth must have been possessed and maintained), the faithless church becomes not null only but the special object of divine judgment. Its privileges furnish the measure of its guilt; nor has anything more helped on its ruin than the fond assumption (in the teeth of 2Th 2 , and of many other warnings) that the ancient people were broken-off branches that the now favoured Gentile might be grafted in never to fail or to be cut off, as rebellious Israel has been!

Hence the propriety of the striking summary which follows as the conclusion of the chapter: not the heavenly relationship of the church, but the fundamental truth set forth in the person of Christ, and graven, not only on the hearts of Christians as such, but on the assembly for its public confession, its habitual praise, and its practice every day.

“And confessedly great is the mystery of godliness: He Who* was manifested in flesh, was justified in Spirit, appeared unto angels, was preached among Gentiles, was believed on in [the] world, was received up in glory” (ver. 16).

* Dr. Scrivener, though with hesitation from his own first impression with that of others in the past, no longer (second Ed. 552-6) denies A to have read (with C F G. etc. and almost all the ancient Vv.), rather than , “God,” as in most copies followed by the Text. Rec.

The introductory clause is most instructive as well as impressive. “Mystery” means a truth once secret but now fully divulged, never a sacrament, (though important in its place and for the purpose intended of the Lord). The secret (now revealed) of piety or godliness is the truth of Christ. He is the source, power, and pattern of what is practically acceptable to God-His person as now made known. True life is living by the faith of the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me (Gal 2:20 ). To look on Him or for Him as a Jew once might in faith is not enough. Here He stands revealed in the great essential lineaments of the truth. The church lives, moves, and has its being in presenting Him thus to every eye and heart. Men may disbelieve or gainsay to their own destruction; but to present the truth of Christ is, we may say, the reason of the church’s existence, rather than the admirably good results which flow both for each saint within and for those without who come to believe unto their own eternal blessing.

Some doubtless will cry out as if “He Who,” as in the Revised Version, grievously displaces “God”, as in the Authorized Version which follows editions formed on the more modern copies. But weigh well the better attested reading, and soon you may happily learn how much more exact is the relative in this connection, as it also really supposes the self-same truth in the background. For where would be even the sense of saying that Adam or Abraham, that David, Isaiah, or Daniel, or that any other human being, “was manifested in flesh”? An angelic creature so manifested would be revolting for the end in view, and could no more avail than a man. If only a man, no other way than “flesh” was open to him: the mightiest “hunter before the Lord,” the subtlest wit, the most consummate orator or poet or warrior or statesman, “he also is flesh,” no less than the least one born of woman.

Not so the one Mediator between God and men; for though He deigned to become man, He was intrinsically and eternally divine. But for the counsels and ways of grace, He might conceivably have come as He pleased, in His own glory, or in His Father’s, or in that of the holy angels, without emptying and humbling Himself to incarnation and atonement. Here the opening and immeasurable wonder of the truth is the glory of Him Who was born of the virgin and thus manifested in flesh. So in the kindred passage of Joh 1 it is written (Joh 1:14 ), “The Word became flesh,” where it had been carefully laid down before (Joh 1:1 ) that “The Word was God,” as well as “with God,” in the beginning before He made anything in the universe created by Him.

1. “Manifested in flesh”; not only is this a truth to test every conscience: what an appeal to the heart! what infinite love to ruined and guilty sinners, for whose sake He was thus manifested to the glory of God! He came to make known, as only He could, God as light and love, Himself the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man, Himself the Son of man that came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many. Herein is love, not that we loved God (as we ought according to the law, but we did not, yea, we hated both Father and Son without a cause), but that He loved us and gave His Son a propitiation for our sins. And herein was laid the new and everlasting ground of God’s righteousness, where man was proved hopelessly unrighteous, in the cross and blood of Christ, that God might be just and the justifier of him that believes in Jesus. Here however it is not the work done in infinite love that God might righteously do His will in sanctifying us through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all; it is His person in the state in which alone that work could avail – the Son incarnate, “He Who was manifested in flesh.”

2. Next, we are told, He “was justified in Spirit.”* He was as truly man as any; but His state was, as that of no other, characterized absolutely by the Spirit of God, from the beginning right through life and death, in uninterrupted energy of holiness and incorruption till He rose from the dead and took His seat on the right hand of the Majesty on high. His unvarying life was to do God’s will, the only Man Who never once did His own will. He felt, spoke, acted, uniformly in the Spirit: as He was conceived in the virgin’s womb, so He was in due time anointed, and finally marked out Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection (cp. Rom 1:4 ; 1Pe 3:18 ). It was His perfection as Man in the midst of an evil and ruined world to do, not miracles only but, everything in the Spirit’s power; where we who believe have to follow in His steps, endowed with the same Spirit now given to us in His grace; but we, with our old man, which He had not to save, but to die for it on the cross, and which therefore was crucified with Him that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin, having died to it (Rom 6:6 ).

* It is well known that some have thought that . (in Spirit) here does not refer to the Holy Spirit but to the spiritual principle in our Lord as a man. Now admitting that there was this spirit in Him and that (“flesh”) does not express it, anyone subject to scripture may soon satisfy himself that the phrase here employed is not proper to convey any such thought, which would require the article, as in Mat 5:3 , Mat 26:41 ; Mat 27:50 ; Mar 2:8 ; Mar 8:12 , Mar 14:38 , Luk 10:21 (in the true text) Joh 11:33 ; Joh 13:21 ; Joh 19:30 , Acts (18: 5), Act 19:21 , Act 20:22 , et al. These may suffice to prove that where one’s own spirit is meant, the article is the correct form of expression. On the other hand, proof is no less abundant that ., with or without such prepositions as , , , , does express as regularly the state or power of the Holy Spirit characterizing men, in contrast with mere nature, often of course with . which I do not cite, but also without, as Mat 22:28 , Mat 12:43 , Joh 3:5 , Joh 4:23 , Joh 4:24 ; Rom 8:4 , Rom 8:9 , Rom 8:13 ; 1Co 2:4 , 1Co 2:13 ; 1Co 7:40 ; 1Co 12:13 ; 2Co 3:18 ; Gal 3:3 ; Gal 4:29 , Gal 5:5 , Gal 5:16 , Gal 5:18 , Gal 5:25 (twice); et al. The real difficulty might rather be when the intent is to present the Spirit objectively, which requires the insertion of the article, as in Mat 4:1 , Mat 12:31 , Mar 1:10 , Mar 1:12 , Luk 2:27 where grammatically Simeon’s spirit only might be meant, but we know from the context, as in the other cases very clearly, that the Holy Spirit is the thought.

3. He “appeared to angels.” The Son of God was made visible to angels, not only on marked occasions as specified in scripture from His birth of woman till He ascended on high, but generally we may say through His incarnation. But is this all that the clause implies? May it not also describe, what appears more characteristic, that, when He ceased to be seen among men on earth, not even the chosen witnesses beholding Him conversant with them more, He was an object of sight to angels? The earthly scene closed, He certainly has to do most expressly with all the angels of God, seeing they worship Him. Nor can any condition be more outside the ordinary way in which a Jew thinks of the Messiah, even when glory dawns on Immanuel’s land. However this may be, I should not be too bold as to it.

4. “He was preached among Gentiles.” Here the sphere of preaching is not merely beyond habitual Jewish expectations but in contrast with it. They looked for Him to reign in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem and before His ancients gloriously, and no doubt to have the nations for His inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for His possession, but still set as Jehovah’s King upon His holy hill of Zion, Israel the centre of that wide circle of blessing and glory here below. Such is to be the display of the kingdom when He comes again and shall have cleared away the apostate and rebellious despisers. But here it is the secret which the Christian knows now – Christ “preached among Gentiles,” instead of reigning over Israel. This indeed is the evident truth, and would be plain and simple enough to us, if Gentile boasting did not darken it by claiming Israel’s place as now indefeasibly the portion of Christendom, to the denial of the ancient people’s hopes, as well as to the destruction of all right perception of our own, incomparably brighter, even as the heavens are higher than the earth.

5. So again, He “was believed on in [the] world” exactly describes the essential difference in this sphere from that which prophecy held out and which God will make good in the age to come. Then every eye shall see the Son of man, and a dominion will be given Him, and glory, so that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him; and this dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away (as the old empires did), and His kingdom shall not be destroyed (as the last or Roman Empire must, though it be revived by the power of the pit, in order to meet the peculiar judgment of God on its surpassing lawlessness and self-exaltation in the last days). Christ now is an object of faith only, not yet reigning in power over the world, as Rev 11:15 announces.

6. He “was received up in glory.” Such is the suited and worthy close of this concise but comprehensive form of sound words, so as to leave fresh on all souls that read it the bright impress of Christ in glory. For if He came down in love, as has another admirably remarked, He went up in righteousness. The work given Him to do He accomplished at infinite cost to Himself and perfectly to God’s glory, even where all might have seemed hopeless – as to sin, and a world of sin. The adequate answer to the cross of the suffering Son of man (Who had thus glorified God) was that God should glorify Him in Himself and this straightway (Joh 13:31 , Joh 13:32 ).

And such accordingly is the righteousness of which the Spirit when come at Pentecost afforded evidence to the world. The world had proved its unrighteous hatred in rejecting Him Whom God raised from the dead and set at His own right hand. This exaltation is the righteousness which the presence of the Spirit sent down from heaven demonstrates: the crucified Son of man sits on the throne of God. And here we have the same glorious fact which completes the circle of the truth embraced by the Spirit of God in “the mystery of piety”. How wonderful to find it all in a few facts of our Lord Jesus! But the wonder melts into worship, as we bear in mind that if He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also Who ascended up far above all heavens that He might fill up all things (Eph 4:9 , Eph 4:10 ). He that emptied Himself to become a servant was in Himself God and Lord. The pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in His hand, as Isaiah (Isa 53:10 ) foretold.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT 1Ti 3:1-7

1It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?), 6and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1Ti 3:1 “It is a trustworthy statement” This idiom can act as both a concluding statement and an opening statement (cf. 1Ti 1:15; 1Ti 3:1; 1Ti 4:9; 2Ti 2:11; Tit 3:8). This is the second of five “trustworthy” statements in the Pastoral Letters. They function syntactically like Jesus’ use of an introductory “amen” or “amen, amen” (translated “truly, truly” or “verily, verily”), drawing special attention to the statement.

“if any man” This is a first class conditional sentence which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes.

“aspires. . .desires” These are two strong Greek terms: (1) “reaches for” (cf. 1Ti 6:10; Heb 11:16) and (2) “sets his heart on” (cf. Mat 13:17; Luk 15:16). This tells me that our modern emphasis on the necessity of an OT type call from God to the ministry may be too limiting. A desire to be in church leadership is sufficient. The desires of believers’ hearts are from the Lord (cf. Psa 37:4).

NASB”the office of overseer”

NKJV”the position of a bishop”

NRSV”the office of a bishop”

TEV”a church leader”

NJB”presiding elder”

This is the term episkopos, and it is usually translated in English “bishop” or “overseer.” It seems to be synonymous with the other two NT terms for the office of leadership in a local church. The terms “pastor,” “overseer,” and “elder” all refer to the same office (cf. 1Ti 5:17; Act 20:17; Act 20:28; Tit 1:5; Tit 1:7; 1Pe 5:1-2). The NT church had only two offices: pastor and deacon (cf. Php 1:1). It seems that “elder” had a Jewish background, while “overseer” had Greek city-state background.

1Ti 3:2 “above reproach” This is the key qualification of the entire context for leadership in a local church. The phrase implies no handle for criticism, both in the believing community (1Ti 3:2-6) and in the non-believing community (1Ti 3:7). This same theme of no reproach is repeated in 1Ti 3:7; 1Ti 3:10; 1Ti 5:7; and 1Ti 6:14. There are no perfect leaders, but there are godly, respectable, acceptable believers. See note at Tit 1:6.

NASB, NKJV

NJB”the husband of one wife”

NRSV”married only once”

TEV”he must have only one wife”

This phrase has caused much discussion. It was obviously an issue for the church at Ephesus in the first century (cf. 1Ti 3:1; 1Ti 3:12; 1Ti 5:7; and in Crete, Tit 1:6). Here are the basic interpretive theories.

1. it refers to polygamy

2. it refers to a remarriage after divorce

3. it refers to the second marriage after the first wife’s death

4. it refers to a man faithful and attentive to his wife (another way of asserting good family relationships, cf. NEB)

This obviously refers to family relationships, and any problem in the area of family relationships disqualifies one from leadership in a local church. Number 1 was not a problem in the Roman Empire, but was a potential problem in Judaism (though rare in the first century); #2 was a great problem in the Roman Empire, and also a problem in Judaism (Hillel vs. Shammai); #3 was a major concern of the Early church, especially Tertullian, and is still an issue in Baptist circles in Europe. However, 1Ti 5:14 is a parallel passage where younger widows can remarry with no reproach (cf. Rom 7:2-3; 1 Corinthians 7).

There is one more option, that the requirement refers to marriage versus singleness. The false teachers had forbidden marriage (cf. 1Ti 4:3). This may be a direct refutation of their tendency toward celibacy and asceticism. This is not to assert that an unmarried person cannot be a church leader, but that singleness cannot be a requirement. I think this is the best option and also that it answers the other interpretive problems relating to (1) “not addicted to much wine” and (2) the issue of women in 1Ti 2:8-15. These must be interpreted in light of the false teachers.

If the issue is a strong, godly family, then divorce is not the only critical issue. Even in the OT divorce was sometimes the appropriate option: (1) YHWH divorces unfaithful Israel and (2) priests were commanded to divorce unfaithful wives (see “Old Testament Perspective on Divorce and Remarriage” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Vol. 40 #4, Dec. 1997). All humans experience disruption in their family life in some areas. My major concern with taking this qualification strictly literally is the lack of consistency in taking all the others in this context literally as well. If divorce disqualifies, then so do (a) not addicted to wine (cf. “not. . .addicted to much wine” of 1Ti 3:8, which is not necessarily a commandment to total abstinence) and (b) “keep his children under control” of 1Ti 3:4, which would eliminate many modern pastors and deacons.

Truthfully, I do not know many Christian leaders who could consistently fulfill all of these requirements throughout their lives. So before we become too critical of the flaws of leadership remember that these qualifications are God’s will for all His children. I am not advocating lowering the standards, but not using them in a legalistic, judgmental sense. The church needs godly, socially acceptable leadership. However all we have to choose from is saved sinners! Modern churches must seek out leaders who have proven themselves faithful over time, not perfect leaders.

One more point, if this list is taken too literally, then Jesus (because He was single) and Paul (because he was possibly divorced) could not have been church leaders. Makes one think, doesn’t it?

“temperate” This is literally “be sober.” Because alcohol abuse is mentioned specifically in 1Ti 3:3, this probably refers to the metaphorical use of this term meaning “be sensible” (cf. 1Ti 3:11; Tit 2:2).

NASB”prudent”

NKJV”sober-minded”

NRSV”sensible”

TEV”self-controlled”

NJB”discreet”

This term sphrn meant “balanced” in the Greek philosophers. It was a very famous Greek term that denoted avoidance of the extremes (i.e., thereby advocation “the golden mean”). It was used of someone of sound mind (cf. 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8; Tit 2:2; Tit 2:5). Related terms are also found in 1Ti 2:9; 1Ti 2:15; 2Ti 1:7; Tit 2:4; Tit 2:6; Tit 2:9; Tit 2:12; Tit 2:15.

The basic root (BAGD, p. 802) is found in several forms in the Pastorals.

1. verb, sphrone “sensible,” Tit 2:6

2. verb, sphroniz “encourage” (i.e., bring to one’s senses), Tit 2:4

3. noun, sphronismos “disciple” (i.e., self-controlled), 2Ti 1:7

4. noun, sphrosun “discreetly,” 1Ti 2:9; 1Ti 2:15

5. adverb, sphrons “sensibly” (i.e., moderately), Tit 2:12

6. adjective, sphrn “sensible,” “prudent,” “thoughtful,” 1Ti 3:2; Tit 1:8; Tit 2:2; Tit 2:5

NASB, NRSV”respectable”

NKJV”of good behavior”

TEV”orderly”

NJB”courteous”

This is a form of the Greek term kosmikos. It is used in Titus in two different senses: (1) negatively of avoiding worldly lusts (1Ti 2:12) and (2) positively of proper order (1Ti 2:10). In 1 Timothy the context implies proper order or decorum. That which is proper, respected, and expected by the local society. Therefore, it is an aspect of 1Ti 3:7 a, “must have a good reputation with those outside the church.”

“hospitable” The inns of Paul’s days were notorious houses of prostitution. Therefore, Christians, and especially Christian leadership, had to have their homes open for itinerant missionaries and for the needy of the community (cf. 1Ti 5:10; Tit 1:8; Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2; 1Pe 4:9; 2Jn 1:5; and 3 John).

“able to teach” Leaders are to be able teachers (cf. 2Ti 2:24). It is interesting that “teaching” is listed as a separate gift in 1Co 12:28, but linked to the gift of pastor in Eph 4:11. Apparently there were teachers, but also all pastors had to be able to function in this area, too. In a sense all of the gifted persons in Ephesians 4 are proclaimers of the gospel, but in different senses and with different emphases.

Some biblical scholars interpret this qualification as a reference to well-trained or educated people, or possibly those who are “teachable”!

Finally, this ability to teach may be related to the false teachers who thought they were teachers of the Law (cf. 1Ti 1:7) but were self-deceived.

1Ti 3:3

NASB”not addicted to wine”

NKJV”not given to wine”

NRSV”not a drunkard”

TEV”he must not be a drunkard”

NJB”not a heavy drinker”

It seems to be an allusion from the Septuagint to Pro 23:29-35. It must be reemphasized that the Bible rails against drunkenness, but does not teach total abstinence (cf. 1Ti 3:8; 1Ti 5:23; Tit 1:7; Tit 2:3). Total abstinence comes from an individual commitment of believers to the Lord Jesus based on the limiting of their personal freedoms because of the culture in which they minister (cf. Rom 14:1 to Rom 15:13 and 1 Corinthians 8-10). For a good article see Hard Sayings of the Bible by Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, and Branch, pp. 673-674.

SPECIAL TOPIC: BIBLICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOLISM

“pugnacious” This is literally “not a striker” (cf. Tit 1:7). This may be related to the abuse of alcohol as it affects all interpersonal relationships (i.e., the family, the house church, the false teachers).

“gentle” This refers to a loving reasonableness, which is prepared to yield to others (cf. Eph 5:21). It describes a kind, gentle person (cf. Tit 3:2; Jas 3:17; 1Pe 2:18).

“peaceable” This is the Greek term for a fight, a battle, a conflict, but with the alpha privative, which negates the meaning. Therefore, it means one who does not fight or stir up controversy (cf. Tit 3:2). It is easy to see how the false teachers are the literary foils to chapter 3 (and all the Pastoral Letters).

NASB”free from the love of money”

NKJV”not covetous”

NRSV”not a lover of money”

TEV”he must not love money”

NJB”not avaricious”

This is a compound word from the term for “silver” and the term for “brotherly love” with the alpha privative which equals “not a lover of money” (cf. 1Ti 6:6-10; Tit 1:7; Heb 13:5; 1Pe 5:2). This was another characteristic of false teachers. See SPECIAL TOPIC: WEALTH at 1Ti 6:8.

1Ti 3:4-5 “he must be one who manages his own household well” Leadership can be seen at home. Any kind of difficulty between husband and wife or children or grandparents or in-laws was a basis for disqualification in this early church setting. “No handle for criticism” is the main concern. How one rules his home will show one’s tendencies in leading the church (cf. 1Ti 3:5, which is a parenthetical question expecting a “no” answer). Oh, my, this would disqualify many modern ministers if taken literally and to the letter. The many positive as well as negative characteristics mentioned in 1Ti 3:2-3 are revealed in the home environment. “Check the home first” is good advice for personnel committees!

1Ti 3:5 “if” This is a first class conditional sentence which is assumed to be true from the author’s perspective or for his literary purposes.

“church”

SPECIAL TOPIC: CHURCH (EKKLESIA)

1Ti 3:6 “and not a new convert” This is left out in Titus. 1 Timothy was written to Ephesus, which was an established church, while Titus was written to Crete, which was a new work. They were all new converts. The literal root term used here means “young plant.” However, the exact time factor is uncertain.

“so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil” Pride is a major problem for angels and humans (cf. 1Ti 6:4; 2Ti 3:4). The verb (aorist passive participle) means “become smoke-blinded.” The genitive “of the devil” can refer to

1. the judgment caused by the devil (cf. 1Ti 3:7)

2. the same type of judgment the devil received (cf. NKJV, TEV, NJB)

Paul mentions the spiritual enemy of mankind several times in 1 Timothy (but not in 2 Timothy or Titus):

1. devil (diabolos, 1Ti 3:6-7)

2. Satan (Santanas, 1Ti 1:20; 1Ti 5:20)

3. the demonic (daimonion, 1Ti 4:1)

The biblical worldview that mankind has a spiritual opponent (cf. Eph 2:2; Eph 6:10-19) is revealed in both the OT and NT.

SPECIAL TOPIC: SATAN

1Ti 3:7 “he must have a good reputation with those outside” Leadership must be viewed as honest and genuine by the unbelieving community which the church is trying to bring to faith in Christ (1Ti 5:14; 1Ti 6:1; Tit 2:5-6; Tit 2:10; 1Co 10:32; Col 4:5; 1Th 4:12).

SPECIAL TOPIC: JUDGING (SHOULD CHRISTIANS JUDGE ONE ANOTHER?)

“so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil” Paul was concerned about spiritual warfare (cf. 1Ti 6:9-10; Eph 2:1-3; Eph 4:14; Eph 6:10-19). Godliness is an armor, but selfishness is an open door for evil to exploit!

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

true = faithful. App-150. See 1Ti 1:16.

saying. App-121.

If a man = lf (App-118. a)

any one (App-123.)

desire. Greek. oregomai, Here, 1Ti 6:10, Heb 11:16.

the office, &c. Greek. episkepe. See Act 1:20.

desireth. Greek. epithemeo, as Heb 6:11.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-13.] Precepts respecting overseers (presbyters) (1Ti 3:1-7), and deacons (1Ti 3:8-13).

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Tonight we will be studying First Timothy three and four. It is interesting as Paul writes to Timothy on several occasions, he uses phrases that are interesting to me. He said, This is a faithful saying, it’s worthy of all acceptation. Here he says, beginning chapter three,

This is a true saying ( 1Ti 3:1 ),

Again, he’ll say, “This is a faithful saying worthy of all acceptation.” He’ll say, “Without controversy.” He speaks to Timothy with interesting phrases affirming the truth of what he is declaring to him. “This is a true saying,”

If a man desires the office of a bishop [or overseer], he desireth a good work ( 1Ti 3:1 ).

Not a good position, but a good work. The word “episkopos” which is translated here “bishop” is really a word that means an overseer. One who takes the oversight. The word translated “elder” is the word, “presbyteri” or “presbyteros.” The “presbyteros,” the elder of the church. They name implies an older man, and in the communities they had as the governors of a community the “presbyteros.”

The English had the alder men who were appointed as the judges within a community and the term “alder men” is actually “elder men.” It was declared that a person should not be a “presbyteros” unless he was over the age of fifty. The “episkopos,” on the other hand, was the man who was the overseer. He was the often the minister of the church. One who would oversee the church. And from this, we have a great division in the church today between the Episcopalians which comes from the “episkopos” and the Presbyterians which comes from the “presbyturos.”

So the difference between a church being ruled by the elders or the church being ruled by the “episkopos,” the overseer. And it is interesting though as you look at it in the word of God, they probably were one and the same. As you study it in the New Testament, the use of the words are often interchangeable. And when Paul was writing, he addressed the elders but of course, that would include the “episkopos” also. When he called for the elders of Ephesus, it would have been wrong for him to have called for the elders without the “episkopos” and so as you look at it throughout the New Testament, a strong case can be made that the terms are almost synonymous or interchangeable, at least in their usage in the New Testament.

So “if a man desires this office of an overseer of the church, he desires a good work.” But these are the qualifications for the man.

The overseer then must be blameless ( 1Ti 3:2 ),

Now that ought to just about exclude anybody. He must be,

the husband of one wife ( 1Ti 3:2 ),

In that particular time, the marriage vows were in the pagan world not really held in high esteem. The Greek culture had a saying that every man should have a mistress for his entertainment, a concubine for his sexual pleasure, and a wife to bear his legitimate children. But the wife was looked upon as, more or less, a chattel, an object.

Now in none of the cultures in those days did a wife have the right of divorce. That was something that only the husbands had. And even in the Jewish culture, a husband could get a divorce for just about any cause. And even to that time, in the Jewish culture in many areas, polygamy was practiced. Josephus speaks about those that were had three or four wives. And polygamy was a practice even in that time in the Jewish community.

The church is to be a separate and distinct entity within the world. Standards that are higher than the world. And thus he establishes the standard for the “episkopos,” a man who was an overseer in the church, he should be “the husband of one wife.” He should be,

vigilant ( 1Ti 3:2 ),

That is, in his overseeing of the flock of God. He needs to take careful oversight. He needs to be,

sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, and able to teach ( 1Ti 3:2 );

So these are the beginning of the qualifications. Next of all, he’s

Not to be given to wine, no striker ( 1Ti 3:3 ),

That is, an abuser.

not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) He’s not to be a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil ( 1Ti 3:3-6 ).

So this is what Paul instructs Timothy as the qualifications for an “episkopos,” an overseer. Now if you will read Paul’s letter to Titus, he gives to them the qualifications of a “presbyturos,” an elder. And you find that as he gives the qualifications of an elder, they are pretty much similar to the qualifications of an “episkopos” or an overseer.

Next he turns to the deacons.

And likewise must the deacons be grave [or sober], not doubletongued, not given to much wine ( 1Ti 3:8 ),

This is, of course, a little interesting in that the overseer, the “episkopos,” was not to be given to wine; the deacon was not to be given to much wine. That probably is cause for a lot of persons to seek the job of a deacon rather than an elder.

Paul the apostle, in writing to the Corinthians, said, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient.” Some things can impede my progress towards my goal. All things are lawful for me but not everything builds up. Some things tear me down. “All things are lawful for me,” he said, “but I will not be brought under the power of any, or the influence of any” ( 1Co 6:12 ).

We have a very interesting case in the Old Testament when God commanded Moses to build the tabernacle and He gave him specific instructions as to the materials and the dimensions and the sizes, the whole thing. He gave him his careful instructions in building. Once they had built the tabernacle, had set it up, had set up the altar and the whole framework for the sacrifices, the time came to inaugurate now the temple or the tabernacle worship of God. And so the altar was built, the sacrifice was placed upon it and fire came from heaven and sort of lit the fire of the altar. A supernatural manifestation of God. The presence of God came down, the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. The priest, because of the glory of the Lord, sort of swooned, they weren’t able to stand up.

And in the midst of this moving of God among the people, a couple of Aaron’s sons got excited. And they had little bowls with incense that they were to offer before the Lord and they went in to offer this incense in the excitement of the moment and the fire came from the altar of God and consumed them. And later, God commanded Moses to speak unto Aaron that when they were doing the service to God, they weren’t to drink wine. Made very specific commandments. The intimation is that the two sons of Aaron perhaps had been drinking a little wine and had lost their sense of good judgment. And that is why they were consumed by the fire of God when they sought to offer strange fire before the Lord.

God wants us to serve Him with a clear head, with a clear mind. Now a lot of people get very godly minded when they get drunk. And we’ve had them call the house two, three in the morning and my wife sleeps on the side where the phone is, I don’t know why but she does. And sometimes the phone will ring in the middle of the morning and someone will start telling, I want to tell you what a wonderful husband you have and all. And she’d say, “Here, tell him,” and she hands the phone to me. The praise that comes from the lips of a drunk really don’t do much for you. That’s what they may think when they’re drunk but what do they think of me when they’re sober?

And so in our worship of God, no artificial stimulants. He wants our worship and praise to come from a heart and from a mind that is not under some kind of a false stimulant. So the overseer, the one who had the responsibility of overseeing the church, not to be given to wine. Whereas the deacons and these were the people who oversaw the more practical aspects of the church in those days, the administering of the church’s welfare program and things of this nature, they were not to be given to much wine.

The wine in those days, of course, was drank by just about everybody. It was mixed three parts of water to two parts of wine. And of course, at that ratio it would take an awful lot to get a person drunk and usually you’d get too full before you could get drunk. But it was a diluted form and really, it was drunk in lieu of the water which in many places was not fit to drink. You remember Paul said to Timothy to “take a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your oft infirmities” ( 1Ti 5:23 ).

So a deacon not to be given to much wine. We are told “not to be drunk with wine, wherein is excess, but be filled with the Spirit” ( Eph 5:18 ). They also are,

not to be greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless ( 1Ti 3:8-10 ).

So much of the same requirements for the elders are also for the deacons. Deacons are to prove themselves.

And even so wives ( 1Ti 3:11 )

Now in our King James, you notice “must their wives” is added because the translators thought that he was probably referring to the wives of the deacons which is possible but it is also possible that Paul is just referring to the deaconesses. And that this is in reference to those women who would take a activity within the church body in the office of a deaconess. And “so also wives are to,”

be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. And let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus ( 1Ti 3:11-13 ).

And so Paul here writes the qualifications for these offices. And he said,

These things write I unto thee, I hope to come unto you shortly: But if I [don’t, if I have to] tarry here awhile, I want you to know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and the ground of truth ( 1Ti 3:14-15 ).

Timothy was left at Ephesus by Paul to strengthen the church. It is to Timothy in Ephesus that Paul is writing and instructing him in the things of the government of the church.

Now having declared the qualifications for the deacons, the overseers and the deaconesses, again when you get to these qualifications we realize that very few people could really qualify for these offices. These characteristics and traits that are required for those in leadership roles are stricter than the average, you might say. It takes a life of commitment. And many people may, as the result of these requirements, feel unqualified to take a position of authority within the church. And so Paul in verse sixteen declares,

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness ( 1Ti 3:16 ):

Godliness is godlikeness. Great is the mystery of being like God. These characteristics and traits that are described are the characteristics and traits of God. God wants us to be like Him. A man who is an elder in the church or an overseer in the church is really one of God’s representatives to the people. And one of the most awesome responsibilities is that of being God’s representative. People looking at the leadership to understand God. God wants me to be like Him so that as people look at me, they can understand what God is about. And that is all the understanding that many people will ever have of God is what they observe in the life of the followers of God. So each of us are God’s representatives to the world. But those who take the position of an elder or an overseer have even a greater responsibility of being God’s representatives to the people. And God doesn’t take lightly how we represent Him.

James tells us that we should “not be many masters, knowing that we receive the greater condemnation” ( Jas 3:1 ). We are told “unto whom much is given, much is required” ( Luk 12:48 ). And so for those who in the position of overseeing, there is a tighter standard by which they must live. Blameless, of good reputation, really even outside of the church, by the manner of life that you live that it doesn’t bring blame unto Jesus Christ or to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It has been the sad tragedy of the church’s history that not often does the leadership take that awesome responsibility of representing God seriously enough. Paul talks about falling in the snare of the devil. And Satan surely seeks to trap ministers. And it is always a tragedy and a very sad thing when you see a servant of God being trapped by the enemy because of the reproach that it brings upon the Gospel. As Nathan said to David concerning his sin with Bathsheba, “You’ve caused the enemies of God to blaspheme” ( 2Sa 12:14 ).

The problem, of course, is that Satan, I think, works harder on those who have a greater influence than those of lesser influence. I think that the more the Lord uses you, the greater are the temptations that the enemy places in your path. This past year, two of the most promising, talented of the young ministers in our Calvary Chapel outreaches fell into the snare of the enemy.

One, thank God, has been delivered and has been restored. But the other is still ensnared. And it grieves me. It breaks my heart because I love these young men like a father loves a son. And I was just so thrilled with their ministry, the effectiveness of their ministry, the effectiveness of their communication. Their ability to teach. It was a thrill to see what God was doing through their ministry and through their lives and say we’re touching thousands of people. To see them ensnared by the enemy is a just a tragedy and a grievous thing to my heart.

Great is the mystery of being like God. God wants us to be like Him. That’s His purpose in creating us. And when He created us, He created us like Him, He made us in His image and after His likeness. It was the purpose of God that we be like Him. What is He like? God is love. God wants love to dominate our being. God is pure. God is holy. He wants us to be pure. He wants us to be holy. God is kind. God is compassionate. God is patient. He wants us to be kind, compassionate, patient. He wants me to be like Him. “Great is the mystery of being like God.” Because I say, Hey, yes, I want to be like God. But how to be like God is another thing. There are many people who accept that, Yes, being like God is the greatest thing that could possibly happen to a person. And they try to be like God but we find that whenever we try to be like God, there are other forces at work within us, hindering us from our goals.

As Paul the apostle described in Romans chapter seven, “I consent to the law of God that it is good. But I find that there is another law at work within my members, within my body. And the good that I would I do not: and that which I would not, I do” ( Rom 7:16 , Rom 7:19 , Rom 7:23 ).

I consent to that which is good. But how to perform it, I just can’t find. And we find ourselves in that position so many times. I consent this is right, this is good. That’s what I ought to be doing. But how to perform it? That’s where the problem lies. And he cried out, “O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death” ( Rom 7:24 )? “Great is the mystery of godliness,” being like God.

It’s a great mystery that has been solved. It was solved in the incarnation. So “without controversy, great is this mystery of godliness.” But God solved the mystery through the incarnation of Jesus Christ for,

God was manifest in the flesh ( 1Ti 3:16 ),

A plain, clear, positive declaration that Jesus Christ is God. “God was manifest in the flesh.” And the purpose of the incarnation was to bring man to a godlikeness or to help us to be like God. “God was manifest in the flesh,”

He was justified [or proved to be righteous] in the Spirit ( 1Ti 3:16 ),

The Spirit led Him in the wilderness to be tempted of the devil and He passed every test. He resisted the temptation. He remained true and obedient unto the first principles of God. He was “justified or proved to be righteous in the Spirit.”

He was seen of angels ( 1Ti 3:16 ),

After His temptation, the angels came and ministered unto Him. Also, it has been suggested that the angels had never seen God until the incarnation. Great is the mystery of being like God. “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels.” God dwells in a light that man cannot approach. Those who had visions of God never had a vision of a form. There was always just that brightness of the glory that shone forth from His being. Looking directly into a light, a brilliant bright light, all you can observe is just light.

Have you ever been out in the woods at night and it’s been dark and someone turned one of those five-cell flashlights in your eyes? Have you ever been a kid at camp? Those counselors always carried those five-cell you know and they put it right in your eyes. All you see is the bright light in your eyes. You don’t see the flashlight. You can’t even see the counselor. All you all you see is this bright light that is shining in your face. But you have no sense of form because all you can see is the light. You don’t see the little bulb, you don’t see the filament within the bulb, you just see the brilliance of the light.

So God, the glory of His presence so overwhelming. The brilliance that comes forth from this Creator of the universe. Call it energy or whatever you wish, that must be emanating forth from God. It is possible that the angels had never even seen the form but only the brilliance coming forth from His presence. Until He was “made flesh and He was then seen of angels.” He was,

preached unto the Gentiles ( 1Ti 3:16 ),

As Paul tells King Agrippa concerning his Damascus road experience, he tells him that the Lord had called him to go unto the Gentiles, to turn them from darkness to light. From the power of Satan unto God. And then He was,

believed on in the world ( 1Ti 3:16 ),

All over the world, those who believe on Jesus Christ. Those who believe upon God who was manifest in the flesh. And then He was,

received up into glory ( 1Ti 3:16 ).

He said I came from the Father, I’m going to the Father. In His return to the Father, the cycle was complete. His ministry was accomplished. Jesus came to manifest to man what God is. And He was the true and the faithful witness. All that we need to know about God, we discover in Jesus Christ. “No man has seen the Father at any time but the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath manifested him” ( Joh 6:46 ). Made Him known, declared Him.

“God, who at sundry times and in different ways spoke unto our fathers through the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his own dear Son, whom he hath made heir of all things, who was the effulgence of his glory, [or the outshining of His glory]” ( Heb 1:1-3 ). So He fulfilled His purpose in manifesting God to us and He fulfilled the purpose of redeeming the world back to God through His death upon the cross.

So now as He returns to the Father, He is promising that He is going to send to them the Holy Spirit. One who would come alongside of them to help them. “I will leave you without help,” He said, “But I will pray to the Father, and he will give to you another Helper, even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive” ( Joh 14:16 , Joh 14:17 ). And He tells us that when the Spirit comes, we will receive power. What kind of power? Power to be like God. Great is the mystery of being like God. You cannot be like God with your best effort no matter how hard you try. It isn’t within our nature or our power to change our nature to be like God. The only way I can be like God is through the power of the Holy Spirit working in me and changing that nature.

And so the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the church was the proof that Jesus had indeed ascended to the Father. Because that was His promise when He came to the Father, He was going to send the Comforter. It is necessary for you that I go away because if I go away, if I go not away, the Comforter cannot come. That helper, the Holy Spirit. But if I go away, I will send Him. And so Jesus sent the Holy Spirit and through the power and the working of the Holy Spirit within my life, godlikeness is now possible. And as I am yielding myself day to day, the work of the Holy Spirit in me everyday is making me a little more like God.

As Paul the apostle said, “I have not yet apprehended that for which I was apprehended. Neither do I count myself perfect, but I’m pressing towards the mark” ( Php 3:13-14 ). What is the mark? Being like God. Godlikeness. And so I’m on my way. And as John said, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, it doesn’t yet appear what we’re going to be: but we know when he appears, we’re going to be like him” ( 1Jn 3:2 ). One of these days His work will be complete in us and we will be just like God. And the purposes of God will now be accomplished in His creation for man. For God created man to be like Him and through Jesus Christ I and the power of the Holy Spirit, I am being restored into the image of God.

Great is the mystery of being like God. But that mystery is solved in the incarnation and through the work of the Holy Spirit that Jesus has sent.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

1Ti 3:1. , this is a faithful saying) This preface is used, because it does not seem so to the world.–) There is here great propriety in the words: , to stretch out, thence , to ask eagerly with outstretched hand, to grasp: of the mind, seeking , a good thing, produces ; again indicates : , , are opposed to each other: see Arist. 1, Rhet. 10, n. 12. In human affairs, those things are more agreeable, which a man confers or performs of his own accord, than when he is asked: how much more in the affairs of religion? 1Co 16:15, at the end. But away with sacrilegious solicitation of favour and interest. There were not wanting persons who wished to obtain it, Jam 3:1. Paul does not altogether reject their desire, but he reduces it to order.-) an honourable good, excellent, demanding noble virtues. To this is to be referred the then or therefore () in the following verse.-, work) It is a work, a business, not ease; Act 15:38; Php 2:30.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Ti 3:1

Timothy was to take the place of Paul the apostle in teaching, instructing, and guiding the churches in perfecting themselves, and in doing the work for which they were planted. The bishops or overseers were to do the work which their names indicated. Bishop or overseer was the name applied in Greek and Roman countries to the same work or office indicated among the Jews by the words elders or presbyters. They were to take the oversight of the congregations and teach, guide, and direct all the performances of the duties that fell to them. He here speaks of the importance and sanctity of the work and character of the persons fitted to perform the work.

1 Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.-This saying would indicate that the work had been so highly esteemed that it had already grown into a saying, The man who desired the overseeing desired a good work. No more important and no better work exists among the people of God. Paul instructed to take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with is own blood. (Act 20:28.)

APPOINTMENT OF ELDERS AND THEIR DUTIES.

There lies before me the following inquiry: Our congregation recently having had what seems to me an unusual experience, I write to request that you give your views on a question which has disturbed our minds very much. On account of some differences, our elders thought best to resign and offered their resignations, which were accepted. No others as yet having been found who were willing to undertake the work of the eldership, our deacons, thinking that too much responsibility would be thrown upon them, asked that an advisory committee be chosen by the church in order that some older brethren might be present at the official meetings to give their advice and vote upon questions affecting the welfare of the church. This course was adopted, the committee chosen, myself being of the number. I declined to serve, thinking it an unscriptural position-that if adopted by the church and found to work satisfactorily, they might conclude they would need no elders in the future.

There seemed to me to be danger of Gods plan of church government being set aside, superseded by mens plans, some of whom unfortunately appear willing to try to correct the mistakes that God has made in matters pertaining to the church. I held that until we appointed elders our deacons could consult with the whole church or any older members without naming a committee as a substitute for the eldership.

I do not wish to occupy a wrong position in the matter; if you differ with me, I would be thankful for any light you may be able to give on the subject.

We cannot be too cautious in adding functions to the church not ordained by God. The failure or perversion of those created by God does not justify our setting them aside or superseding them with an order not ordained by God. The judges of Israel were appointed by God. But when the sons of Samuel walked not in his ways but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted justice, the people desired to change the order and make a king rather than live under the rule of the judges. “And Jehovah said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not be king over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, in that they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit thou shalt protest solemnly unto them, and shalt show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. (1Sa 8:3-9.)

Gods spiritual order now is sealed by the blood of Jesus Christ. It is more sacred than the old order sealed by the blood of bulls and goats. Because it may fall into improper hands, be ineffective or be perverted at times, is no reason it should be set aside. It is better to bear with evils and trust with patience and time to correct the wrongs that afflict than to change Gods order. To change Gods order puts the matter in such shape that all work, all effort or success works harm, leads from God.

When the order is changed, and a wrong plan is put in operation, the more successfully it works, the farther and farther it gets away from God. It is like finding a bad place in the right road. If we, to avoid the place, take another road, the smoother it is, and the greater speed we make on it, the farther we go wrong. The only way of safety before God is to take his appointed way and resolutely stick to it, even though the places seem to be rough and many obstacles lie in the way.

The question of changing an eldership is one of the most difficult problems connected with church work. We find nothing concerning the matter in the New Testament, either by precept or example, save the admonition that an accusation against an elder is not to be received save on the testimony of two or three witnesses. I make this the occasion to speak of the duty of the elders. I am not sure that it is right for an eldership to resign. If one or two inefficient members are among the elders, they ought to be kindly and frankly conferred with on the subject, and induced to withdraw, or with the consent and agreement of the elders and of the older members of the church, one might be dismissed from the eldership. But it would be a rare case that a whole eldership would be of such character that all should be dismissed.

Some may be fitted for the eldership and others not. Those fitted should not be treated as those unfitted are. That would be unjust and disastrous to the order of God.

These resignations are usually based on the idea of popular rule in the church. The idea is the elders have received their authority by the popular election of the church from the multitude of disciples and when dissatisfaction arises they return it to those from whom they received it. The elders do not receive their authority by the popular vote of the church. They receive their authority from the Lord. Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops. (Act 20:28.) The Holy Spirit makes men overseers of the flock of God just as much now as he did in the days of the apostles.

When the apostles or teachers needed help at Jerusalem to look after the Grecian widows that were neglected he gave the qualifications and told the disciples to look out among them men possessing these. They did so and they appointed them to the work. This was done by the Holy Spirit. (Act 6:1-4.) Whenever a church under the same directions of the Holy Spirit selects men having the qualifications given by the Spirit, the Spirit appoints them just as much as it did at Jerusalem. Inspired men did not select. The disciples selected under direction of the Spirit.

This selection was made under the restrictions that the younger were to submit to the older, and that God did not permit women to teach or exercise authority in the church. This would limit the selection to the older men of the congregation. When they selected they were to look out among them men of certain qualifications. Look ye out carries the idea of consulting among themselves, and reaching an agreement. This consulting and conferring must be had with the younger and the women that there may be no accusation against those selected. But the older men must make the decision, not by a vote, but by agreement reached through this consulting and seeking out.

There is no provision or example of how a mistake in the selection could be rectified, but it is reason the same class ought to decide whether they made a mistake in selecting, or whether some worthy had turned from their steadfastness.

Unanimity should be sought for in the selection or in the setting aside one selected. Elders are placed in position by the Spirit of God to rule under the divine law. This means to hold in restraint the unruly and to check the currents of excitement that would carry the multitude in wrong courses. For elders to resign, simply because they sometimes were compelled to stand against the current of the multitude, would be to shrink from the work to which they were especially appointed.

If rulers in human governments resign every time the current of popular opinion is against them, they defeat the very ends for which constitutions and laws and rules are made. They are made to restrain the passions and excitements of the multitudes within the limits and restrictions of right as defined in the laws. For the elders to resign because the people go wrong is to fail of the chief end and the special occasions for which God appointed them. It is to break down all rule and respect for Gods law and to work the ruin of the church. While everybody is going in the right way, and of their own accord doing right, laws and rulers are not needed. The elders are appointed by God to teach and lead them in the way of truth, and to stay the current when the people go wrong. If they resign when trouble comes and the people go wrong, they fail in the vital point of duty.

The tendency now is to let the women and the preacher run the church. They supersede the eldership, displace them in their work. The women and the preachers try to displace all elders who refuse to submit to their dictation. It is the duty of the elders firmly to resist this tendency and to refuse to surrender the trust committed to them. They should maintain the divine order, and if any become so dissatisfied with that order as to create division and strife, let them go out; but to the elders, the trust of preserving the church in its integrity and fidelity to the word of God is committed, and to resign the trust, when the divine order is threatened with subversion and destruction, is to be recreant to duty. A church not true to the word of God, that deliberately turns from Gods order, is not a church of God, and unless it repents, the sooner it dies the better. If it does not die, it must be rejected as apostate.

The elders are the scriptural representatives of the church. The presumption is with them. The courts of the country so regard them. And if they surrender the church to the rule of the women and children and the preacher, the blame is theirs. Elders sometimes go wrong. They oftener do it under the idea that they ought to compromise the law of God for the sake of peace than on any other ground. They do it to please the preacher and the young folks. They are ordained to God, to maintain, teach, and enforce the laws of God, never to compromise or yield them.

The elders are the undershepherds to watch over and feed the flock of God. In accepting the work of the elders they bring themselves under the most sacred and solemn obligations possible to men to guard and maintain the honor of God, to keep his teaching and his service pure from all innovations of men. As shepherds and teachers of the flock, they assume the most sacred and solemn obligations to the flock to feed the flock with the pure milk of the word of God, that by this they may grow; to guard against all teaching and practices that rest on human authority as vitiating the service of God and defiling the spiritual nature of the taught, and cutting them off from the blessings of God, which come to men only through the appointments of God unmixed with human inventions and traditions. A sadder perversion of a sacred trust is never seen than when elders and teachers forget the sanctity of their obligations both to God and his church, and, as his trusted servants and chosen teachers, encourage the introduction into his service of practices not authorized by God, so destroying his authority as lawgiver, and, as a consequence, hurtful and poisonous to the spiritual nature of men.

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

Turning to the government of the Church, the apostle deals with two orders, bishops and deacons. The bishop is an overseer, whose duty it is to watch over the flock. The apostle describes the qualifications necessary to fulfil the office:

(1) character (verses 1Ti 3:2-3),

(2) temperament (verses 1Ti 3:4-5),

(3) experience (verse 1Ti 3:6), and

(4) reputation (verse 1Ti 3:7).

The description of the deacon has unquestioned reference to the order instituted in the early days, as recorded by Luke (Act 6:1-15). According to this, they were to be “men of good report, full of the spirit of wisdom.” There is not the slightest warrant for looking on the o5ce in any sense as inferior. Its function was different, but not less important. The business of the Church ever needs to be carried on by men of highest character and deepest spirituality. All this will be seen as the instructions of the apostle are pondered.

The purpose of all the apostle had written was that men might know how to behave themselves in the Church. A remarkable and singularly beautiful description of the Church follows. It is the house of God, and therefore it is the pillar and ground of truth. The essential glory of the Church is “the truth.” Having shown this, the apostle describes the truth in words which constitute a verse of perfect poetry. There have been varied renderings of this passage. That of Humphreys in the Cambridge Bible is very illuminative.

Who is flesh was manifested, Pure in Spirit was attested; By angels’ vision witnessed, Among the nations heralded; By faith accepted here, Received in glory there!

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

3:1-13. The officials of the Church: (a) the overseer, the bishop (1-7); (b) ministers, deacons (8-10); (c) deaconesses, (11); (d) the deacons as possible candidates for higher office (12, 13).

The transition is abrupt in form (cf. 5:1, 6:17), but the writers mind passes naturally from the members of the community to those who act as officials and either as leaders or assistants regulate their worship and their life. In each case little is said of their duties, a knowledge of which is assumed; but, as in c. 2, the whole stress is on character, on the moral and intellectual qualifications for office. (1, 4, 7, 12, 13) strikes the note of the whole section.

Paraphrase. A third point on which I wish to lay stress is the character of those who hold any official position: and, first, for the leader of the worship, the bishop. You know the common saying:

He who would play a leaders part

On noble task has set his heart.

It is right, then, to wish for such a post; but such a noble task requires a character above reproach. So the bishop must not fall behind a high Christian morality in respect of marriage or sobriety, or self-control and dignity; and he must have special qualifications: he must be ready to welcome guests from other Churches, and able to teach in the assemblies: in dealing with members of the Church he must not be overbearing or hasty, but large-hearted, ready to make allowances, peace-loving: he must have no love of riches, as he has to control the finances: his power of ruling must be tested by his power of ruling his own household. Has that been a noble task with him? has he kept his own children obedient to discipline with true dignity? if not, how will he be able to take charge of a Church of Gods? Moreover, he must not be a recent convert; for, if so, his head may quickly be turned and the devil be able to bring accusations against him. Lastly, he must be well thought of by those outside the Christian body: otherwise he will easily cause scandal, and the devil will snare him to his ruin.

Then for assistants, deacons: they must have a character that inspires respect: their word must be trustworthy: they must not say one thing to one person, another to another: they must not be given to excess in wine: they must be above making money in unworthy ways: they must hold the truths of the gospel with a conscience free from stain. Yes, and like the leaders, they must be tested first, and only be admitted as deacons if no charge can be sustained against them.

Much the same has to be said about deaconesses: their character must inspire respect: they must not be gossips and scandal-mongers: they must be sober: entirely trustworthy.

There is another point about assistants (deacons), they may come to be leaders (bishops): so in choosing them, see that they have the same qualifications about marriage and the discipline over their own families which are required for bishops. For those who have treated the diaconate as a noble task win for themselves another noble position and preach with full assurance in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Cf. Tit 1:5-9; St. Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, ed. Nairn, pp. xxvi-xxviii.

1. ] cf. 2:15 note. If these words apply to the following paragraph, the variant would seem more appropriate, the writer quoting a saying applicable to all overseership in human life (allgemeinmenschlich, Wohlenberg) and applying it to the Christian Church. Deissmann (B. St., p. 230), shows that was used as a pre-Christian religious title.

] Aspires to, in no bad sense; but Clem. Rom. i. c. 44 shows how early a wrong ambition set in and was foreseen by the Apostles.

] prclarum (Calvin): which ought to attract the world to Christ; and therefore difficult, .

] negotium, non otium, Bengel, Cf. 2Ti 4:5, 1Th 5:13 , and for failure in such a task, Act 15:38 .

2-8. Qualifications for the . For the relation of the to the presbyters, v. Introd., p. xix. The singular here may imply that there was only one in the community, or it may be limited by the context-the who is leading the worship. No definition is given of his duties, but the following are implied: (a) Presiding (, ) i.e. (i) exercising discipline, cf. the analogy of the family (5); (ii) (arising from the context) presiding at worship. (b) Teaching, (2). (c) Control of the finances, (3). (d) Representing the community to Christians elsewhere ( (2)) and to the world outside (7).

These qualifications form guidance for the scrutiny of candidates who desire the office (Ramsay): they are partly the ordinary moral qualities which would be respected in a layman, and failure in which would imply censure; partly those which would be required for his special position. To St. Paul the representative character of those who had oversight in the Ecclesia, their conspicuous embodiment of what the Ecclesia itself was meant to show itself, was more important than any acts or teachings by which their oversight could be exercised (Hort). Hence it scarcely gives the ideal of a bishop, but the necessary requirements (so Chrys. , , ). A comparison with Tit 1:5-9 shows how the list of moral qualifications was getting stereotyped: Bernard compares the requirements for the Stoic wise man, who was to be a married man (2), (6), temperate in wine (2), and to combine with Diog. Laert. vii. 116-26. Wetstein and Dibelius (q.v.) quote the close analogy of the requirements for the choice of a general, who was to be , , . . . , , , : Onosander, De Imperatorum Officio, c. 1 (fl. c. 55 b.c.). Either of such lists may have been known to our writer, but they are all probably independent.

2. . (5:7, 6:14; cf. M.M. s.v.) perhaps slightly stronger than , Tit 1:6. That would imply more definite charges (, ib.): this, any criticism or censure. It is explained by the following words: Not liable to criticism as he would be if he failed in any of these qualities.

. . . , general moral qualifications, in relation to his own life: , , qualifications for his special office.

. . . , qualifications in relation to other members of the community.

, qualification in relation to the finance of the community.

, in relation to his own family.

, in relation to his standing in the community.

, in relation to the world outside.

] In interpreting this difficult phrase, two facts guide us. (a) The standard is not the highest (v. supra); it must be something, failure in which would incur reproach; (b) but the standard is that of a Christian community; contrast 7. It presupposes a knowledge of the teaching of Our Lord and of St. Paul.

(i) The phrase might imply that the bishop must be a married man (so Wordsworth, The Ministry of Grace, pp. 215-20; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry, p. 145), and the writer might well prefer a man with the experience of the head of a family (cf. 4) for the overseership of a church, and might wish to guard against any depreciation of marriage (cf. 4:3); but to be unmarried would incur no reproach: such a requirement would be scarcely consistent with the teaching of Our Lord (Mat 19:12) and of St. Paul (1Co 7:7, 1Co 7:8): so the writer is only thinking of the true character of a bishop, if married; as in 4 he deals only with his relation to his children, if he has children.

(ii) It certainly implies-not a polygamist. Such a rule would still be necessary, as polygamy might still be found among Jews; cf. Justin Martyr, Tryph. c. 134, : Joseph. Ant. xvii. 1, 2, : cf. Schrer, i. 1, p. 455 note. Schechter, Documents of jewish Sectaries, i. 17.

(iii) It also certainly implies a faithful husband, married to one woman and loyal to her, having no mistress or concubine; cf. Tertull. Apol. 46, Christianus uxori soli su masculus nascitur. Canones Apost. xvii. : cf. ib. lxi. A similar provision is found in heathen marriage contracts; cf. Tebt. Pap. 104, , (92 b.c.), and similarly Pap. Eleph. 1 (310 b.c.).

(iv) It also implies, and was probably meant to imply, not divorcing one wife and marrying another. This would be a Christian rule, based both on Our Lords teaching and on St. Pauls (cf. Hermas, M. iv. 1, which forms a good commentary on this phrase), and very necessary in view of the laxity of divorce both among Jews (Schechter, u.s.; Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism, 9) and among heathen; cf. Friedlnder (Eng. tr.), pp. 242-43; Fowler, Social Life in Rome, c. 5. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to M. Aurelius, pp. 76-79, though he points out that the heathen standard was rising: The ideal of purity, both in men and women, in some circles was actually rising there were not only the most spotless and high-minded women, there were also men with a rare conception of temperance and mutual love. Plutarchs ideal of marriage, at once severe and tender, would have satisfied St. Paul. Seneca and Musonius, who lived through the reign of Nero, are equally peremptory in demanding a like continence from men and from women.

(v) Did it also imply, not marrying a second time after his wifes death? This is possible, but scarcely likely. No doubt the phrase led to this interpretation and was used to support it, and that by the end of the and century; cf. Tertull. ad Uxor. i. 7; Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. 12; Origen, Hom. xvii. in Luc., and the later Church orders; cf. Apost. Ch. Order, i. , . Apost. Canons, xvii. (quoted above); Apost. Const. ii. 2, : ib. vi. 17. Test. Dom. N. J. Christi, c. 20 (where see Cooper-Macleans note). There were also tendencies in the heathen world moving in the same direction. There was the feeling for the children of the first wife who might be harmed by the stepmother; cf. Eur. Alc. 301 sqq.; Propert. iv. 11. 81, and the law of Charondas forbidding such a second marriage, quoted in Diod. Sic. xii. 12 (Wetstein): there was also the natural devotion to a loved wife; cf. the Inscr. at Pisa (Orelli, ii. p. 517, No. 4623), conjugi karissim cum qu vixit annos xviii. sine querella, cujus desiderio juratus se post eam uxorem non habiturum; cf. Bigg, The Churchs Task, p. 102: In the epitaphs two not uncommon words are virginius and virginia: they denote a husband who never had but the one wife, a wife who never had but the one husband. Such a feeling would be increased by the Christian thought of the eternal relation of husband and wife (cf. Chrys. on Tit 1:6); yet such a standard is always regarded as exceptional, and is too high for this context; and the later writers are influenced by a growing love for celibacy (), which is certainly alien to this passage, and by the denunciation of second marriages in all cases (Athenag. Leg. 33), which is also alien to the Epistle, 5:14; cf. Suicer, s.v. . Dict. Christ. Ant., s.v. Marriage, p. 1097 and p. 1103; and for a strong defence of the stricter view, The Library of the Fathers, Tertullian, vol. i. pp. 420-32.

] (11, Tit 2:2 only in N.T.), temperate in use of wine; cf. 8, 11, 5:23; perhaps also sober-minded or vigilant (, Chrys., cf. Heb 13:17, and Homer, Il. ii. 24, 25). Cf. 2Ti 4:5 : 1 P 1:13 (ubi v. Hort) 5:8, 1Co 15:34 .

, ] (2:9 only in N.T.). Quod est intus, id est extra, Bengel. , Thdt.; Inscr. from Magnesia. (Dibelius, and M.M. s.v.). It implies wellordered demeanour, but also the orderly fulfilment of all duties and the ordering of the inner life from which these spring. Cf. Trench, Syn., p. 332. It is the quiet, orderly citizen, the antithesis of .

] The duty of individual Christians (5:10) and of the whole Church (Rom 12:13, Rom 12:1 P 4:9, 3Jn 1:5), with a special blessing attached to it (Heb 13:2 : cf. Clem. Rom 1:10-12, a comment on that passage); finding its fullest expression in the , cf. Herm. S. ix. 27, where , are compared to trees sheltering sheep, and singled out for special praise (Dibelius). For its importance, cf. Harnack, Exp. of Christ. 1. ii, 3.; Ramsay, Pauline Studies, pp. 382-86.

, ] the negative of the positive , , in relation to others. Cf. Tit 1:8 note.

, ] the mark of all Christians, Tit 3:2, where see note.

] Tit 1:8 note.

4. Cf. Tit 1:6; : cf. 2:2 of all Christians: here the reference is specially to the father (cf. 8, 11), though it might include the effect on the whole household ().

5. For the analogy from the family to the Church, cf. Eph 2:19 , 5:23-6:9, where the family is treated as the nursery in which the virtues characteristic of the Church are trained. The analogy from the family to the State is common in classical writers; cf. Sen. de Clem. i. 9., quo hoc animo facis? ut ipse sis princeps? domum tuam tueri non potes, Tac. Agr. 19, and other instances in Wetstein and Dibelius.

. ] St. Paul only in N.T.: here and 15 only without the article, a church of Gods.

6. For later formulation of this rule, cf. Apostol. Canon lxxx. (adding as reason, ), Concil. Nic. Canon ii. with Brights note.

] a recent convert (for the form, cf. , Rom 6:5; and for the metaphor, 1Co 3:6). The word is used literally in the LXX and Inscr. (Deissmann, Bible St. s.v.); as a simile, Psa 143:12 : here, first as a metaphor; so in Tertullian, Prscr. 41, adv. Marc. i. 20.

] 6:4, 2Ti 3:4 only in N.T., from , smoke, with his head dazed and turned in superbiam elatus, Vulg.; entt. It combines the ideas of conceit and folly; he may behave arrogantly to others and teach foolishly. Wetstein aptly quotes the warning of Tiberius, ne quis mobiles adolescentium animos prmaturis honoribus ad superbiam extolleret, Tac. Ann. iv. 17. For the harm wrought by , cf. an interesting passage in Philo, de Decal. Son_1 and 2, , , .

] The parallelism of 7 and 2Ti 2:26 makes it certain that this is the devil, not (as Weiss) some human accuser. But the analogy of 5:14, Tit 2:8 suggest that the devil is thought of as working through some human agent; cf. Ecclus. 51:2 , Pro 6:24, and perhaps Eph 4:27.

.] not (as Chrys. Pelag. Thdt. Calvin, Bengel) the judgment passed on the devil, which is not parallel to 7, and would naturally be , but some judgment which the devil, the slanderer, the setter at variance, the accuser of the brethren (Rev 12:10, cf. Jud 1:9, Jud 1:2 P 2:11 ), passes upon him. Such a novice is arrogant or foolish in teaching. The devil reproaches (7). This is your humble Christian! this your learned teacher! The devil lays snares (7) to draw him on and to discredit the whole community. The man makes shipwreck of his faith by some moral (1:19) or intellectual (6:21) failure; he is handed over to Satan (1:20); and he passes judgment, perhaps some bodily infliction, upon him; cf. Job_1 and 2 and Test. XII. Patr., Reuben 6, .

7. ] For St. Pauls care for the opinion outside the Church, cf. 1Th 4:12, 1Co 10:32, Col 4:5.

] cf. 6 note.

8-10. Deacons] For the earlier use of the word, cf. Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 198-211; a recognized title for an office already existing. No definition of duties is given. The name implies service-assistant ministration-perhaps in the Church services, certainly in administering charity and attending to the needs of the poorer members; and it is implied that they would naturally pass to higher office in the Church. The qualifications are partly central Christian virtues (), partly those needed for their office as they moved from house to house ( . . .), handling Church money ( ), speaking of their faith to others ( …)

For similar qualifications, cf. Polyc. ad Phil. 5, perhaps based on this passage.

8. ] tale-bearers, Lightfoot on Polyc. (u.s.), but probably double-tongued, ad alios alia loquentes (Bengel); cf. (Const. Apost. iii. 5), (Pro 11:13, Ecclus 5:10 ), (Test. XII. Patr., Asher, c. 2); the parson of our parish, Mr. Two-Tongues (Pilgrims Progress), (Jam 1:8). The word here only in N.T., and not elsewhere in this sense. For the thought, cf. Test. XII. Patr., Benj. c. 6, , , , , .

9. .] perhaps the secret truths of the Christian faith; cf. 16, lay,ng stress on doctrinal correctness, but more probably, as there is no duty of teaching implied, holding their own faith, the secret of their allegiance to Christ, secure under the protection of a good conscience, a true inward religion and a true inward morality (Hort., u.s.). The stress is on . , the casket in which the jewel is to be kept; cf. 1:9 note.

10. .] Probably not by any definite examination or by a time of probation (Ramsay), but only in the same way as the ( ), by the opinion of the Church judging his fitness by the standard just laid down.

11. . From the context and from the parallelism between the qualities required for them and for the deacons = : = : = . : = . . . ), these must be deaconesses (not wives of deacons), women who help; cf. Rom 16:1; Pliny, Ep. x. 96 (written a.d. 112), ancillis qu ministr dicebantur. Their duties in later times are defined as instructing and attending at the baptism of female catechumens, of looking after them at the services and taking messages from the bishops to them; cf. Dict. Christ. Antiq. s.v.; Nic. Canon xix., with Brights note. Apost. Const. ii. 26, iii. 15, . . . .

12. ] The writer returns to deacons from a new point of view, as men who may become : so in addition to what they needed as deacons they must have the two external relations-to wife and children-which were required in the .

13. (here only in N.T.), lit. a step (so in LXX, 1 S 5:5, Ecclus 6:36, 2 K 20:9); then a standing, position. This may be thought of as-

(a) Moral: a vantage ground for influence, analogous to : cf. Clem. Rom. 1:54, : Herm. M. iv. 4, : Poimandres, p. 343, , , : Inscr. at Mitylene, I.G. ii. 243, (MM. s.v.). Parry quotes Clem. Alex. Str. ii. 9. 45, .

(b) Ecclesiastical: a higher grade, an honourable rank; cf. Ap. K. O. 22, . Apost. Const. viii. 22, . This is common in later eccles. writers; cf. the prayer for the deacons, , Lit. of S. James, Brightman, E. and W. L., p. 55, and is probable here from the use of the aorist , and from the analogy of to 1, and of to . But such eccles. promotion will include all that was implied in (a). It is used of promotion in the army; cf. Harrison, p. 165, who quotes from Hadriani Sententi, , .

] Certainly man-ward, cf. Phm 1:8; perhaps also God-ward, cf. Eph 3:12.

With the whole verse contrast Herm. S. ix. 25, where dishonest deacons are compared to reptiles and wild beasts that destroy men, , perhaps a conscious parody of this verse.

14-16. The Secret of True Christian Character

Paraphrase. I hope to come to you soon and strengthen your hands by my presence; but in case I should be delayed, I write at once that you may know what is the true Christian life, the true relation of one with another in Gods own family, for it is a Church belonging to God Himself, the living source of all life; and its task is to hold up the truth for the whole world to see and to give it a firm support in the lives of its members. And confessedly the secret of a true religious life is very important; for it centres in a personal relation to a Living Person: to one of whom we sing in our hymns that He was-

In flesh unveiled to mortals sight,

Kept righteous by the Spirits might,

While angels watched him from the sky:

His heralds sped from shore to shore,

And men believed, the wide world oer,

When he in glory passed on high.

This section primarily gives the reason for the regulations in the preceding chapters, especially Son_2 and 3; but it also leads on to the warning against false teaching and the advice about Timothys teaching which follows. It thus becomes the very heart of the Epistle; it should be compared with similar doctrinal conclusions in 1:5, 2:3-5, 6:13-16, Tit 2:12-14, Tit 3:5-7. But this goes deeper than all in its picture of the Incarnate and Glorified Christ as the centre of the true life of the whole world, cf. 2Ti 2:8. It is the poetic expression of Gal 2:20 .

14. ] i.e. mainly Son_2 and 3 (with their constant stress on true character, on the knowledge of truth (2:4, 7, 3:9, 13), and on Gods family); but it may include the whole letter.

] Not although I hope, but hoping. I write and hope to come and strengthen your hands by my personal authority ( ); cf 1Co 4:17-19, Php 2:19-24.

] The variant will mean much the same, as its comparative sense was dying out; cf. Joh 13:27, Heb 13:23; cf. , II 1:18; , v.l., II 1:17.

15. ] Picking up 3:2, 7.

] Picking up 3:4, 5, 12, and therefore not Gods house, but Gods family; cf. Tit 1:11, 2Ti 1:16, and Eph 2:19 : Gal 6:10 . The reference to 3:5 makes it almost certain that the allusion is not to the universal family, to the Church as a whole, but to the special community at Ephesus.

(conversari, Vulg.) includes the life and character of each individual (cf. Eph 2:3, Heb 13:18, and , Gal 1:13, Jam 3:13, and instances from papyri in M.M. s.v.); but also the intercourse of each member with other members, of men with women (c. 2), of parents with children, of ministers with those to whom they minister (c. 3); cf. Hort on 1 P 1:7. He wishes Timothy to have before him an outline of the relation which must exist between the various parts of a congregation or household of God (Ramsay).

The subject of . might be (which is found in a few MSS and Fathers), how you ought to behave, as the in the household, but the general character of cc. 2-3 makes it almost certain that it should be wider, how men ought to behave, that you may know the right relation of class to class. 4:12 shows that it will include Timothy himself as well as those to whom he is to be a model.

] Possibly (as in Eph.) the Universal Church throughout the world; but 35 decides that the primary allusion is to the Church at Ephesus as a separate congregation, though thought of as part of the larger whole; cf. Bengel, Ecclesiam innuit universalem, non universe, sed quatenus pars ejus turn erat Ephesi, commissa Timotheo, and Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 172-75. This increases the dignity attached to each Christian Church and therefore a fortiori to the whole Ecclesia which incorporates them.

] Perhaps with semi-conscious contrast to heathen gods, cf. 1Th 1:9, 2Co 6:16; but emphasizing the thought that a God of life can give life and make such intercourse possible, cf. 4:10, 6:13, and perhaps the thought that He is alive to punish those who fail to live the true life, cf. Heb 10:31: so a contrast with the true God made practically a dead Deity by a lifeless and rigid form of religion (Hort, u.s.).

] The origin of the metaphor is not quite clear: if is used of the Universal Church, it would be drawn from some one pillar standing alone and holding up to view a statue (such as was afterwards Pompeys pillar at Alexandria). If, however, it is applied to a local church or an individual (v. next note), the thought will be of one of a row of pillars which support and give strength to the whole fabric, like one of the many pillars in the temple of Artemis at Ephesus: there will be no sharp distinction between it and . This is the more probable, the combination of the two words being common. According to Lightfoot (Hor Hebr., The Temple, c. 22), it was applied to the great Sanhedrin by the Jews; by R. Levi, to the reference to the Exodus in the Paschal precepts, quia fundamentum id magnum sit et columna valida legis ac religionis Judaic (Bengel).

(firmamentum, Vulg.), that which makes steady, stay, buttress, rather than base; cf. Col 1:23 : 1Co 15:58 .

] Four views have been held of the construction-(i) In apposition with .

(ii) In apposition with the nominative of .

(iii) In loose ungrammatical apposition with (Holtzmann)

(iv) To be joined with . as nominative to .

Of these (iii) and (iv) may be put aside. (iii) is unnecessarily artificial, and gives an inadequate description of the living God. (iv) though defended by Bengel, leads to an anticlimax, . . , and is tautological, the secret of godliness is not the support of the truth, but the truth itself. In favour of (ii) it is to be said that is used generally of individuals in the N.T. (Gal 2:9, Rev 3:12): that the combination of the same or similar words is also so used (cf. Eus. H.E. v. 1 of Attalus, . ; Justin M. Tryph. 5, , : Greg. Naz. Ep. 29, of Eusebius, . . , ), and it suits the context- I want you to know, because you are in position to uphold and support the truth, cf. 1:18, 6:20. Yet the stress of the preceding chapters has been more on what the Church than on what Timothy is to be, and this is decisive for (i). Each local Church has it in its power to support and strengthen the truth by its witness to the faith and by the lives of its members. A very full note on the usage of the words will be found in Suicer, Thesaurus, s.v. .

16. Cf. Eph 5:32 .

] By common agreement (manifeste, Vulg.) i.e. of Christians, perhaps also including the impression made on the pagan world around; or perhaps by common profession (omnium confessione, Ambros.), hinting that the following words come from some Church hymn, and so equivalent to found in D* S (pal).

] The revealed secret of true religion, the mystery of Christianity, the Person of Christ: cf. Col 1:27 , . The phrase is perhaps a deliberate contrast to , 2Th 2:7, and cf. inf. 4:1, 2; also with implied contrast both to Judaism, cf. 1:8-11 and Ep. Diogn. c. 5, (of the Christians as opposed to the Jews); and to the secrets of the heathen mysteries, cf. , Col 1:27, Col 1:2:18, Col 1:19.

may perhaps include the thought of doctrine as well as of life, Christianity, as it in later ecclesiastical Greek became the equivalent to orthodoxy: but the context here and the use of it as applied to the life of all Christians (2:2) and of Timothy himself (4:7, 8), shows that the main stress is here on moral life; cf. 2Ti 3:12 .

] Source.-These words may be (i) the writers own, or (ii) a quotation. The latter is more likely because of its introduction with (contrast Eph 5:32), of the rhythmical form, of the use of words not found elsewhere in this writer (, , ), of the fact that it goes beyond the statements required by the context, and of the writers fondness for quotation. If this is so, it will be from some well-known Christian hymn (cf. Eph 5:19), possibly from the same hymn as that quoted in Eph 5:14, in which case will supply the antecedent to . It implies a wide preaching of Christianity, but such as might fall within St. Pauls lifetime; cf. Col 1:6 . There are reminiscences of it in Ep. Diogn. 11, , . . . : Ep. Barn. 6, 9, 11; 14, . Resch (Paulinismus, p. 397) thinks that it may have influenced the author of Mar 16:9-19.

Structure. The arrangement is uncertain: it may be six parallel lines in groups of two, but this gives no clear correspondence of thought in the group: more probably it represents two stanzas of three lines, which balance each other, contrasting the Incarnate Lord with the Ascended Lord.

(i) The Life of the Incarnate-

(a) as seen on earth, .

(b) as watched from heaven, .

(ii) The Life of the Ascended Lord-

(a) as preached on earth, .

(b) as lived in heaven, .

The main thought, then, is that one who has really lived a perfect human life on earth has a message for the whole world, and lives to give his righteouness to all; cf. 1:11 : 2:4-7 . . . .

.] What is the antecedent? (a) , either implied in . (cf. Col 1:27, Col 2:2), or expressed in some previous verse of the hymn; cf. Eph 5:14. It can scarcely be , to which would not be suitable, but might be ; cf. Ep. Barn. c. 5, which seems reminiscent of the passage, . (b) to be supplied before line 4. He who so lived on earth has now been preached throughout the world (von Soden); but this lays almost too much stress on the last stanza, and is less suited to poetic style.

] Of the human life, as an unveiling of a previous existence, and perhaps including the manifestation after the Resurrection; but the stress on is on its weakness, in the weak flesh that we share; cf. Rom 8:3, Gal 2:20. Neither word is used of Christ in the Pastorals: the first is Johannine, the second, both Johannine and Pauline.

] Either was made righteous in the spiritual sphere, was kept sinless through the action of the Spirit upon His Spirit. : Chrys. justificatum et immaculatum factum virtute sancti spiritus; Theod.-Mops.; cf. Herm. S. v. 7, . . . : or was justified in His claims to be the Christ in virtue of the Spirit which dwelt in Him, enabling Him to cast out devils (cf. Mat 12:28), to conquer all evil, and to rise from the grave; cf. Rom 1:3, Rom 1:4 , : cf. Mat 11:19, Luk 7:35, Joh 16:10.

] Not (as Hofmann, Wohlenberg, etc.) was seen by messengers, i.e. by those who told the message of His Resurrection, though this would lead on naturally to , and would sum up the repeated of 1Co 15:5-8: the reference to the Resurrection, though included in , is scarcely explicit enough for this: but was seen by angels, who watched the earthly life, cf. Luk 2:13, Mar 1:3, Joh 1:51, Luk 24:23, and still watch His working from Heaven, Eph 3:10, Eph 3:1 P 1:12. Dibelius quotes the Ascension of Isaiah, c. 11, all the angels of the firmament and Satan saw Him and adored Him.

] Cf. 2:7 . . . .

] The response to , universally, and perhaps with emphasis on the character of the , in a world full of sinners (cf. 1:15) which needed reconciliation (2Co 5:19).

(Act 1:2, Act 1:11, Act 1:22, Ps -Sol 4:20 with Ryle and James note: Apoc. Baruch, ed. Charles, p. 73) in an atmosphere of glory in which He remains, and communicates His glory to men; cf. 1:11 note.

For a somewhat similar reminiscence of a hymn about Christs Life, cf. 1 P 3:18-22.

M.M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, by J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan, 1914-

Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, by Archbishop Trench, 8th edition, 1876.

Const. Apost. Constitutiones Apostolorum, ed. P. A. de Lagarde, 1862.

I.G. Inscriptiones Grc Berlin, 1873-

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Fitness for Christian Leadership

1Ti 3:1-7

One of Timothys most urgent duties was to take care that those who held office in the churches were beyond reproach. The tone of a Christian community is largely that of its leaders. As the margin suggests, the bishop of the early Church was an overseer or presbyter. See Act 20:28, r.v. Gods minister must not only be irreproachable as far as the outside world is concerned, but exemplary in his domestic relations. Such was the facility of divorce among the Jews that it was a common thing for a man to have more than one woman living who had been his wife: but by Pauls ruling this would debar him from holding office, unless his divorce be for cause as provided in Mat 19:9.

Notice how often those words grave, sober-minded, temperate occur in this chapter. The effect of a good sermon will be spoiled if a man yields to foolish levity or intemperate habits. Moderation, serenity of temper, freedom from love of money, a well-ordered household, an obedient and reverent family-these are signs that a man may aspire to the sacred work of the ministry; and these are the qualities which people should look for in candidates for pulpits, more than those of rhetoric, brilliance, or outward attractiveness.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Chapter 7 Qualifications for Office in the Church

1Ti 3:1-13

We need to recognize the fact that Scripture distinguishes between gift and office. Our risen, glorified Lord, we are told, has given gifts unto men. He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers (Eph 4:11). These are divinely-given gifts for the edification of the church. It is God Himself who qualifies men for any of these particular lines of service. A man is not an evangelist because he goes to some school and develops a set technique and methods of preaching. A man is not necessarily a teacher of the Word because he takes some course of Bible instruction and then endeavors to pass on to others that which he has learned. But the risen Christ, by the Holy Spirit, qualifies men to do the work which He has for them. Never in Scripture do we have the least intimation that a man has to be humanly ordained in order that he may preach the gospel or teach the Word. We do not get anything like that in the Bible. It is the Lord Himself who gives the gifts. When He imparts the gift of preaching or teaching to any man, then the recipient is responsible to use his gift to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some of the most widely used ministers of the gospel that have ever lived were never ordained by man. Charles H. Spurgeon, pastor for many years of the great Metropolitan Tabernacle in London, England, and one of the most outstanding Baptist preachers of his day, absolutely refused to be ordained by man. He utterly repudiated anything of the kind, saying the Lord Himself had ordained him and that was sufficient. D. L. Moody was never ordained by man, yet was a mighty evangelist who won thousands to Christ.

In Timothys own case there was undoubtedly some formal service participated in by Paul and the elders of Derbe and Lystra before he went forth with the Apostle in itinerant missionary work. This is generally spoken of as his ordination, and perhaps it is correct to so speak, but actually it was more in the nature of a commendation and expression of fellowship. In response to the prayers and the laying on of hands of Paul and the elders on that occasion, God gave to Timothy a special gift to qualify him for the ministry he was to perform.

In the present section of our epistle, 3:1-13, Paul gives by inspiration the qualifications for official position in the local church. The officers may or may not be men of special gift. They must be men of sincere piety and exemplary lives. Verses 1-7 have to do with the selection of bishops, or overseers, and verses 8-13 with that of deacons, or servants.

Scripture recognizes these two offices in the church. Bishops and elders are one and the same, as a careful examination of certain passages will show.

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. We see both offices in the book of Acts and also in the Epistles, and these elders and deacons are definitely appointed by the church. In the case of elders they were ordained by the apostles or by apostolic authority. The word ordained does not necessarily mean all that we sometimes put into it. We read, Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints (1Co 16:15). The word rendered addicted is the same as that rendered ordained elsewhere.

First then notice what is said of those who are called bishops.

This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil, (vv. 1-7)

This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The word translated bishop means overseer. If we turn to the epistle to Titus, we see that an elder and bishop are one and the same, For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre (1:5, 7). You see the Apostle is saying to Titus, Now Titus, in order to complete the organization of the churches in Crete, you go from church to church and select out of the fellowship of your brethren suitable men to be ordained as elders in each of these churches. Then he gives the qualifications of a bishop. In verse 5 the word elders is used, and in verse 7 they are called bishops. Elders implies they are to be men of mature years. But the other term bishops means that they are to be competent to bear rule in the church of God.

You will never find anything like the modern bishop in the Bible. A bishop today, both in the Roman Catholic Church and in other churches which came out of Rome, is one of superior rank set in authority over other ministers. But there is no such idea as that in Scripture. In Acts 20 we find a number of bishops in one church, instead of one bishop set over many churches. In verse 17 the Apostle is addressing the elders of the church, and in verse 28 he says to them, Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. The word overseers is a translation of the same word rendered bishops, so he says to these elders that they are to take care of the flock of God over which the Holy Spirit has made them bishops.

A great many things have come into the professing church for which there is no warrant in Scripture but which people take for granted. In certain organizations you have first a lower order of clergy called deacons, then a higher order called elders, and the highest of all called bishops. Some recognize even a higher order than these called archbishops, and then a few are selected from the archbishops, given red hats, and called cardinals. All that came in as a result of the churchs departure from its early simplicity and of its imitation of the ways of the pagan systems.

What we need to keep in mind is that elders and bishops are one and the same. In the local church these are responsible for the spiritual affairs of the church, and we learn here the type of men that should be selected for this office.

Go back to verse 2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife. Do not misunderstand. The Apostle does not mean that a bishop must be sinless. If so, we could not have any bishops. Charles Spurgeon said a certain man whom he knew at one time was very pious. Mr. Spurgeon said he thought the man was practically sinless, until one day he said he was. Then Mr. Spurgeon knew he was not. A bishop must be a man of pure motives who desires to glorify our blessed Lord. He must be blameless as to motives. Then he is to be the husband of one wife. It is amazing to think that in one of our great religious systems they hold that a clergyman of any character must have no wife. Scripture distinctly states that a bishop is to be the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach. Those who hold the office of bishop are to be men who are interested in showing forth to others the grace of God in their Christian testimony. And, if God gives them a special gift, they are to use that gift in teaching the Word, not depending upon stimulants for inspiration but upon the Holy Spirit of God. They are to manifest a kindly interest in their brethren and in all men: no striker, not one who readily loses his temper; not a brawler, not quarrelsome; not covetous, or a lover of money.

One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?). This is a very important qualification. We have often seen men aspiring to this office in the church whose children were a disgrace to them because of their willfulness and worldly ways. But the man who is fitted to have oversight in the church of God is one who has proven his ability to shepherd others by the way he rules his own household.

Not a novice [not a new convert], lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. The Devil fell through pride. He was created a glorious angel, Lucifer, but his heart was lifted up with pride, and because of that he rebelled against God and fell. He who was one of the anointed cherubim of the throne of God is now that old serpent, the devil, and Satan. So the Apostle warns of the danger of selecting one who has been converted recently, and putting him in the special position of bishop, lest he be lifted up with pride.

Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Men chosen for bishops are to be of such character that even the people of the world can look up to them and see in them what Christians ought to be.

Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus, (vv. 8-13)

Here we have the qualifications of a deacon. The word deacon really means servant, or minister, and a deacon is to take care of the temporal affairs of the church of God. All who are deacons do not bear the title. For instance, a treasurer is a deacon, ushers are deacons, the men who look after the building, the trustees, are all deacons according to the Word of God. In Acts 6 we read of the first deacons. Seven men of honest report were chosen to take care of the distribution of the funds and the ministering to the poor and needy saints of Jerusalem. The word rendered ministration in Act 6:1 is diakonia. Those who attended to this work were deacons, therefore.

In Romans 16 we find the feminine word for deacon. The Apostle sent his letter to the Romans by the hand of a lady who was traveling to Rome, and he calls her Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea (Rom 16:1), literally, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. She served the church. So a woman who serves the church is called, in Scripture, a deaconess.

Deacons must be grave, not given to frivolity, but realizing the seriousness of the work they are to undertake. Not doubletongued-one who will say one thing to one person and the opposite to someone else is double tongued. A deacon must be a man whose words can be depended upon. Not given to much wine, not exhilarated by stimulants. Not greedy of filthy lucre, not men who are seeking to enrich themselves.

Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. That is, they must be converted men, who, having received Christ, are faithful to the truth of God and obey His Word, ever seeking to maintain a pure conscience.

Next the Apostle mentions the wives of the deacons. Inasmuch as the deacons have to do with the temporal affairs of the church, their wives are likely to cause endless trouble unless they are wise, godly women. If the wife is a busybody she can destroy very easily her husbands influence for good. So the Apostle says, Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. The word for slanderers is the plural for devil-that is, she-devil. The Devil is the great slanderer. And the deacons wife must be one who is not characterized by anything like that. Sober, faithful in all things. A wife like this is a great asset to any man.

Reverting to the deacons, Paul says, Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. You get the same qualifications for those in charge of the temporal affairs of the church as for those who oversee its spiritual affairs. They must be men who maintain good order in their own houses.

Then in verse 13 he has a very nice thing to say for the encouragement of the deacons, They that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. In other words, they who have delighted to serve the people of God, they who have had a real heart interest in the work of the church to the glory of God, they that have used their office unselfishly and faithfully purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

We have that illustrated in a very remarkable way in the early chapters of the book of Acts. Among the seven deacons appointed on the occasion to which we have referred already were Stephen and Philip. Not long after Stephens appointment as deacon we find him being led out by the Spirit of God to preach the Word and going from synagogue to synagogue in Jerusalem, proclaiming the truth that Jesus was the Christ. He had used well his office as a deacon. He had purchased to himself a good degree, and he was honored by becoming the first martyr who laid down his life for Christs sake. Philip also used well his office of a deacon. Later on we learn that he went down to Samaria and there preached the Word, and many of the Samaritans believed and were baptized. He became known as an evangelist. It was he who was used to bring the gospel to the Ethiopian treasurer of Queen Candace. And in later years we find Philip in Cesarea maintaining a testimony for God.

We may not all hold official position, but we are all to serve according to the gift given by the grace of God, and we are responsible to be faithful in whatsoever place the Lord has set us. But those chosen or recognized by their brethren as fit to be trusted with special responsibilities in the church need special grace for the work they have to do.

Chapter 6 The Consistent Christian Woman up Chapter 8 The Mystery of Godliness

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

1Ti 3:9

I. Look at the remarkable combination of revelation and truth, and conscience which the text exhibits. The Apostle knew nothing or cared nothing for those controversies between revelation and conscience, or faith and conscience, or authority and conscience which now agitate men’s minds. As these several things presented themselves to his mind there were no rival claims to be adjusted between them. Is Christian doctrine to be accepted because it is a Divine revelation of the evidence of which faith is to judge? or is it to be accepted because, and only as far as it commends itself to the human conscience? Modern writers have a great deal to say on this question. St. Paul had simply nothing-nothing, at least, that he thought it necessary to say. Faith, and a pure conscience with him went hand in hand. Both were necessary, and there was no need to decide the limits of their respective domains. He had united them together in his direct charge to Timothy himself. He now unites them again in stating his qualifications for the first step in the ministry. A good conscience is the natural element in which a sound faith exists. Therefore, the man who deliberately thrusts away from him the former, renders himself incapable of holding the latter, or at least places himself in great danger of making shipwreck of it. A true faith cannot live in an impure heart, though it may be there dormant and inactive. Indulgence in sin, which obscures the lesser light of man’s moral nature, must at length hide out the view of God Himself, though we have the promise of our Lord that the pure in heart shall eventually see God, and from which we may infer that it is darkness and sin alone that can entirely obscure Him. Yet we cannot doubt the fact that purity of outward life may co-exist with unbelief. It does not, however, by any means necessarily follow that purity of outward life involves that purity of heart to which our Lord’s promise is attached. With regard to it, the teaching of the New Testament is no way doubtful. The power within man which triumphs over the strength of his natural corruption is the power of faith, faith in Christ as an ever-living Redeemer, and that faith is an instrument in the hands of the Holy Spirit, by which He works upon the hearts of men. It is thus alone, according to the teaching of the New Testament, that true purity of heart can be attained so far as man in his present state is capable of attaining it.

II. The idea which any man forms of the evil of sin, must depend upon the purity of his conscience; and it therefore follows that purity of conscience is an important element in determining our belief upon such doctrines as the Incarnation and the Atonement, or to use the words of the text, that those parts of the mystery of faith must be held in a pure conscience. And the same may be said of any conception of God which includes the idea of holiness as a part of His character. It is true that all our ideas of holiness are relative and imperfect, as are the teachings of conscience itself; but what idea of beauty, and excellence, and holiness, can be formed by one whose own heart and conscience are defiled, or how can such an one form any conception of the holiness of Him who is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. The mystery of that faith whose seat is in the heart and conscience cannot abide in an impure dwelling-place. From the polluted sanctuary are heard the ominous words-the cry of a lost faith: “Let us depart hence.”

J. H. Jellett, Oxford and Cambridge Journal, June 7th, 1877.

Reference: 1Ti 3:9.-Homilist, 3rd series, vol. vi., p. 6.1.

1Ti 3:13

The Good Degree.

I. In what consists the good degree? It consists in a higher state of spiritual life-a stronger faith, a higher hope, a more entrancing and captivating love; in short, a larger possession of God, as if the Deity within flung His own grace and glory over the soul in which He dwells. That such a state is both possible and blessed, a state to be desired above all other things, will be readily admitted. For that person must be unfortunate, who has not in the circle of his acquaintance some such saint, whose whole soul is aflame with God, and who walks around the familiar objects of daily life, consecrating with his own beauty every act and deed, and reflecting in a face like the face of an angel, the shining of the light that fills the soul within.

II. But a good degree includes a further idea, and that is a higher state in glory, a place nearer God in the world to come, a more perfect knowledge of Him, and a more entrancing enjoyment of Him for ever and ever. This, we must bear in mind, springs from the other, and is but its completion. Grace is but the preparation for glory, the blossom of which glory is the ripened fruit. The hope of such a reward is a grand and elevating sentiment, far above those gross elements, which have led some to regard the hope of reward as an unworthy motive for a Christian. We need not attempt to be superior to our Master, who for the joy that was set before Him, endured the cross. The bestowment of any reward at all is wonderful when the work is all of grace. But our gracious Master knows that we have need of the stimulus of it, and He has made it worthy of Himself,

E. Garbett, Experiences of the Inner Life, p. 95.

References: 1Ti 3:13.-Church of England Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 73; vol. xxi., p. 285.

1Ti 3:15

I. I cannot think of the Christian Church as if it were a selection out of humanity. In its idea it is humanity. The hard, iron-faced man whom I meet upon the street, the degraded, sad-faced man who goes to prison, the weak, silly-faced man who haunts society, the discouraged sad-faced man who drags the chain of drudgery-they are all members of the Church, members of Christ, children of God, heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Their birth made them so. Their baptism declared the truth which their birth made true. It is impossible to estimate their lives aright, unless we give this truth concerning them the first importance. Think, too, what would be the meaning of the other sacrament, if this thought of the Church of the living God were real and universal. The Lord’s Supper, the right and need of every man to feed on God, the bread of Divine sustenance, the wine of Divine inspiration offered to every man, and turned by every man into whatever form of spiritual force the duty and the nature of each man requires, how grand and glorious its mission might become! No longer the mystic source of unintelligible influence; no longer certainly the test of arbitrary orthodoxy; no longer the initiation rite of a selected brotherhood, but the great sacrament of man! The seeker after truth, with all the world of truth freely open before him, would come to the Lord’s table, to refresh the freedom of his soul, to liberate his soul from slavery and prejudice. The soldier going forth to battle, the student leaving college, the merchant getting ready for a sharp financial crisis, all men full of passion for their work, would come then to the Lord’s Supper to fill their passion with the Divine fire of consecration. They would meet and keep their unity in beautiful diversity-this Christian Church around the Christian feast. There is no other rallying place for all the good activity and worthy hopes of man. It is in the power of the great Christian sacrament, the great human sacrament, to become that rallying place.

II. And then the ministry, the ministers, what a life theirs must be, whenever the Church thus comes to realise itself! We talk today, as if the ministers of the Church were consecrated for the people. The old sacerdotal idea of substitution has not died away. What is the release from such a false idea? Not to teach that the ministers are not consecrated, but to teach that all the people are; not to deny the priesthood of the clergy, but to assert the priesthood of all men. When that great chain is made, and justified in life, then, and not till then, lordship over God’s heritage shall disappear, and the true greatness of the minister, as the fellow-worker with, and servant of, the humblest and most struggling child of God, shall shine out on the world.

III. Yet once more, here must be seen the true place and dignity of truth and doctrine. It is not knowledge anywhere that is the end and purpose of man’s labour or of God’s government. It is life. It is the full activity of powers. Knowledge is a means to that. Why is it that the Church has magnified doctrine overmuch and throned it where it does not belong. It is because the Church has not cared enough for life. She has not over-valued doctrine; she has under-valued life. When the Church learns that she is, in her idea, simply identical with all nobly active humanity, when she thinks of herself as the true inspirer and purifier of all the life of man, then she will-what? not cast her doctrines away, as many of her impetuous advisers would have her do. She will see their value as she has never seen it yet; but she will hold them always as the means of life, and she will insist that out of their depths they shall send forth manifest strength for life, which shall justify her holding them.

Phillips Brooks, Twenty Sermons, p. 42.

References: 1Ti 3:15.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. vi., No. 393; vol. xxiv., No. 1436; J. Irons, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. viii., p. 359; Plain Sermons, vol. ii., p. 177. 1Ti 3:15, 1Ti 3:16.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. iii., p. 74; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. viii., p. 207.

1Ti 3:16

I. Note the facts recorded. These you will perceive to be points in the life of our Lord, commencing with His incarnation, and, reaching through the intermediate period, to the time of His final exaltation. Take away the Divinity of Christ, and His example, and His teaching, and His promises lose their power, and the whole body of faith becomes cold and formal as a carcase from which the living spirit has fled.

II. The greatness of the mystery involved in these facts. Wonderful beyond the thoughts of man are the manner and the completeness and the glory of redeeming love.

III. The practical lessons to be derived from these thoughts. (1) Foremost of all is the duty of believing and accepting this wondrous redemption, as alike due to God and necessary for ourselves. To know the will of a Saviour, and the sufficiency of His redeeming merits, and the glory of the inheritance which He has prepared for His people, will but aggravate despair if we are cut off from personal participation in them. (2) Again, we ought to give to these blessed hopes of salvation an importance predominant above all things else in the world. They ought to occupy the same place in our own estimate of life as they occupy in the dealings of God towards mankind. There we see that they are the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega of all. (3) See how vast is the debt of gratitude we owe to Him, who bought us with His blood. All we have, and all we are-our zeal; our worship; our praise; our faith, though it never fainted; our hope, though it never grew weak; our love, though it never was chilled, would be but a poor instalment of its payment. It will be the glory and bliss of heaven to go on for ever fathoming its length, and breadth, and depth, and height, and yet for ever to find it towering upward above our utmost thought, in the infiniteness of that love which passeth knowledge.

E. Garbett, The Soul’s Life, p. 76.

Joy to All People-a Christmas Homily.

Every revelation is either an enigma or the solution of an enigma,-a riddle or the reading of a riddle, according as we approach it. In the one case, it is a “mystery,” in the human sense; in the other case, it is a “mystery,” in the Divine sense; in the sense which mystery uniformly bears in Scripture-not an unfathomable, inscrutable dogma, to which the mind must bow in its formal utterance, without endeavouring, without expecting to comprehend it, but a secret which God has told for the edification, for the comfort, of an inquiring, a perplexed, a struggling soul.

I. Which of us has not oftentimes felt the pressure upon him of the want of God. In seasons of adversity, of disappointment, of sickness, of sorrow, of anxiety, of loneliness, of the conviction of sin, who would not give anything for the personal assurance that he has God Himself with him. Nothing less than Incarnation-which is the incorporation of God with the creature-could have enabled God to feel with us in our trials. He rested not in words of pity, nor in acts of help, but came Himself to be one of us: surely this was a wonderful addition to what could otherwise have been; surely it is enough to make the Incarnation the most blessed of His gifts, and this festival of Christmas the brightest and happiest of our year.

II. The Incarnation is the key to Gospel doctrine, in both parts. It brings together the dignity of the body and the supremacy of the spirit. It says to us, God Himself, when He would deal most intimately with His creatures, began by taking to Himself a body. In that body He tabernacled through a lifetime, submitted even to grow in stature and wisdom, to eat and to drink, to sleep and to awaken, to speak, and pray, and work, to die, and to rise, to ascend into glory. Thus He taught us by His own example, how this framework of the body may be consecrated to His use, how even the spirit needs it for action, how the work even of eternity will want a body, glorified, but not destroyed, to do it as it must be done. The Incarnation, mysterious in one sense, is the key to all mysteries in another. God gives it, if not as an explanation, yet as a reconciliation; showing us, in Christ, how the body is honoured, and what is its place in the economy of the fulness of time. For action alike, and for communion, an incorporeal being is but half a man. Let us rest in nothing short of the full Christian doctrine. Tidings of great joy, the angel called it who came with it from God’s presence. Joy to all people he further called it, as though to remind us that the Emmanuel’ of our being, the God with us, was equally necessary to high and low, to rich and poor, to youth and age, to health and sickness, to life and death. The Desire of all nations is come to His temple, and that temple is the heart of mankind.

C. J. Vaughan, Words of Hope, p. 1.

The Mystery of Godliness.

I. The mystery of godliness may properly be taken as the description of God’s dealings with mankind. How impossible it is for us to comprehend, even in a moderate extent, the dark, mysterious riddles which we meet with in the history of the world; the mere existence of evil there; the existence of a power competing with that of God Himself, and a power so strong as sometimes to appear capable of baffling the Holy Spirit of God; the existence of one whose position is such that he could venture to say to the Lord: “The kingdoms of the earth are committed to me, and to whomsoever I will I give them.”

II. The simplest Christian, who knows very little, it may be, of the history of the world, may find abundant evidence of the mysteriousness of God’s dealings if he looks into the mystery of himself. If he regards his life as a thing for him to speculate upon and unravel, then, forthwith, he will lose himself, and he will find endless riddles such as no human wit can solve; the guide has been a pillar of cloud after all, a cloud which may be followed as a safe guide in the wilderness, but into which, if he penetrate, he will inevitably lose his way.

III. If, then, we find that mystery essentially belongs to the revelations of God; if we find that in all there is light enough to guide, but not light enough to puff men up, as though they were able to comprehend the infinite, why should we not expect to find the same character of mystery belonging to the revelation of God to men in Jesus Christ? Here, above all, God gives light enough for guidance, but not light enough for unbounded speculation. It is good for us that the gate of godliness should be a gate of humility; it is good for us that we should admire the mercy of God, while we confess His ways to be past finding out; it is good that, as the elders cast down their crowns before the throne, so we should throw down all pride of intellect and self-conceit, and walk humbly with God.

Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, vol. iii., p. 274.

Few words in the New Testament have ever been more strangely misinterpreted than these; few could be found which have been equally perverted, inasmuch as they have been used to inculcate notions the very opposite to their real meaning. They have been constantly quoted as speaking of the darkness and difficulty of some points in Christianity, whereas their real purpose is to commend the great and glorious nature of these truths which it has made known.

I. The substance of the Gospel revelation is, that God was manifest in the flesh, and justified in the Spirit; that He was seen of angels, and preached to the Gentiles; that He was believed on in the world, and received up into glory. This, then, is the mystery of godliness; this is the great truth, unknown and undiscoverable by our unaided reason, which the Gospel has now made known to us. The knowledge of God the Father is not called a mystery, because a mystery, in the language of the Apostles, means a truth revealed which we could not have found out if it had not been told us. Yet, as experience has shown that men did not, in fact, make themselves acquainted with God the Father, so it has been mercifully ordered that even what we could have discovered if we would, has yet been expressly revealed to us; and the Law and the Prophets are no less full and plain in pointing out our relations to God the Father, than the Gospel is in pointing out our relations to God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

II. True it is, that the Bread of Life does not nourish us all, and, instead of seeing that the fault is in ourselves, and that with our sickly bodies the most wholesome food will lose its virtue, we are apt to question the power and usefulness of the food itself. True it is, that if we were but good and holy, it would be an idle question to ask about our faith, when our lives sufficiently declare it. But not more foolish is it to suppose that a man can be strong and healthy without wholesome food, than to think that we can be good and holy without a Christian’s faith. Those who have tried it know that without that faith they would be nothing at all, and that, in whatever degree they have overcome the world and themselves, it is owing to their faith in the promises of God the Father, resting on the atonement of the blood of His Son, and given and strengthened by the abiding aid and comfort of the Holy Spirit.

T. Arnold, Sermons, vol. ii., p. 70.

I. To live on the edge of mystery is the very condition of our being. If we begin to discard doctrines from the Christian scheme because they are mysteries, it is hard to say where the process will end. Discard the Trinity, there remains the Incarnation. Discard the Incarnation, there remains the Atonement. Discard the Atonement, there remains the life of Christ, the miracles of Christ. Discard St. Paul, there remains the Church-there remains, without adequate explanation, the world’s history for eighteen hundred years.

II. There is no attempt in the Bible to conceal the fact that the Revelation which it conveys is mysterious. It is not unnatural that the human mind, in its pride of conquest and of power, should chafe impatiently under limitations which make it conscious of its feebleness. But it is not for us to fix the conditions of the Divine gifts. The brightest things are ever the most dazzling. We cannot gaze full in the face of the noonday sun; and the darkness in which God hides Himself is simply, we are told, light unapproachable.

III. All minds, it must be admitted, have not passed through the same discipline, nor can build their hopes on the same foundation. To some one truth has proved more precious than another-more full of light, or strength or comfort. Saul might feel safe in the battle in his armour of proof, David, when trusting to nothing better than his shepherd’s sling and stone. But any truth that is held as truth, is a help towards attaining further truth. It is the posture of the will before the Divine message that is the condition of knowing the doctrine. The temper in which we believe is much more important than the greater or less articulation of our creed. A stout ship, ere now, has outridden the wildest gale on a single cable. It is a dragging anchor-an unstable mind-that tells of the coming wreck of faith.

Bishop Fraser, University Sermons, p. 29.

References: 1Ti 3:16.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 786; vol. xviii., No. 1087; Ibid., Evening by Evening, p. 156; Expositor, 1st series, vol. ix., p. 382; H. P. Liddon, Christmastide Sermons, p. 107; Ibid., Church Sermons, vol. i., p. 97; C. Kingsley, National Sermons, p. 257; Homilist, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 86; J. H. Hitchens, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvii., p. 68; J. Kennedy, Ibid., vol. xxi., p. 57; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. vi., p. 376; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iii., p. 275; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 86. 1Ti 4:1-5.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. iii., p. 142. 1Ti 4:6-16.-Ibid., p. 224; Christian World Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 65; R. W. Dale, Ibid., vol. vi., p. 289.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

III. CONCERNING THE HOUSE OF GOD

CHAPTER 3

1. The overseer (1Ti 3:1-7)

2. The deacon (1Ti 3:8-13)

3. The house of God and the mystery of Godliness (1Ti 3:14-16)

1Ti 3:1-7

As stated before, the Church is viewed in these pastoral Epistles as the house of God. The holiness which becomes this house is to be maintained and expressed in a practical way. The different directions given as to overseers and deacons demonstrate what God esteems highly, and what He expects of those who are saved by grace, and who constitute His House. Paul wrote these instructions to his son Timothy, so that he might know how to behave himself in the house of God (1Ti 3:14-15).

Bishops (overseers) are identical with elders (presbyters). For conclusive proof see Act 20:17; Act 20:28; Tit 1:5; Tit 1:7. In both passages the same persons are called both bishops and elders. It is nowhere taught in the Word of God that a bishop has a place of superior authority in the body of Christ, as head of a diocese, etc. These things as practised in the Romish, Episcopal and other ritualistic churches are according to human ordinances.

The work of the overseer is learned from Pauls statement in Act 20:28 : Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood. The Holy Spirit called them into this work, for He is the great administrator in the church. Each local church had not one overseer or bishop, but a number of them, showing that the authority was not vested in one person only (Php 1:1). If anyone desired the office of an overseer, he desired a good work. It is a good work to exercise loving and patient care over souls which are beloved of God, and so dear to Him, who purchased them by His own blood. Such a desire would be the result of the Spirit of God, who laid the work of an overseer upon the heart. Paul then gives Timothy the qualities which a bishop or overseer must have. He must be blameless, that is as to his moral character irreproachable, with nothing whatever against him. He must be the husband of one wife. This has been explained as excluding all who had been married twice. This is incorrect. It may refer to those who were as pagans married to more than one woman, for polygamy was practiced among the heathen in that day, as it is still. Converted to Christianity these pagans were in an unhappy condition, and on account of it could not exercise oversight in a local church.

On the other hand this inspired qualification of an overseer or bishop is a complete and crushing refutation of the celibacy of the Romish priesthood. He also must be vigilant, sober, of a good behavior (modest), given to hospitality and apt to teach (2Ti 2:24). (Apt to teach has also been translated ready to learn.) Among the other qualifications we point out especially the one not greedy of filthy lucre, that is, he must not be a lover of money. This is mentioned several times in the epistles to Timothy and to Titus. And Peter in exhorting the elders also writes, Feed the flock of God, which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind (1Pe 5:2). The Holy Spirit anticipated the corruption of church office and ministry through the love of money. He is also to rule well his own house and have his children in subjection, For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God?

We see all these are moral qualifications. They are to be men of mature age, who had shown in the government of their own household their fitness for the more blessed work of having oversight in a local assembly. A new convert may begin to give a testimony for the gospel as soon as he has believed, but fitness for oversight, to be an elder, required time and a practical walk in the truth. Therefore Paul writes, not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into condemnation of the devil. How often this has been true, that in some assembly a young convert with natural gifts was made much of, and then became lifted up and aspired, like Diotrephes (3 John) to have the preeminence.

1Ti 3:8-13

Deacon means a servant, one who ministers. The seven chosen in Act 6:1-15 to serve tables were deacons. They were to be occupied with the external affairs of a local church, to serve the bodily need. Without entering into the different qualifications, which need hardly any further comment, we point out only one. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers–sober, faithful in all things. As the deacons had their work in external things, in connection with the family and family life of a local church, there was danger of their wives making mischief and becoming busybodies and tale-bearers; hence the instruction to the wives of the deacons. Nothing was said to the wives of the overseers; theirs was a different sphere.

1Ti 3:14-16

Paul expected to come shortly to be with Timothy, from which we gather that he was not then a prisoner. In the words which follow we have a threefold mention of the church on earth.

1. It is the Home of God. God dwells in it on earth. Its leading characteristic on earth must be holiness. Holiness becometh Thine house, O Lord, forever (Psa 93:5). All Paul had written, his solemn charge concerning sound doctrine, a good conscience, prayer for all men, about overseers and deacons, was to teach Timothy and to teach us also, how to behave in the house of God, as on earth. God dwells in the church on earth. And He who dwelt among Israel and said, I am holy, be ye also holy, makes the same demand of the house in which He dwells now.

2. The second name is the Church of the living God. The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of the living God, dwells in the church. She is the habitation of God by the Spirit (Eph 2:22). She is therefore set apart for Himself, not of the world, as He, who is the blessed Head of the body, is not of the world.

3. The pillar and support of the truth. While our Lord was on earth He said, I am the truth. He is so still; and His Word is the truth. The church is here to maintain this truth on earth, to contend earnestly for the faith delivered unto the saints. She is the witness for Christ on earth, Christ who is hidden now with God. Therefore the true Church is the pillar of the truth, in proclaiming it. Woe! to the men who meddle with the truth of God, and by their wicked criticism try to undermine the support of the pillar and the house of God. God shall destroy them for their evil work (1Co 3:17). When the Church leaves the earth, then the truth will be abandoned, and complete apostasy has come. As long as the true Church (though it only may be a feeble remnant) the pillar and support of the truth, is on the earth, the complete apostasy cannot come (2Th 2:1-17). From all this we learn that the presence of the living God and the maintenance of the truth are the foremost characteristics of the house of God.

1Ti 3:16 brings before us the mystery of godliness (piety). It is that which the church on earth is to witness to. This mystery is the Lord Jesus Christ ( Col 2:1-23). The first fact of the mystery is, God was manifested in the flesh. (The Revised Version on account of textual criticism changed this to He who hath been manifested in the flesh. Some would therefore rule out this text as one which speaks of the deity of our Lord. But even if it were positive that the correct reading is He instead of God, it does not affect the argument. The He could not be any one else but the Son of God.) It is the incarnation. God Himself has been manifested in the form of man. The Creator God came to be the Saviour God. He appeared on earth as man. Justified in the Spirit. Upon Him, the second Man, the Spirit of God descended. He lived the holy life on earth. The power of the Holy Spirit was manifested throughout His life on earth. And having offered Himself by the eternal Spirit without spot to God, the power of the Holy Spirit marked Him out as Son of God in resurrection. Declared the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4). His resurrection, by God the Father and through the operation of His Spirit (Rom 8:11) justified Him as Son of God.

Seen of angels. Not only did man see Him as John testifies, that which was from the beginning which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life–but angels saw Him. The host of angels witnessed His entrance into the world, surrounded Him and were present with Him in His life on earth. He was seen of angels in His resurrection, and seen of angels when He ascended on high to take His place at the right hand of God, far above all principalities and powers, becoming the head over all things, the head of the Church. And to these heavenly principalities and powers there is now made known by the church the manifold wisdom of God (Eph 3:10). Preached unto the Gentiles. The good news is preached in the whole world. Jews and Gentiles hear the message, and especially is He preached to the Gentiles. Believed on in the world. As a result of the preaching, the hearing of the Word of God, He is believed on, and those who believe on Him constitute the house, the Church of the living God. Received up in glory. He ascended to the glory from which he had descended. He glorified God on earth, and now, as the Risen One, God has glorified Him in heaven. And some day all who believed on Him in the world will also be received up in glory, to be with Him where He is. And all this is the truth which is to be maintained and preached in the house of God.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

is a: 1Ti 1:15, 1Ti 4:9, 2Ti 2:11, Tit 3:8

the office: 1Ti 3:2-7, Act 1:20, Phi 1:1, Tit 1:7, 1Pe 2:25

bishop: Act 20:28, Heb 12:15, 1Pe 4:15, 1Pe 5:2,*Gr.

desireth: Pro 11:30, Luk 15:10, Rom 11:13, Eph 4:12, 1Th 5:14, Jam 5:19, Jam 5:20

Reciprocal: Num 4:3 – to do Deu 18:6 – and come with 1Ch 15:16 – chief Mat 26:10 – a good

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE EPISCOPAL OFFICE

The office of a bishop.

1Ti 3:1

There are, and have been from the earliest times, three Orders in the ministry. St. Paul in this chapter describes the qualifications for the office first of a bishop, and then of the general body of the clergy, for the reference in 1Ti 3:8 must be taken in its wider aspect and applied to priests as well as to deacons. A few thoughts on the episcopal office as we understand it to-day.

I. The antiquity of the episcopal office.It is apostolic, and in the Church of England we trace our succession right back to apostolic times.

II. The making of a modern bishop.The greatest care is taken. The Prime Minister (representing the laity) nominates a qualified clergyman to the Crown; the Crown nominates that clergyman to the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral (representing the clergy) for election; if he is elected, the election has to be confirmed in a public court at which objectors may appear. In recent years there has been much dispute as to what are valid grounds of objection, and attempts have been madebut most wisely overruledto object to bishops-elect on ritual grounds. It is not necessary to discuss what might be grounds of objection; these must be left to the proper authority to decide. But the point to bear in mind is the care with which the Church guards the office of a bishop, as shown in the successive steps from the time of nomination to consecration.

III. Consecration to the episcopal office.When the election of a bishop-elect is confirmed, but not till then, the archbishop proceeds to the consecration. Very solemn is the service; the act of consecration is performed by the laying-on of hands, the bishop-elect kneeling before the archbishop, and the archbishop and the bishops assistingsometimes a dozen in numberall laying their hands upon the head of the bishop-elect as the archbishop recites the solemn words, Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Bishop in the Church of God, etc. What that work is is shown in the questions put to the bishop-elect before the act of consecration. [Refer to Consecration Service, and explain in detail the questions put in the examination by the archbishop.]

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

THE THIRD CHAPTER is a continuation of the same general theme as occupied us in our reading of the second chapter; viz., the behaviour that becomes believers as being in the house of God. That this is the general subject is plainly stated in verse 1Ti 3:15 of our chapter.

Now God is a God of order and hence in the Christian assembly where He dwells all things are to be done decently and in order (1Co 14:40). For the furtherance of this the two offices of Bishop and Deacon had been established in the church, and are referred to in this chapter.

From the first verse it would appear that there were some at Ephesus who were aspiring to become bishops. The Apostle acknowledges that what they aimed at was a good work but he insists in this connection upon the all-importance of character. It is not that the bishop may have all the spiritual qualifications that he mentions, but that he must. Moreover, before he is appointed to take care of the church of God he must have proved his fitness for such a work by the way in which he has governed the far smaller and humbler sphere of his own household. He must not be a novice, one who though possibly well on in years is only a beginner in the things of God, else being lifted up with pride in his new-found importance he may fall into the very fault that caused the overthrow of Satan at the beginning. Diotrephes, who is spoken of in 3Jn 1:9-10 would seem to be an illustration of what is meant.

In many of the primitive churches bishops or elders were officially appointed, in others they do not appear to have been. But even if duly appointed the one thing that would confer real weight upon them would be the character of Christian godliness that Paul here describes. Who would be disposed to pay attention to their exhortations otherwise, or submit themselves to their shepherd care and direction in spiritual things? Moreover there was the outside world to be considered, as verse 1Ti 3:7 states. The world has sharp eyes and quickly hurls reproach if there is the least ground for it; and to accomplish this the devil lays his snares.

The word translated bishop simply means overseer. The word deacon means servant. There are many services to be rendered in the church that are not primarily of a spiritual nature, such as those mentioned in Act 6:1-15. But if men are to handle such ordinary matters as these in the service of God they need to possess very definite and high spiritual qualifications, and to be tested first ere they begin.

The wives of deacons are specially mentioned in verse 11. This is doubtless because diaconal service was of such a nature that they not infrequently took part in it. Phebe, for instance, was a servant [deaconess] of the church which is at Cenchrea (Rom 16:1), and was highly commended by the Apostle.

We must remember that bishops and deacons were to possess this sterling Christian character inasmuch as they were to set an example to the mass of believers who looked up to them. Hence all of us reading this chapter today must accept these verses as delineating the character which God desires to see in us. Can we read them without feeling rebuked? How about that greed of money, or the slander, or even the being double-tongued-the saying of one thing in one direction and quite another thing in another direction? Pretty searching considerations, these!

The service of a deacon might seem a very small matter, but nothing in Gods service is really small. Verse 1Ti 3:13 definitely states that such service faithfully rendered is the way to higher and larger things. This is clearly illustrated for us in the subsequent history of two who are mentioned in Act 6:5. Stephen advanced to become the first Christian martyr: Philip to become a greatly used preacher of the Gospel, the only man designated an evangelist in Scripture (See, Act 21:8). Every true servant of God has begun with small and humble things, so let none of us despise and shirk them, as naturally we are inclined to do.

Notice that phrase in verse 1Ti 3:7, them which are without. At the beginning things were quite sharply defined. A man was either within the church of God or part of the great world without, for the church and the world were visibly distinct. Now, alas! it is otherwise. The world has invaded the church and the lines of demarcation are blurred. Not blurred, of course, to Gods view, but very much so to ours. It is consequently far more difficult for us to understand how wonderful a place is Gods house and the conduct that becomes it.

Verse 1Ti 3:15 tells us that the house of God is the church of the living God. We are evidently to understand that the fact of our being a part of the church, and therefore in the house, is not a mere idea void of practical significance. The living God dwells there and He has said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them (2Co 6:16). He scrutinizes everything and He operates there as is illustrated in Act 5:1-11. Hence we should be marked by suitable conduct.

Then again, the church is the pillar and ground [or, base] of the truth. Pillars had a two-fold use. They were largely used as supports, but they were also commonly erected not to support anything but to bear an inscription as a memorial. The reference here is, we believe, to the latter use. God intends that the truth shall not only be stated in the inspired words of Scripture but also exemplified in the lives of His people. The church is to be like a pillar reared up on its base on which the truth is inscribed for all to see, and that in a living way for the church is the church of the living God.

The church then is not the authoritative teacher and interpreter of truth as Rome claims but the living witness to the truth which is authoritatively set forth in Scripture. To differentiate between these two things and to keep them in their right relative places in our minds is of extreme importance. AUTHORITY lies in the very word of God which we have in Scripture alone. The living witness to what Scripture sets forth is found in the church, but at the present moment that witness is sadly obscured though it will be perfect and complete in glory. Compare verses 23 and 21 of Joh 17:1-26, and note that what the world has failed to believe now it will know when the church is perfected in glory.

If verse 1Ti 3:15 speaks of the church as the witness to the truth verse 1Ti 3:16 gives a wonderful unfolding of that which lies at the heart of truth, the very revelation of God Himself, spoken of as the mystery of godliness. There is no thought here of godliness being a mysterious thing. The force of the sentence is rather-that beyond all question great is the hidden spring from whence flows such godliness as is here taught. The godliness displayed by saints in different ages was always in keeping with such knowledge of God as was available to them, and never went beyond it. The New Testament unquestionably indicates a higher type of godliness than the Old Testament. But why? Because we now have not a partial but a full revelation of God.

The godliness then which the Apostle enjoins is only produced as we know God. In the revelation of God lies its great mystery or secret. It is a secret because made in a way not appreciated by the world but only by believers. God was manifest in the flesh in Christ, but in seeing Him unbelievers found no beauty that they should desire Him, only believers in seeing Him saw the Father. Verse 1Ti 3:16, then, is a condensed summary of the way God has revealed Himself in Christ.

The verse is one that baffles the profoundest meditation-as we might expect. It consists of seven terse statements, six of them summarizing the great revelation. The first of the six shows us God manifested in Manhood, and the last shows us the Man Christ Jesus, in whom God was manifested, received up into glory. The intervening four give us various ways in which the reality of that manifestation was realized.

God was justified in the Spirit. Compare with Rom 1:4. The resurrection justified Jesus, declaring Him Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness when the world had crucified Him as an impostor. After all, He was God manifested in the flesh.

Seen of angels. Had angels ever really seen God before? Certainly not as they saw Him when the great outburst of angelic praise took place at Bethlehem.

Preached unto the Gentiles or proclaimed among the nations, for He had been so really manifested in historic fashion as to become the subject of gospel witness among the peoples who had been far from the actual scenes of His manifestation.

Believed on in the world. Not by the world, notice, but in the world. Though the world knew Him not yet His manifestation was not an intangible something existing only in the subjective consciousness of the onlookers or hearers, but something real and objective, verified by competent witness and hence received by those in whom faith existed.

The one who knows by faith this real, true, historic Christ, the true God manifested in flesh, and who as Man has gone up into glory, possesses the secret of a life of godliness. No unbeliever can possibly be godly though he may be of most kindly and amiable disposition as a natural man.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

1Ti 3:1. For the meaning of bishop, see “General remarks” at 2 Thessalonians 2. The office of a bishop. These words all come from EPISKOPE which Thayer defines, “inspection, visitation: oversight, i.e. overseership, office, charge, since the words are two terms for the same men. Paul calls this office a good work, which shows that a bishop (or elder) has something on his shoulders besides “hold ing down an office.” Desire and de-sireth are from different words but have virtually the same meaning. The word is used both in a good and a bad sense in the New Testament. Strong’s definition is, “To set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or otherwise).” It is possible, then, for a man to desire the office with proper motives. However, if the wrong kind of man pretends he wishes the office for the right purpose, the qualifications immediately following, when he is examined under the requirements, will expose his unworthiness for the office, thus proving his desire for it is improper.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Ti 3:1. A true saying. Better as before, faithful, so as to keep the identity of phrase before the English reader.

The office of a bishop, or overseer, was not likely, at the time when St. Paul wrote, to be an object of worldly ambition. The risk was the other way. Men were likely to draw back from the burden of responsibility, and to accept it only by constraint (1Pe 5:2). Hence the stimulus of a new motive was needed, and was found in the half-proverbial maxim which named the office, with all its labour and risk, as a goodly and noble work for a man to aim at.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Division 3. (1Ti 3:1-16; 1Ti 4:1-16.)

The house of God and the holiness belonging to it.

We now come really to the house of God itself first of all, indeed, to that which was instituted for the preservation of the character which it should necessarily have as the house of God. The elder, or overseer, and the deacon are provisions for the expression, on the one hand, of that godliness which belongs to it as such, and also of that character which we see must necessarily belong to it as the house of a Saviour-God, and whose love, therefore, must be shown by ministry to the need, which is, in fact, ordered on God’s part, to draw out and cultivate the spirit so necessary in the Christian. These things are all that we may learn how to conduct ourselves in the house of God. Whatever special place Timothy might have and had, yet the conduct of any in the house of God must befit the place in which he is. The directions even as to elders and deacons are not, so to speak, merely for their own sake; they show us the character that God values and seeks from His people, giving it only an emphasis which cannot certainly make the lesson for us less.

1. The bishop, commonly so-called, or “overseer,” as the word means, comes before us first here. His title of office expresses the character of it. The man himself who is to fill the office is the “elder,” though not here named as such. We have the two brought together in the plainest way in the apostle’s address to the elders at Ephesus in the book of Acts, where, calling for the elders of the Church, he bids them to take care for the Church of God, in which the Holy Spirit had made them bishops, or overseers. The elder (elder in years) is necessarily the one who is alone fit for such an office. The incongruity of a young man being appointed to it should be obvious at first sight. It is a place which requires experience, and which calls for a reputation on the part of one who fills it, gained not all at once, but as he is tested and manifested by the testing. He was appointed specifically to this work, did not appoint himself to it, though he might aspire to such, and desire a good work in aspiring to it. In fact, work of this character is what there is, perhaps, more danger of men shrinking from than aspiring to. Not every elder in years would therefore be what his years should have made him, and the apostle’s words indicate here that the love to others which necessarily exists in the Christian heart should lead him to desire labor of this kind. It is labor, not authority, that he desires. The appointment, which is what is called ordinarily ordination now, was that which manifestly gave authority. The idea everywhere entertained today that the evangelist, or teacher, needs such authority for the exercise of his proper gift, is an entire mistake as to the very purpose of the ordination. A gift speaks for itself. It is the “manifestation of the Spirit,” as the apostle says, which is for every man to profit with it; that is, he is to use it for the profit of others. The fact of the gift entails the responsibility of using it, and to seek authority from man in this way is, however ignorantly, to slight the authority of God, which can make no mistake in the gift that has been given. People would say, of course, that the question here is as to the possession of the gift; but there is in Christianity, as we have seen, the widest liberty for every one, without pretension, to help another according to the full capacity which he may realize to do so. Christians will easily determine for themselves whether it is help that they are getting or the reverse. We know the baker by the bread he gives us. We know the teacher by the spiritual food which he supplies. Ordination at the hands of a certain number of any limited class sets aside in reality the responsibility of every one to take heed for himself as to what he hears. The teaching is supposed to have been otherwise guaranteed to him, and he has little to do except to sit down and receive that which comes with such a sanction. The abuse is everywhere manifest, and the abuse is inherent in such a use of ordination as we find here. The conscience of both hearer and teacher is taken away from its proper immediate exercise before God, and human influences get their leave to rule in a disastrous way. The independence of the teacher must be secured in obedience to the Spirit Himself, who is in this respect the true Overseer every way and, on the other hand, the one who hears is to be in no wise dependent upon the teacher. The unscriptural thought of a minister and his congregation gives, in fact, the teacher a monopoly of instruction which a true soul, uninfluenced by tradition, would surely, as a matter of course, refuse. Who would desire to assume responsibility of giving to those under him all that they need in this way, shutting out the divers gifts in the body of Christ, as himself all-competent to be all gift? God’s way is at once that of liberty to serve, and of service instead of rule, which in this case is out of place. Wherever it is a question of teaching or evangelizing, the authority is in the Word itself, and no other is needed. The Word is maintained in its place as the decisive word of God, to which all are to be subject, and is that also which every one is responsible for himself to recognize, and empowered to do so by the Spirit which is received. If the teaching becomes in any wise erroneous, so as to affect fundamental points, of course the discipline of the assembly comes rightly into its place. Apart from this, the rule is, as the apostle says of prophesying in the assembly: “Let the prophets speak” -give them also their liberty -“and let the rest judge.” All party spirit, all working of men’s minds merely, in this way finds its most effectual power of restraint. But we have here to do, not with the evangelist or teacher, but with the overseer, who is indeed to be “apt to teach;” that is, he is to be able to use the word of God as he has received it. If he could not do this, he could have no right influence or authority over others; but this does not amount to a teacher’s gift, and in fact we find elsewhere that the elders that rule well are to be accounted “worthy of double honor, specially those who labor in the word and doctrine.” If they labored in the word and doctrine, that was an additional thing, and of necessity deserved additional honor; but the elder might rule well, apart from that. In the case, then, of oversight of the kind that is indicated here, (that fatherly oversight which he has shown his readiness for by having his children in subjection in his own house) ordination had its rightful place. There might be matters to inquire into which it would be in no wise well for every one to have liberty for. On the other hand, we never hear of an elder in a place or congregation, but of elders. It was not the rule of one man that could be tolerated even here. Too much power of this sort man cannot be safely trusted with; while, on the other hand, the presence of a class which had such authority would be necessarily of great advantage. It is evident that the elders in no wise interfered with the responsibility of assembly discipline, however much they might be leaders here; but the assembly in this was to act as the assembly everywhere, in its own place and responsibility.

The character needed in the overseer will now be easy to understand. A man might rightly aspire to oversight, as has been already said. He might rightly crave the ability to help in matters in which every assembly, in fact, needs help. If he desired it as a good work, not for personal display, it was all well. But the overseer must be irreproachable. There must not be a cloud upon him. His moral character must be spotless in the eyes of all. He was to be the “husband of one wife, sober, discreet, decorous, given to hospitality, apt to teach, not given to wine, no striker, but mild, not given to contention, not fond of money.” Here is the moral character which becomes him, and it needs scarcely to be enlarged upon. A special point is that which follows here, and we see how necessarily the elder would be both an elderly and a married man. There must have been time to show his power to conduct well his own house, otherwise how could he take this larger care as to the assembly of God itself? The apostle does not exactly say “the house of God” because, as we may believe, he is thinking of the local assembly, and the house of God is a larger thought than that; but the care, nevertheless, is similar. It is a fatherly care, suited to the house of God as such, although he cannot be the father in that house, as in fact he never was the father, even in one assembly. There was a community of fathers, for the house of God needs the care of many, and the various ability implied in this. He was not to be a novice, even though he might have all other qualifications. He should be a man tried, and therefore who has had time for the trial, “lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil;” that is, should fall into the sin for which the devil is condemned. A solemn word this, which has been commented on, perhaps, sufficiently elsewhere; but here we have the primal sin itself, in view of which God has acted all the way through human history, and in the very creation of man no less. How solemn to think that a being created in perfection, one of those “angels that excel in strength,” who are the type of creature independence so far as this can be spoken of, should fall in the only way, perhaps, in which we can think of any possibility of a fall on the part of such an one, by self-occupation, self-admiration; and what an awful fall it was! How has God hedged man around in this respect to hide pride from him, with the limitation of a human body, naturally a naked creature, inferior in some respects to the beasts around him, whose nature, too, in many respects he shares!

A limitation this, which the fall has only been the means of more strictly circumscribing, so that the lesson shall be more fully learned at last. In how many ways, spite of all, may this pride seek its satisfaction; nay, its recognized place, one might almost say, among Christians themselves. and how many current systems provide more or less for this! Man in the office of an elder must be specially one who has shown himself not easily lifted up with pride. He must show that he has laid to heart the lesson of his origin, and of all God’s dealings with him by the way. His testimony also must be good from those that are without. God does not make light of a man’s testimony from the world itself, although we must not expect the world to appreciate that which is peculiarly Christian in him; but he must have a good testimony in this way, so as not to fall into reproach, (and bring reproach, therefore, upon those among whom he has a place of this sort,) and into the snare of the devil, the accuser, who will be apt to buffet and render him useless by this very reproach.

2. The deacon is, in the strict meaning of the word, the “minister” one who serves; and this word is applied in a larger way than to the local office which is here indicated by it. Here, no doubt, the minister was such as in the case of the seven appointed in Jerusalem; whose duty it was to “serve tables.” This expressively indicates what is in question. It is the bodily need especially that the deacon serves. In this way he cannot and must not forget that he is the spiritual man, and that all lesser and lower things are necessarily to have their character from their spiritual bearing. The ministry of the assembly is the outflow of the heart drawn out by the needs which God permits for this purpose. It is the same principle as that which obtains in the whole body of Christ, here more in outward things; but there is, of course, nothing secular in it, nor indeed is there to be anywhere, in any point of Christian life. Those chosen in the Acts were to be “men full of the Holy Spirit,” no less; and we may be sure that they needed and could find use for all that this implies. Stephen and Philip are beautiful examples of those who in such ministry acquired “for themselves a good degree, and much boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

The deacons, then, are to be “grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not seeking gain by base means;” and while not absolutely, as in the case of an elder, needing to be “apt to teach,” yet must hold “the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.” Faith and conscience are thus to be joined together, as we have already seen. Mere orthodoxy is incompetent everywhere. If the conscience is not under the authority of the truth, the truth can only be a burden to one instead of the blessing that it should be. The deacons, also, were to be men who had been tested, and had abode the test. They were to be entrusted with things which manifestly have their power of temptation even among Christians. They are to be first proved, and then to minister as those without blame and who have approved themselves. The wives are mentioned also in a special manner here, as not in the case of the elder, which has also, no doubt, to do with the relative characters of the two offices. The wives were to be “grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.” The deacons, too, were to be “husbands of one wife, conducting their children and their own houses well.” We are reminded of Philip’s daughters who were prophetesses, when Philip himself had risen to a larger sphere of labor than that which was his at Jerusalem in the first place. In this way they would “acquire for themselves a good degree,” they would be helped in helping, and find boldness also in the faith in Christ.

3. The apostle now tells Timothy that he was writing these things that he might know how to conduct himself in the house of God. Holiness becomes God’s house forever. The holiness which should be found in the houses of His people is, of course, but the mere reflection of this. Yet here, too, the character of the house is left in measure to the responsibility of those who are in it. A responsibility indeed it is, for this house of God is the assembly of the living God, indwelt by the living Spirit, the witness for Christ upon the earth. As this, it is of necessity “the pillar,” proclaiming, and “the ground of the truth,” supporting it by its character; and this remains always in principle the same, although, alas, the failure of man has come in plentifully, as we know, to affect it. Still, if we think of Christendom itself, we could not look outside it for the truth, or for the character which the truth emphasizes. We must not, indeed, look at the masses -that is sadly true; but we cannot look outside the profession of the faith for this faith that is professed. The truth which it declares is of the most marvelous character. It is “the mystery of piety” -thus, that which is necessary absolutely to godliness, as we have already seen. Without the truth there will be no godliness; but here it is “the mystery of piety,” not the truth simply which Israel had, but much more than this, and having features which, though we may find them in germ in the Old Testament, yet, after all, are peculiar in the full sense to the Christianity which has replaced it. A mystery is always something hidden; but which, nevertheless, is made known to those initiated. To them it is not a mystery any longer, not a secret, but a thing revealed, however much it be true that indeed there are heights and depths in it which no man has ever fathomed, or will fathom. This mystery is in a Person, acquaintance with whom, if it be real, in the heart, is piety itself. It is “He who hath been manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, received up in glory.”

The opening clause here is, as we all know, contested. Our common version is: “God was manifested in the flesh.” The Revised has it as here: “He who hath been manifested.” It is a question of text, which criticism is answering in a way, perhaps, somewhat distasteful to one who cleaves most to the blessed thought, which is, however, really the same, however we read it. We are not really so poor in texts regarding the deity of Christ as to take so seriously the loss of this one; but in fact it is only a superficial view that we do lose it: for WHO is it that has been “manifested in the flesh”? What do such words mean? We cannot think of angels; we cannot think of a man manifested in the flesh. Deity it must after all be, and the language is almost equivalent to that which the apostle John uses in the place in which he is giving us the very criterion of orthodoxy in this matter: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ has come in flesh is of God.” That is the confession, to deny which constitutes an antichrist; yet the deity of Christ is no more positively stated there than in the questioned passage before us. But who could speak of a man come in flesh? And there is no doctrine of an angel so coming, to be put in opposition to that which is plainly the true one. The manifestation of God is that which is the intent and purpose of all divine communications. It can be nothing else here than God manifested in the flesh, whether this be stated or only implied. The passage, even as commonly read, has been taken by those unsound in the doctrine, the Gnostics, as merely a sort of appearance, a manifestation indeed, but not a personal one. The connection with what follows, however, speaks in favor of the new rendering. One can hardly say “God justified in the Spirit.” This latter clause, which speaks of the descent of the Spirit of God upon Christ, making Him thus the Christ, the Anointed, refers to Him as the Man Christ Jesus, the Second Man, wholly approved of God, refusing the first fallen one. It is quite true that here also is the One to whom God at the same time testifies as His beloved Son, but the expression has reference to the white robe in which the priest must offer, or the unblemished character of the lamb of sacrifice. It is thus John, who has seen the Spirit descend, testifies of Him as “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world;” and the whole scene is in harmony with this.

In any case, as already said, it is the Lord’s deity that is implied here. There is no meaning really otherwise in it; and what a wonderful thing it is, flesh, the human nature as identified with its lowest part, with just that which speaks of weakness and mutability, yet the vessel of the display of Deity itself! A Man here is found who can give God His character -single and alone can do it. The One who has revealed Himself in the Old Testament as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, (and then we must look at these as types, rather than at the men themselves,) is now revealed in One who as the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ awakes the whole heart to worship. The lowliness of the manifestation is an essential part of its glory. The “vessel of earth” (although not in the same sense in which the apostle speaks of it in Corinthians) discloses, is fitted to disclose, the excellency of a power which is all of God. It is not a gleam of glory that is there, but the full reality of it, which will make the throne of God forever to be also the throne of the Lamb. God and man are here in such relation that the one is, so to speak, essential to the other. There must be truest humanity and there must be the full truth of Godhead, or the revelation is lost. It must be the Creator who becomes the Redeemer. If it were any way possible, which it is not, yet the moral impossibility of God leaving the work of redemption to another should be manifest at once. It is God Himself who thus wins man’s heart to Himself. It is God who has this double claim now upon His creature. It is thus He wins for Himself the creature He has made.

From this point His justification in the Spirit becomes a necessity. God has not repented of His creation of man. Here the thought that He had in the beginning as to him is revealed. Here is the blessed Man before us who embodies that thought -One upon whom, without shedding of blood at all, because of His own perfection, the Holy Spirit can abide -nay, we should say, must abide. Our justification is, as we have seen in Corinthians, by the Spirit too; the Spirit now able to dwell in us because of the perfection in which we are before God; but this is no perfection of our own. It is the perfection of the work accomplished for us and of Him in whom we stand. On the other hand, Christ as indwelt of the Spirit is the testimony to His own perfection, and this can never know any change. He is thus the Christ, the Anointed One. This becomes His very title -the Man approved of God, and approved as suited for the work with which He here connects Himself, just come out of that retirement in which He had been before the eye of God alone, to take His place openly as ministering to man, and that to the giving up of Himself in death; as Jordan, out of which He has come up, testifies.

The next thing that we have here shows us the grandeur of the scene for which the revelation is. It is a revelation in manhood, in flesh; but it is a revelation “seen of angels.” The principalities and powers become not merely spectators, but spectators of that which is wonderful blessing for them, even while the Lamb of sacrifice is, of course, not for them; but we have seen in Ephesians that God the Father as revealed to us in Christ is thus “the Father of every family in heaven and earth.” The relation of Fatherhood is necessarily characterized by all that this revelation of the Father brings out in it.

In the next clause we have another but a different expansion of the grace that is here: “Preached among the nations” shows that the old hindrances to that which was ever in His heart have been removed, and that now Jew and Gentile alike become the recipients of His favor. He is plainly seen not to be the God of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. Thus He is “believed on in the world.” Though it be true that it is by the power of the Spirit only that anything is effected, yet there is this response in the world at large to the revelation made. That which Judaism could not accomplish, the Gentile world being practically almost untouched by it, is now accomplished. Man’s heart awakens in the new spring-tide of blessing which is opening up, and which, whatever the conflict yet with the cloud and darkness, is destined at last to banish them from the earth, and Christ “lifted up” from the earth to draw men unto Him.

With all this ensured, then, the final word here is: “Received up in glory.” The glory of God from which He has come, once more receives Him. The cloud may for a while hide Him from the earth which His presence has so blessed, nevertheless it is only to open new scenes of higher blessing to man himself. He has glorified God upon earth, and God has glorified Him in heaven. There is hence not only a light breaking out through the opened veil for men, but also a way opened in for men into the place in which He is.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

Observe here, 1. Our apostle acquaints Timothy with the dignity, honour, and excellency of the sacred function: He that desireth the office of a bishop, that is, to rule and teach in the church of God, he desireth a good work, that is, honourable employment.

As if our apostle had said, “Know, O Timothy, that as to the office of a bishop, whoever desireth it, doth desire a very great and excellent work; it is not a bare name, title, dignity, a place of honour and command; but a work, a work of vast importance, labour, and difficulty: take heed therefore whom thou dost admit, and of those that are also admitted into the sacred function, to consider the great weight of that important service, to enterprize it with extraordinary dread and caution, looking upon their office not with aspiring but tremendous thoughts:–for who is sufficient for these things?

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Qualifications of Bishops

Paul turned from leadership in worship to leadership in the church. Men are not to be drafted into this work against their will but must desire this work. Spain says the word desire “means to long for or eagerly desire. Such desire and aspiration is commendable when it issues from a heart filled with love for Christ and his church.” The bishop is an overseer or shepherd of God’s people, thus the same as pastor. In Act 20:1-38 , Paul called for the elders of the church in Ephesus in verse 17 but referred to their job as that of being bishops, or overseers, over the flock of God in verse 28. The office of bishop is not an honorary one but is referred to by Paul as a task. An elder does not have to be sinlessly perfect, but certainly should have a good reputation. The A. S. V. uses the words “without reproach” and Roberts says, “In the meaning of the original a man is blameless when no charge which had not been corrected can be brought against him.” This qualification may actually refer to how a man meets the rest of the items listed.

A bishop must be a one-woman man, or one who has kept God’s marriage law. He must also be vigilant, or temperate, which suggests self control. This man must keep his desires in check as Paul told the Corinthians he had to keep his body under him ( 1Co 9:27 ). He further should be a sober-minded man, or one who knows how to be serious when such is called for. Good behavior implies a well-ordered outward life that reflects the inward Lordship of Christ. A man given to hospitality would be concerned about the needs of others ( Mat 25:31-46 ). He must be a man well acquainted with God’s word and ready to use it to the benefit of the flock of God ( 1Ti 3:1-2 ).

An elder cannot be a man who is addicted to the use of wine. Neither can he be a man with a quick temper that would cause him to strike someone in anger. Also, he cannot be a lover of money who would do anything for personal gain (6:10; Col 3:5 ). A man who is “gentle” is sensitive to the feelings of others and ready to listen. Elders must not be argumentative or constantly seeking a word fight, which is the meaning of “quarrelsome.” A constant desire to possess those things that belong to others is not a characteristic desirable in elders ( 1Co 5:10 ).

Naturally, a man’s leadership experiences at home will play a crucial role in how he will lead the church. His children should respect and be subject to him. That the plural form “children” can be Biblically used of people with only one child is evident from a simple reading of Gen 21:7 . If one cannot direct his own family at home, how could he possibly be expected to direct the family of God ( 1Ti 3:3-5 )?

An inexperienced Christian should not be considered for the office of bishop because he might fall prey to pride ( 1Co 13:4 ). A man who assumed too much self importance because he was selected as a leader by God’s people would find himself in the same condemnation as the devil ( Rev 20:10 ). Even those outside the body of Christ should recognize the potential elder as a good man. Non-members do not exercise authority in the church because of this statement. Instead, it recognizes our desire to reach the world and the fact that it will be hindered by our selecting leaders who are known as scoundrels to those we try to teach. The snare of the devil may either be a snare laid by him or the same one he fell into. In either case, it would lead to a bad result for the one in it ( 1Ti 3:6-7 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Ti 3:1. Because some false teachers were now spreading their erroneous doctrines with assiduity among the believers at Ephesus, and it was necessary that Timothy (to whom the care of the church there was committed) should be assisted by some bishops, or elders, and deacons, well qualified to teach the people, the apostle, after observing what an honourable office that of a Christian bishop is, here describes the qualities and virtues necessary in one who desires to attain it. This is a true saying Most certain in itself, and worthy of being always acknowledged and attended to; if a man desire, (or earnestly seek, as signifies,) the office of a bishop Overseer, or pastor of Christs flock, frequently termed presbyters, or elders, in the New Testament. See on Act 20:28; 1Pe 5:1-2; he desireth a good work An excellent but laborious employment. A bishops office is termed , a work, to intimate that he must not spend his life in ease and idleness, but in a continued application to the duties of his office. It is also termed , a good, or excellent work, because of its honourableness and usefulness. See on 2Ti 2:2. The words and are often used promiscuously, to denote what is morally good. But when they are distinguished, includes also the idea of honour, and the idea of profit.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1 Timothy Chapter 3

The apostle next points out to Timothy the qualities necessary for a bishop or a deacon, as well as for the wife of the latter. [4] He supposes here that there were some who desired to undertake this work. It was a good work. To care for souls and have a vigilant eye upon the walk of believers; to watch over them in order that the members of Christ should answer to His love and lose no Christian privilege; to do this by maintaining that happy order and that precious unity which were realised at that time, and to protect the flock of the Lord against the ravaging wolves that were seeking to invade it: this indeed was valuable work, and he on whose heart the Lord had thus laid the souls of His people might well desire to undertake it. The apostle felt this: it was a true and faithful saying; but certain qualities were needed to make any one fit for such a charge. Gifts are not included among them, unless the being apt to teach might be so considered; but even this is presented as a quality-the man must have aptness [5] for it-not as a gift. Power to use such truth with others was very useful in fulfilling his charge, without saying at all that he taught publicly in the assembly. The essential thing was that which gave moral weight.

Timothy was not left at Ephesus to appoint elders; but these were the qualities necessary to a bishop, and Paul exhorts him to be watchful on this point.

It is not needful to enter into the details of these qualities; they are plain enough, as well as those required for a deacon.

We see what was the subject of the condemnation of the devil: he exalted himself at the thought of his own importance. (Compare Eze 28:1-26) The snare of the devil is another thing. If a man is not of good report, he will yield somewhere to the enemy, because he will not dare to withstand him boldly.

It will be noticed that the apostle speaks of the wives of deacons, not those of bishops [6] (except to say that these must be the husbands of one wife only). Bishops had a charge, in which they were occupied with souls and exercised authority in the church, in which women were not to act. Deacons were necessarily occupied with family details and circumstances. In these women might well be concerned and often very useful. In the spiritual cares of elders they had nothing to do. It was requisite therefore that the wives of deacons should possess qualities which would cause their husbands to be respected, and at the same time guard themselves from becoming busybodies and tale-bearers.

Faithfulness in the charge of a deacon-the exercise of which in fact is a matter of the greatest delicacy, and requires much Christian love and patience-was a means of acquiring strength in the work of God. Stephen and Philip are examples of this: their spiritual powers soon carried them beyond their services as deacons.

What was the assembly in those happy days ? That which surely it always is in the sight of God, but then in fact, when love displayed itself in an order maintained by the energy of the Holy Ghost, and when the oneness of the entire body developed itself in the action of all its members, it was the house of God. Thank God, it is so always; yet what a difference since then in its practical condition!

But let us here examine the character which the apostle gives to the assembly on earth. He wrote hoping soon to come, but in order that, in case he might tarry long, Timothy should know how to conduct himself. He then tells us what the assembly is.

In the first place it is the house of God. God dwells in it upon the earth. (Compare Eph 2:22) We understand that it is here viewed as on the earth, because the apostle is speaking of how to behave in it. But this truth is important. It gives a character to the assembly of the highest importance for us with regard to our responsibility. It is not a vague thing, composed of the dead, of the living-a thing which we know not where to find, because one part of it is alive on the earth and another part consists of souls in heaven. It isthe house of God here below, in which we have to behave (whatever other position we may hold) in a manner that becomes the house of God. God dwells in the assembly upon earth. We cannot too earnestly remember this fact. Whatever would bring confusion into the presentation of the truth, through the idea that some are dead and that the whole assembly is not here, comes from the enemy and is in opposition to the word. The assembly viewed as subsisting on earth, is the house of God.

In the second place it is the assembly of the living God. God, in whom is the power of life, in contrast with men and with dead idols, has an assembly not of the world, having set it apart for Himself. It is not a nation like Israel. That people were the assembly of God in the wilderness. The assembly is now the assembly of the living God.

In the third place it is the pillar and support of the truth. Christ on earth was the Truth. (He is so always, but He was so on the earth.) He is now hidden in God. The assembly is not the truth: the word of God is the truth. His word is truth. Truth exists before the assembly; it is faith in the truth which gathers the assembly together. But the assembly is that which maintains the truth on earth.[7] When the assembly is gone, men will be given up to a strong delusion. It may be that there is only a little remnant of those that call themselves Christians who maintain the word of truth; but it is not the less true that the assembly-as long as it remains here below-is the only witness for the truth upon the earth. It is Gods witness to present the truth before men. At the end that which God owns as such will be the feeble flock at Philadelphia; and then that which is in the responsible position of being the assembly (Laodicea) will be spued out of the mouth of Christ, who Himself takes the character of Amen, the faithful and true Witness. But the assembly as planted by God on the earth is the pillar and support of the truth. Authority is not the question here, but the maintenance and presentation of the truth. That which does not maintain and present the truth is not the assembly as God understands it.

The presence, then, of the living God, and the profession of the truth, are the characteristics of the house of God. Wherever this assembly of the living God is, wherever the truth is, there is His house.

The mystery of piety, which lies at the very centre of what the assembly maintains before the world, is great, and relates essentially to the Person of Christ. The apostle naturally does not here develop all the different parts of the truth, but that which is the living centre of the whole-that which is essential to the relations between God and men.

God had been manifested in the flesh; marvelous truth in fact! There, where all is confusion and sin, in the nature of him in whom all this sin and all this confusion are introduced, the Centre of all blessing, He who is Light itself, He who as the light puts every thing morally in its place, and who by the fact of His presence shews that love is above everything, God who is love, has been manifest in the flesh. Where sin was, there was love above the sin. Man, who is the slave of evil, sees here in his own nature the source and the power of all good. In the centre of evil and of weakness, in human nature, God Himself has been manifested. Was there then evil in Him who was such ? Did He undergo the lot of the common bondage? By no means. Truly in the same circumstances, in the same nature, He proved superior to all evil, perfect in all respects. The absence of all sin was made evident by the power of the Holy Ghost during His whole life (if men had been able to discern it; and, in fact, it was manifest to the conscience of every man, for He was pure light shining upon all), and with power by the resurrection. (Compare Rom 1:4)

Thus God was made visible to the angels, was preached to the Gentiles (not merely the God of the Jews), became the object of faith in the world (it was not the manifestation of visible power, claiming His rights and His glory), and at last took a place on high in the glory whence He had descended. It is thus that God is known in the assembly according to the truth. There is no truth outside the maintenance of this revelation of the Person of Christ.

It is worthy of notice that in this epistle, and even in the second, the apostle speaks nowhere of the relationship of Christians with God as His children, of the privileges of children, or of that which is known within in the intimacy of the family. He speaks of truths that are essential as testimony before the world; that which the assembly is externally, that which it is as the witness of God towards men. It is the house of God, the assembly of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth: that which it is as responsible in the world, and in order that all should learn what God is. The mystery of piety, of which the assembly is the vessel for testimony, answers to this. It is the grand essential truth on which all relation between God and men is founded, by means of which God has to do with men. Therefore also he says previously, There is but one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.

We have not here the privileges of children, nor the heavenly bride of Christ, but the foundation of Gods relations with all men. Thus the Father is not named, nor even the Spirit, except here in connection with the Lords Person, as the justification of His testimony. It is God the Mediator, and man, and the assembly as the vessel and depositary of this truth of the testimony of God; or else evil spirits turning men away from the faith. This deserves all attention.

Not only, as we have seen elsewhere, the testimony of the grace of the gospel maintains the great eternal principles of the nature and glory of God, and His relations according to that glory with men; but even in the pains the apostle takes that the assembly may be cared for and guarded, during his absence, from the assaults of the enemy and from disorder and improprieties within; it is not of its internal privileges that he speaks. God is set before us, and the Lord Jesus Christ. God, in the majesty of His immutable truth in His relations with men as such, and in the revelation of Himself in the flesh-God was in Christ, reconciling the world; dwelling in the assembly, in order that it should present and maintain the truth before the world-the truth (as we have seen) with regard to Christ, of the revelation of God in Him. God desires to be in relation with men: it is thus that He accomplishes it. The assembly maintains the rights of the Creator and Saviour-God on the earth. The assembly itself must be maintained in moral order that it may confront the enemy who is in the world and be able to sustain this testimony.

Footnotes for 1 Timothy Chapter 3

4:

5: Some translate this word (aptness), ready to learn.

6: See note number

7: But the assembly does not teach. Teachers teach the assembly, but by faithfulness in holding fast the truth taught, it sustains it in the world. Thus, in order to judge what the assembly is, we must know and be able to distinguish the truth and the living God. It is this which the apostle says with regard to the individual, the Spirit is truth. These are the cardinal points with regard to unbelief and faith, the truth and the Spirit; and the word of God is the truth.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

ARGUMENT 6

THE NEW TESTAMENT EPISCOPACY

The New Testament knows nothing about the modern bishopric, such as prevailed in the dead national Churches of the Old World, a separate and distinct ecclesiastical order. It was the fatal point of departure from apostolic simplicity, developing into priestcraft, progressing into prelacy, and culminating in the papacy. These high ministerial orders, unknown in the New Testament, are awful temptations to ambition, and enemies to sanctification; as you can not be sanctified in a candidacy for anything but heaven. Well does the Methodist simply apply the term superintendent, recognizing the so-called episcopacy as no separate order from the eldership. Good Lord, fortify Methodism against the Oriental episcopacy! So when you read about the bishop in the New Testament, understand the meaning is simply the leader of those little houseless, moneyless, and persecuted holiness bands, by the Holy Ghost denominated Ecclesia; i.e., the people called out of this wicked world and separated unto God, to await his Son from heaven, thus representing the ascended Lord during his absence, hated, despised, and maltreated by the world as he was. Bishop is the Greek episcopos, from epi, over, and skopeo, to see. Hence, it means a shepherd overseeing his flock. The Latin translation is pastor, which has been adopted into the English language, and is now correctly used as a translation of the Greek episcopos. Hence, bishop in the Pauline epistles, as well as throughout the New Testament, simply means the pastor of the church, or circuit, or district. Hence, the New Testament episcopacy is simply the pastorate.

1. It is a faithful saying, If any one desires the episcopacy, he is seeking after a beautiful work. It is perfectly laudable and right in the sight of God and man to desire and seek after the pastorate as a laudable work, in which to save souls and glorify God. Aspiration to the modern episcopacy would be ambitious and condemnatory in the sight of God and man.

2. Therefore it behooveth a bishop to be blameless. The code of Lycurgus, the great Spartan lawgiver, remained in force fourteen hundred years, thus surviving every other human code in the worlds history. When out in lifes evening, he secured a pledge from the people that they would obey his laws, at least till they heard of his death. Then he went into lonely exile, never seen nor heard of again, leaving the people thus obligated to obey his laws forever. Prominent in the Lycurgian code was the law that no man could be senator till he had passed his sixtieth year, and sustained an irreproachable character. (Under that law, I fear, we would have to import our senators.) Here we see the Holy Ghost requires an irreproachable character, appertaining to every pastor. The husband of one wife; i.e., polygamy prohibited. Watchful. The faithful shepherd must stand on his watchtower, and see that none of his flock go astray, and neither wild beast nor robber purloin nor slay. Prudent. The pastor is to have a well rounded Christian character, amply fortified against fanaticism, carnal oddities, and eccentricities. Orderly. He is to be a man of order; having everything in its right place, prompt in all of his duties, and a good organizer. Hospitable. His habitation is the retreat of the homeless, widows, orphans, and all in distress. Competent to teach. The pastor is ex-officio the teacher of his Church, the school of Christ. Hence, he is to be so cultured by the Holy Ghost as to be competent to teach his people the Holy Scriptures. O what an awful delinquency on this important line of pastoral duty this day! How few Churches are really the school of Christ! Not given to wine! At that time Satan had never taught the people how to manufacture alcoholic wine. Coffee had not been discovered and brought into use. The people used wine on their tables, like coffee and tea at the present day. The ordinary sweet wine was harmless, nutritious, and reviving; simply the expressed juice of the grape. (Act 2:13.) E.V., These men are drunk on new wine, is erroneously translated, the Greek being gleukous, fermented wine, the only sort that would make them drunk. Not a controversialist. An old schoolmaster in the administration of discipline to his fighting pupils made it a rule to hit the one who struck the second blow twice as many licks as the aggressor who struck the first, alleging that it was not the first lick that caused the fight, but the second; for if a boy gets mad and strikes another, and he does not strike back, the aggressor gets ashamed, and strikes no more. Hence, there is no fight. So it is the second lick, retaliatory of the offense given, that really brings up the fight. The meaning of this Scripture is, that the pastor is not to strike back, but meekly to bear assaults and insults for Jesus sake. If he preaches the truth, the ecclesiastical pugilist can not overthrow it. If he should preach error, it will be a great blessing to him and to others to have it overthrown. Hence, like his Master, meek and lowly, he is to retaliate nothing. Gentle. A good case of salvation invariably makes you a model gentleman. You need not read Chesterfield nor go into the society of the world to learn politeness. At the feet of Jesus, taught by the Holy Ghost, you soon become a model gentleman. Peaceable. The pastor of the Church must not only have the peace of God in his own heart, but God wants to honor him as a peacemaker throughout his bailiwick. Free from the love of money. This is a deadener on the money loving and salary-seeking pastors of the present age. They have all missed their calling. God does not want them in the pastoral charge of his Churches. They ought to read Ezekiel 44 and 1 Peter 5, consider the irreconcilable disharmony of their attitude with Gods Word, and either wallow in the straw till God sanctifies out of them every vestige of money love, or go out of the pastorate forever.

4. Ruling their own family in the beauty of holiness, having their children in subordination with all gravity.

5. (But if any one does not know how to rule his own family, how will he take care of the Church of God?) These two verses sweep many a metropolitan pastor out of his stilted pulpit. The Bible is a plain book, and, with candor and honesty, easily understood. If a man can not save his own home, he is incompetent to fill the office of pastor; from the simple fact that the wicked example of his own ungodly family will rear a Popocatepetl between him and his people. Despite all he can do, they will stumble over the profligate example of the pastors family headlong into hell. Let such a man labor as an evangelist, seeking his field beyond the influence of his own incorrigible and ungodly family. Remember the Bible makes no mistakes. Hence, it is the inalienable duty of Gods people to enforce all of these restrictions, and see that the pastor is in full harmony with the laws of God regulating his ministry.

6. Not a novice (Greek, a new shoot). The old Methodists strictly obeyed this injunction, never committing a pastoral charge to a young preacher but always sending him out as the junior of a senior pastor. In these times, in which we sadly see the rapid apostasy of the Churches on all sides, so fearfully fulfilling the latter-day prophecies, the fallen worldly Churches are everywhere clamorous for juvenile pastors, whose inexperience and worldliness will be to them a guarantee of loose administration and carnal pleasures. Good Lord, help us back to first principles lest, having been puffed up, we may fall into the condemnation of the devil. What is so calculated to inflate a boy preacher with vanity, foster egotism, inflame carnal passions of lust and covetousness, and expose him to Satans lasso, as to promote him to the pastorate, thus giving him authority over people old enough to be his grandparents, and exposing him to the attractions of the giggling girls and carnal youths who constitute the devils choir! Though he does not fall into public scandal, he simply apostatizes from God; thus falling into the condemnation of the devil, becoming a cultured, popular pastor, but shorn of his spiritual locks, he spends his life grinding in the mills of Dagon.

7. It behooveth him to have a good report from outsiders, lest he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Satans people have more sense than we give them credit for. In a revival where many were getting saved, I finally got a hard rowdy in the rear of the audience down on his knees, and prayed for him. When he consented for me to go to the altar, and bring a preacher back there to pray for him (as this occurred in my boyhood), I said, Which one? Bring old Thompson, for he has got more religion than all the balance. Depend on it, the outsiders measure up every pastor in your town; they dont miss the mark; if you are money-loving, worldly, cold, formal, and unspiritual, they find it out. What a deplorable pity that every Church on the globe does not enforce the laws of God relative to the pastorate! If it had been done, the world would have been conquered long ago, and our glorified Lord, in the splendors of his millennial glory, reigning from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof. The holiness movement is Gods relief train, sent to the Churches wrecked by the world, the flesh, and the devil. God help us to be true and stick pertinaciously to the letter of the law! Do that, and you will come out right every time. The enforcement of the positive law of heaven here revealed would de-episcopate the great majority of the Churches in all lands. But God would raise up pastors in harmony with his Word to supply them all. The Protestant Churches have really gone into the wildest fanaticism on the subject of pastoral education. If a man has a collegiate diploma, and passes through the prescribed theological course, he is admitted with a clamorous welcome, though he be radically deficient in the qualifications here laid down by the Holy Ghost through the apostle Paul. The truth of it is, they will admit him and promote him to a metropolitan pulpit without so much as having investigated this inspired catalogue of indispensable pastoral graces. God help you all to study, appropriate, and do your utmost, by the grace of God, to confer them on every candidate for the pastorate!

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1Ti 3:1. This is a true saying, an indubitable word, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work, a laudable sphere of labour and usefulness. But by the idea of a primitive bishop we must not convey a notion of the palace of Lambeth, nor that of Cardinal Wolsey at Bishopthorpe, but rather that of a humble pastor, desiring and burning with ardour for the salvation of souls, and at the risk of bonds, of exile, and martyrdom. The day of small things is now succeeded by splendour; and the church shows her bishops with a mitred front in the senate house.

1Ti 3:2. A bishop then must be blameless, in regard of his marriage, which is the first bond of society; the husband of one wife, a precept repeated in Tit 1:6. Jerome in his epistle to Oceanus, expounding this place, affirms that they could not create a bishop who had married two wives; one before his baptism, and she being dead, another after baptism. Unam ante baptismum, et ea defuncte, altera post baptismum. SIXTUS of Sienna, p. 704. The critics stop at this word, for the oriental nations allowed of polygamy, a practice disallowed by Christ, and disavowed by the church. Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Epiphanius, are quoted here, as cautioning ministers against second marriages, which Paul allowed to the people, Rom 7:1, lest it should have the appearance of concupiscence. Sed ut inquiunt Epiphan. Chrysost. et Ambros. ne assumatur qui alteram uxori mortu superinduxerit, quod illud incontinenti suspicione non careat. Though such indeed were the ideas of many in the primitive church, as appears from Luk 2:36, and 1Ti 5:9; and though second marriages in the clergy cannot be proved; yet as many ministers lose the wife of their youth by consumptions, and otherwise, after a due regard to modesty, no one would wish to lay upon them the burden of celibacy for all their future years.

A bishop must be vigilant, always having his eye on his work. He must improve occasions, avert dangers, and in all things be a father to the family of God.

He must also be sober-minded. Sedate and wise, full of urbanity in manners; given to hospitality, according to his private means, and as an almoner of the church. Apt to teach. Having a cultivated understanding, a profound acquaintance of human nature, accompanied with a readiness and fluency of speech in conversation, and an aptitude to convey instruction. In the pulpit he must be a man possessed of every adorning for the sanctuary. He must be godlike in wisdom, forcible in argument, full of ease and grace, and so conclusive that his hearers need not ask for farther light. When I had judged a cause, says Job, no man spake after me.

1Ti 3:3. Not given to wine. A word put for the whole of temperance, for a minister is watched at a feast, and on all other occasions where there is any danger of self-indulgence.

No striker. It would seem from king Inas laws, that our Saxon fathers often fought at court; and fighting was common enough among the Greeks. In ecclesiastics especially, contests of this kind are not allowed. On the contrary, brotherly love is strictly required.

Not greedy of filthy lucre. Content with what is customary, fair and just, in all his dealings; conceding the disputed penny to the contentious, rather than enter into strife.

Not a brawler. A man stored with conscious wisdom may be communicative, free and easy in conversation and discourse, but he cannot be garrulous. Meekness and simplicity are the characteristics of true religion, and ought especially to adorn the ministerial profession.

Not covetous. In the developement of character, if it appear that the pastors heart is set either on land, or mansions, or the aggrandisement of his family, and that he has at the same time been deficient in the duties of charity and beneficence, the people will avoid his company, as they detest his faults.

1Ti 3:4-5. One that ruleth well his own house. See on Eph 6:1-4.

1Ti 3:6. Not a novice. A man unskilled in his work, and full of himself, and therefore hurried by his pride into the condemnation of the devil. Such a teacher is a pest to his auditory, and a disgrace to his profession.

1Ti 3:7. He must have a good report of them that are without, else they will not hear him with reverence, or receive his message with cordiality. An unblemished reputation is essential to acceptance and success in the work of the ministry.

1Ti 3:9. Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. His mind must be enlarged in the knowledge of the truth; he must also retain it and teach it, with a conscientious regard to every other ministerial duty. He must be like his model, in labours more abundant.

1Ti 3:15. Know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth; as the holy priests and levites conducted the worship of the ancient tabernacle, for the Hebrew word kahal, or congregation, agrees with the word church. The stones in the ancient temple are called stones of fire, Eze 28:14; and such should ministers ever be in the sanctuary. So much the more so, seeing that the christian temple is the church of the living God; and her high and anointed priest is the Son of God himself. On this rock the church is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. All her doctrines must be permanent, as her foundations are sure.

The church is likewise called the pillar and ground of the truth; the pillar on which the truth is inscribed in legible characters, and the foundation on which it rests. The church of the living God, says Chrysostom, is the pillar and stability of truth; like the foundations of the earth it remains immoveable. This monument of truth, reared by the hand of God, exhibits to all future generations the doctrine and the discipline of the apostolic age, graven as in the rock for ever.

1Ti 3:16. Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness, that is, of the incarnation. God was manifest in the flesh. . So Chrysostom, and Theophylact read; also Erasmus, and Heinsius: ed. Cantab. 1640, p. 488. But the word, God, is wanting in the Greek of Syrus, and in the Latin. Of course, Griesbach omits it in his unitarian Greek testament. Erasmus complains of the Latin, Quod manifestum est in carne, because what follows refers to God; therefore this reading appears to him dry or insipid, and is equivalent to, What was manifested, what was justified, &c. The authority of Chrysostom for this reading far surpasses that of Syrus, in whose copy the divinity is understood as manifest in the flesh. This reading agrees with all the promises of the manifestation of Christ, or that the glory of the Lord should be revealed. Isa 40:4-5; Isa 45:8; Isa 52:6. Hag 2:7. Such are the ideas of the prophets, whose words were never understood in any other sense. But the expression, manifested in the flesh, coincides especially with the promise that Christ was to be the womans Seed, Abrahams heir, and of Davids stock, the root of Jesse, all corresponding with the christian scriptures. The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law. Gal 4:6. The Son of God was manifested. 1Jn 3:8.

Dr. Doddridge on this text allows that the deity dwelt incarnate in our Lords humanity; and then handsomely adds, that he was the divine person he professed to be. Harmer, in his translation of the new testament, does the same. Joh 1:1. And the Word was a divine person. Angels also are divine persons, if we know the import of the word. But I would ask whether the apostles anywhere call angels God, and prefix, as in the Greek, an emphatic article before the word? I would ask whether they anywhere wish mercy and peace to them that call on the name of an angel, as they do to them that call on the name of the Lord Christ: and calling on the name of the Lord was the highest act of Hebrew devotion. Compare Joe 2:32. Act 7:52; Act 9:14, 1Co 1:2. 2Ti 2:22. Harmer, Peirce, and Priestley were honest men; but while Doddridge affected orthodoxy, he did unspeakable mischief to the truth, which cannot admit of indecision and duplicity of expression. He makes a little amends, or at least a variation by an expression concerning the Holy One of God, in calling him the illustrious person he professed to be! Is it any wonder that the doctors students should afterwards prove to be nearly all Arians.

He was justified in the Spirit, was declared to be the Holy and the Just One, because he went to the Father. All his miracles, wrought by the power of the Holy Spirit, testified that he was the Christ of God.

Seen of angels. The holy angels attended him through the whole of his ministry, and worshipped him as the only-begotten of the Father, for whom all things were created.

Preached unto the gentiles, and not to the jews only, for he was Gods salvation to the ends of the earth; and in him shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.

Believed on in the world. The conversion of multitudes in all nations attested the efficacy of his sacrifice, and the power of his resurrection. This also is a part of the mystery of godliness, that the doctrine of the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ should be attended with such wide and powerful success.

Received up into glory, where the heavens were waiting to receive him, with the everlasting doors wide open, that the King of glory might enter in. There sits the Conqueror, at the right hand of the Majesty on high; there the Advocate with the Father, the Priest upon his throne, making intercession for all that come unto God by him, and offering up the prayers of the saints. Such is the consummation of the great mystery of godliness, filling heaven and earth with endless wonder and delight.

REFLECTIONS.

Ministers are the glory of Christ, the joy and boast of the church. But they are required to be holy, as their profession fully implies. No minister of state can act for his sovereign unless he be authorized, and unless he has intercourse with him, and know the royal pleasure. He must be clothed with the costume of state, and support the dignity of the high office he sustains. It is the same with the christian pastor, the father of the church. If he be given to wine, to violence of passion, or sordidly attached to filthy lucre, the King of kings will hide his face, and refuse a disclosure of his will. The gospel in that case, as Ostervald says, will freeze upon his lips.

Though Timothy had long been trained under a great master, and was in himself another Paul, yet even Timothy needed paternal counsel and advice in the high and important station he was called to fill. Let all men therefore, when entering on a pastoral charge, seek wisdom and assistance from the Lord, and let them read and study the impressive language of this epistle.

The idea which St. Paul here gives us of the church, the pillar and ground of the truth, is truly sublime and beautiful. There the great mystery of godliness has erected its monument, and chosen its habitation. There the Word made flesh has manifested his glory, the glory as of the only- begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. Without controversy this mystery of the incarnation is the wonder of heaven, and the joy of earth. The Eternal born in time. The Son, enjoying from eternity glory with the Father, is cradled in a manger, with all the innocent infirmities of our nature. All the concomitant events justify the words of the prophets; the glory of the Lord is revealed, that all flesh may behold it together. Angels view the scene with admiration, joyfully attend his advent, and accompany their Lord to glory. Nay more: the world believe on the crucified Redeemer, and multitudes are ready to die for his name. Sing, oh heavens, and be glad, oh earth. But let the church, built on the rock, hold fast the faith once delivered to the saints.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

(b) III. 1Ti 3:1-13.

Church Officials. 1Ti 3:1-7. The Bishops.Not only public worship, but also the appointment of officials, must be regulated. He who exercises oversighta good work, as is generally admittedmust possess moral qualifications which place him beyond reproach. He must be (a) of disciplined life: e.g. he must not marry a second time, or indulge in the drunken riots prevalent around him (cf. 1Co 5:11; 1Co 11:21); (b) hospitable, since Christians, especially teachers, frequently travelled from church to church; (c) successful in giving instructiona function usually assigned at this period to particular teachers; (d) untempted by money, thus reproving a dangerous error (cf. 65); (e) a proved ruler; (f) not too recent a convert, lest he suffer condemnation for pride, as did the devil; and, finally, (g) of honourable reputation among his heathen neighbours. (The writer is not enumerating the bishops functions, but insisting that the man elected shall be of the right moral quality.) Cf. p. 646.

vv. 1Ti 3:1. Faithful, etc.: 1Ti 1:15*.bishop: not in the sense of a monarchical, much less in that of a modern diocesan, bishop. The translation bishop, indeed, is misleading. In NT the word indicates one who exercises oversight, and the alternative title elder (possibly a different function within the same office, cf. Tit 1:5-7) is applied to the same person.

1Ti 3:2. Cf. Tit 1:6 ff.husband, etc.: sometimes wrongly interpreted as alluding to polygamy or adultery, or as forbidding celibacy.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

If before we have seen personal conduct that is to be consistent with assembly character, this chapter, while dealing with personal character still, connects it directly with the order of the assembly. The work of the overseer, or elder, is a good work. It is not actually an “office” one is to desire here, but the work. The bishop is simply the overseer, one who cares for the state of the assembly, and watches over its spiritual interests and conditions. Act 20:1-38 shows these men as “the elders of the assembly” (v. 17, 28); and Tit 1:1-16 confirms this also. “Overseer” indicates the work he was given: “elder” describes the person; for he must be a man of experience. Never is one said to be “the overseer” or “the elder” of an assembly; for this was not a place one person was allowed to take exclusively. Php 1:1 is addressed to the saints, and to the bishops (overseers) and deacons; and the appointment of elders (not an elder) is seen to be “in every assembly” (Act 14:23; Ti. 1:5). This appointment in the various Gentile assemblies established by Paul was undertaken by Paul and Barnabas, and in Crete was delegated to Titus by Paul. Never was this left to the assembly to do. It is possible Paul also gave Timothy the authority to make such appointments, though this is not directly stated here; but the important matter here is rather the qualifications of the overseer. No apostle is here now to delegate authority for appointing elders, and therefore the official appointment is scripturally impossible. But the work of the elder is still to be done, and where there are proper qualifications, and willingness to do this work, the saints must certainly be prepared to recognize and respect men of such character.

As to his character, an overseer is simply to be thoroughly Christian: these same characteristics ought to be seen in all saints. But added to this, he must be an elder man, a man of some experience, the husband of one wife, and apt to teach.

The word for “vigilant” here is more correctly sober or circumspect, while that for “sober” in the Authorized Version has the force of “a sound mind.” His behavior is to be orderly, and in his home he is to practice hospitality. Having one wife would evidently indicate that he must be proven in family life. Doubtless many were converted in those days who had more than one wife. This would disqualify them from the place of an overseer, even though the grace of God had wrought mightily in their souls. For there had been a basic character displayed of insensibility to God’s order even in creation. This was not to be ignored even after conversion, as to governmental matters. In such cases problems would no doubt arise that would call for real exercise of soul, as to what must be done, but Scripture gives no instruction as to what a man must do who had already married two wives.

It was not required that an elder should be a teacher, but that he should have sufficient knowledge of the Word that he was “apt to teach,” having a heart to instruct the saints in the things of God, whether or not he had the gift of teaching.

If one did not control himself as regards the drinking of wine, he could have no place in the control of the assembly; and this was true too as regards being “a striker,” which involves lack of control of his own temper. Similarly, he must not be a lover of money, for this evidences lack of control over his own selfishness. Patience on the other hand involves having rule over ones spirit. This is rendered “mild” in the Darby Translation. A contentious attitude is the destruction of such things.

Moreover, his own house must be orderly, his children in subjection, for this was the very proving ground of his ability to keep order in the assembly. Therefore, he must not be a “novice,” one who was only new in the knowledge of Christ, for experience was a real necessity; and premature lifting up of one to a conspicuous place could result in his being puffed up with pride, that which was the downfall of the Devil. We must have enough concern to preserve souls from this grave danger.

Finally, the outside world must see in him that which is honorable and righteous. If his dealings with the world are questionable, he would himself fall into reproach and involve the assembly with him, if he had any place of eldership. And here the snare of the Devil is laid for him, for the Devil gloats over being able to speak reproachfully of the child of God and the assembly of God.

Verse 8. The deacon is simply a ministering servant, occupied particularly with the care of temporal arrangements and necessities in connection with the local assembly. In Act 6:1-15 there were seven of these appointed to wait on tables. In this case the brethren were told to look out from among themselves seven men of honest report, and these were appointed. The apostles left the assembly free to choose these men. This was not so as to elders, who were rather appointed by apostles or by one who had been specifically delegated by an apostle. The saints are not allowed to decide who is to have spiritual oversight in the assembly: God decides this independently of them. But for the care of their temporal things the assembly is perfectly right to decide who is to assume responsibility.

However, even for temporal matters, it is essential that one should have spiritual qualifications, for he is responsible to act with fullest integrity and proper care for the interests of the assembly. The requirements of a deacon are similar therefore to those of an elder, except that it was not necessary that he be an elder man or have special experience; but he must be of solid character, not using his tongue in political maneuvering, controlling his appetite, not fond of money; holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience that is, that the truth of Scripture must have vital control in his conscience, thereby maintaining it uncontaminated. Time was first to be allowed to prove the character of the man, before giving him this work.

Besides this however, their wives must have a character of dependability, not slanderers; for the wife may too easily influence her husband, and this can be of serious importance in the temporal affairs of the assembly. Again, the deacons were to be those who had only one wife, having their children in subjection, for their work was connected with governmental administration in the assembly, and ability to keep proper order was imperative.

The summing up of this in verse 13 involves a principle of vital importance. One whose work of a deacon was well done, by this very means found great blessing for his own soul, gaining much strength by way of being “faithful in that which is least.” This always leads to greater things, being entrusted with “much.” It is illustrated beautifully in

Stephen and Philip, both chosen as deacons in Act 6:1-15, and both later given “great boldness” in declaring the precious truths of God, whether truth, as in Stephen’s case, that struck home to the consciences of Israel (Act 7:1-60); or as in Philip’s case, the gospel of grace that reached the hearts of the Samaritans (Act 8:1-40).

The importance of Paul’s subject in this epistle was such that, though expecting to see Timothy, he must not think of delaying his message as long as he himself might be delayed. It is with similar urgency that John writes his second epistle (to the elect lady, 2Jn 1:12), for she must be warned of the danger of receiving false teachers into her home. Does this not teach us that we too must allow ourselves no delay in obeying such vital truths as are here expressed? The chief reason for the writing of this epistle is that the individual may know how to conduct himself in connection with the house of God, the Assembly. Is this a matter of real concern to every child of God? How little, sadly, is this the actual case! The unity, prosperity, strength, and growth of the assembly is too often completely ignored, while we think only of personal interests, blessings, testimony, or perhaps of a few others, who are special friends. If God’s interests are truly ours, then let us remember that the house of God is “the assembly of the Living God, the pillar and base of the truth.,’ This surely involves all the beloved saints of God, though all as united together in one by the power of the Spirit of God. It is only here that the truth today is properly displayed. Ignoring God’s Assembly is ignoring the truth. And the Assembly remains “the pillar and base of the truth,” though she has been guilty of too greatly compromising her place in practice, so that the truth does not shine out in the clearness with which it should. All true believers form that Assembly in which God delights, though in 2Ti 2:1-26 “a great house” is found, which involves a mixture of falsehood with the true, and this is foreign to the truth, so that the individual, in order to rightly behave in the house of God, must purge himself from the vessels to dishonor, and “follow righteousness, faith, love, and peace with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.”

In the first epistle this had not yet appeared, of course; and if every individual had always rightly conducted himself in the house of God, such disorder would not have appeared. Nevertheless, the responsibility of every saint remains the same as to his proper conduct: the failure of the mass does not give the individual liberty to also disobey. In fact, it becomes more imperative that he have sober wisdom and exercise to discern the mind of God as to his proper behavior, with full purpose of heart to obey.

Verse 16 expresses the marvellous truth which the assembly is here to bear as a precious witness before all creation. There is no question as to the greatness of the mystery of piety. This does not mean that we have any excuse to remain ignorant of it. Speaking of this word, “mystery,” or in the Greek, “musterion,” Vine’s Dictionary says, “In the New Testament it denotes, not the mysterious (as with the English word), but that which, being outside the range of unassisted natural apprehension, can be made known only by divine revelation, and is made known in a manner and at a time appointed by God, to those only who are illuminated by His Spirit.” Therefore, it is not only difficult, but impossible for unbelief to understand. Yet for faith it is made known in its grandeur and greatness such as draws out the marvelling adoration of the heart.

“God was manifest in flesh.” It is impossible to overestimate the wonder of this matchless revelation. Very possibly the proper translation here may be “He who was manifest in flesh”; but the truth remains the same; for this was certainly not an angel so manifested, and of man this form of speech could never be used, for man is flesh. But Php 2:6-7 and Col 2:9 are as clear as can be that this One existed first m the form of God,” and that now In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Precious, wonderful revelation of infinite love and grace! What natural mind could conceive a miracle so great as that of the incarnation of the Eternal Deity, the Creator, in lowly human form – indeed as a dependent Babe in His mother’s arms? How this could be is beyond the reasoning of our minds; but the fact is proven abundantly in the Word of God. Many things in the history of the Lord Jesus can be attributed only to the fact that He is God, for instance His “knowing all things” (Joh 18:4; Joh 21:17); His answering the unspoken thoughts of men’s minds (Mar 2:6-8); His calming of the sea (Mar 4:39); His walking on the sea (Mat 14:25); His raising the dead (Mar 5:41-42; Luk 7:14-15; Joh 11:43-44); and His many other miracles of grace.

On the other hand, many things about Him can be traced only to the fact that He is truly Man: His weariness at the well of Sychar (Joh 4:6); His fourteen prayers of lowly dependence inthe Gospel of Luke, and perhaps specially that in the Garden of Gethesemane where He was prostrate in agony, with 1,strong crying and tears” (Luk 22:41-44; Heb 5:7); His actual death (the spirit leaving the body); His literal resurrection in bodily form (Luk 23:46-47; Luk 24:36-43). These sublime witnesses to His eternal deity and perfect manhood are unspeakably

us to the believer, filling the heart with thanksgiving for the amazing truth that He is manifest in flesh.

” justified in the Spirit.” The significance of this is shown in Scripture to be of great importance. This was thirty years after His incarnation, when about to begin His public ministry. Being baptized by John in the river Jordan, He came up out of the water to be greeted by the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the Father’s voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Mat 3:16-17).

This was a public justification for every observer, of the truth of every claim of the Lord Jesus: the Spirit of God coming upon Him, the Father’s voice giving His unqualified approval of Him. Perfectly sufficient witness is in this way borne to Him, a witness which was of course continued in the evident fact of the power of the Spirit being evidenced in every detail of His life. But the initial fact could not be disputed, being observed by many witnesses, of whom John the Baptist is rightly the chief spokesman, his witness clearly recorded in Joh 1:32-34.

Though chronologically the fact of His being “seen of angels” comes before His being “justified in the Spirit,” yet it was of more importance that God’s own approval of Him by the descent of the Spirit should be first mentioned here: the wondering admiration of angels is secondary. Yet this too is intended to engage our deep attention. Is it not a marvelous indication of the fact that in the incarnation of the Lord of Glory is the first time that angels have ever truly seen God? In the greatness of His effulgent glory, His omnipotence, His omnipresence, there is brightness beyond any creature’s ability to behold; and though for ages existent, angels had never known a true manifestation of the glory of God until the Lord Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

The reader may find greatest blessing in considering the many occasions on which angels are spoken of in connection with the entire history of the Lord Jesus, from before His birth until taken up after His resurrection. It is most precious to observe the evident vital interest these took in everything concerning Him.

“Preached unto the Gentiles” is again a matter of wonderful importance. The Old Testament had no message to be proclaimed to Gentile nations; and four thousand years of history passed by before the message of God could be sent world-wide. Only the manifestation of the glory of God in the person of Christ could provide so vital a message. Israel had b: en given the law of God, accompanied by “blackness and darkness and tempest,” with smoke and the sound of a trump – a law cold and hard as the stones upon which it was v, ritten, inexorable in its penalties against disobedience; which held no gospel, no message of grace, no forgiveness, no justification, no rest. But grace now invites all nations to come to the knowledge of the Son of God. He Himself is preached: He Himself is “the way, the truth, and the life.”

Another fact worthy of attention here is simply that He has been “believed on in the world.” There are those who, in the face of the world’s concerted unbelief, take a stand of implicit faith in the Lord Jesus Christ: their number is not the important thing, but their acceptance of the pure truth of Him who is God manifest in flesh, a precious witness in the eyes of God.

Last of all mentioned is His being “received up in glory” (though this of course actually preceded His being preached to Gentiles). For God in human form, a miracle of this kind is of course no difficulty whatever. And He remains true Man, in whom all the glory of the Godhead is manifested for eternity. Here ends the apostle’s treatment of the mystery of godliness. Wonderful witness indeed, which the Assembly, the house of God, is intended to present to all creation.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

A bishop; literally, an overseer, an officer holding a general charge and superintendence in respect to the affairs of the church, with powers and duties adapted, in many respects, doubtless, to the peculiar circumstances and habits of the times.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

(d) Oversight in the church of God (verses 1-13)

(V. 1). The apostle has spoken of the relative position of men and women, and the conduct suitable to such in the house of God. This prepares the way for instruction as to oversight in the church of God. The apostle says, If any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work (N.T.).

In the apostle’s address to the elders at Ephesus, three things are brought before us as characterising oversight. Firstly, the overseers are to take heed to themselves and to all the flock. They are to seek that their own walk, and the walk of the Lord’s people, may be worthy of the Lord. Secondly, they are to feed the church of God. They think, not only of the practical walk of God’s people, but they seek the welfare of their souls, that they may enter into their Christian privileges and make soul progress in the truth. Thirdly, they are to watch over the flock that it may be preserved from the attacks of the enemy without, as well as from the corruptions that may arise within the Christian circle through perverse men who divert souls from the Lord to themselves (Act 20:28-31).

Such was the work of oversight, and the apostle speaks of it as a good work. There is the testimony of the grace of God that is to flow out from the house of God, and already the apostle has spoken of this as good and acceptable in the sight of God. There is also the care of those who compose the house of God, that their behaviour may be suited to the house, and this care for souls is also a good work.

It is important to remember that the apostle is not speaking of gifts, but of local office for the care of the assembly. Christendom has confused gifts with offices or charges. In Scripture they are quite distinct. The gifts are given from the ascended Head and are set in the church (Eph 4:8-11; 1Co 12:28). The exercise of the gift cannot then be confined to a local assembly. The office of overseer is purely local.

Moreover, there is nothing in the instruction as to ordination of individuals to these offices. Timothy and Titus may be authorised by the apostle to ordain (or establish) elders (Tit 1:5), but there is no instruction for elders to appoint elders, or for the assembly to choose elders.

The fact that these servants were authorised by the apostle to establish elders clearly proves that, in the apostle’s day, there were assemblies in which there were no appointed overseers. They lacked duly appointed elders for want of apostolic authority (direct or indirect) to appoint them. It is plain, then, from Scripture, that there can be no elders officially appointed except by an apostle or his delegates. It would appear that for man to appoint elders or ordain ministers is to act without the warrant of Scripture.

This does not imply that the work of the overseer cannot be done, or that there are not those fitted for the work in a day of breakdown. The work of overseers was never more needed than today, and those who are scripturally qualified for the work can in simplicity serve the Lord’s people in their own locality; and it is well for us to recognise such, ever keeping in mind the exact force of the apostle’s words, when he says, If any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work. The apostle does not speak of a man desiring office in order to hold a position or exercise authority, but of the desire to exercise this good work. The flesh likes office, and position, and authority, but it will shrink from work. When this is seen, we may have to admit that there are few that have the desire that the apostle contemplates.

(Vv. 2, 3). The qualities that should mark such are clearly set before us; and, as one has said, The directions even as to elders and deacons are not, so to speak, merely for their own sake; they show us the character that God values and seeks from His people (F.W.G.).

The moral character of the elder must be above reproach. He must be the husband of one wife, a qualification that would have special application to those emerging from heathenism with its polygamy. A converted man, though not to be rejected because he had more than one wife, would be unfitted for oversight. Moreover, such an one was to be sober in judgment, discreet in his words, decorous in behaviour, hospitable. He was to be apt to teach, not necessarily implying that he was gifted as a teacher, but that he had aptness to help others in their spiritual exercises. He was not to be a person given to excess in wine or violence in action; on the contrary he was to be mild, avoiding contentions and free from covetousness.

(Vv. 4, 5). Moreover, he was to be one who ruled his house well, having his children in subjection – exhortations that clearly indicate that the overseer was to be an elder, not only married and possessing a home, but having children.

(V. 6). He was not to be a novice. A young Christian may be used of the Lord to preach to others as soon as he is converted, but for such to take the place of an overseer would obviously be wrong, and probably lead to his falling into the fault of the devil. The fault of the devil, one has truly said, was that he exalted himself at the thought of his own importance (J.N.D.).

(V. 7). Finally, the overseer must have a good testimony from those without, otherwise he will fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. The snare of the enemy is to entrap the believer into some questionable conduct before the world, so that he can no longer deal with questionable conduct among the saints.

(V. 8). The apostle further gives us the necessary qualifications for deacons. The deacon is a minister, or one who serves. From Acts 6 we learn that his special work is described as serving tables and, as the connection shows, this refers to meeting the bodily and temporal needs of the assembly, in contrast with the work of the overseer which is more especially concerned with meeting spiritual needs. Nevertheless, it is none the less necessary that the deacon should have spiritual qualifications. Those chosen for deacons’ work, in the early church at Jerusalem, were to be men well reported of, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom (Act 6:3). Here we learn that, like the overseers, they were to be grave, not double-tongued, not given to excess of wine or covetousness.

(V. 9). Further, they were to be marked by holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. To hold correct doctrine is not enough. Orthodoxy without a pure conscience would indicate how little the truth has power over its possessor; hence how powerless such would be to affect others.

(V. 10). Moreover, the deacons must be those who have been tested and proved by experience to be blameless in their own conduct and thus capable of dealing with matters that would of necessity come before them in their service.

(Vv. 11, 12). Their wives were also to be grave, not slanderers, and faithful in all things. Their character is specially referred to, inasmuch as the service of the deacons, having to do with temporal needs, might give occasion for the wives to make mischief unless faithful in all things. Like the overseers, the deacons are to be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their homes well. Again, these exhortations imply that the deacon is not a young man, but one that is married and has children, and thus a man with experience.

(V. 13). In case it might be thought that the office of a deacon was inferior to that of an overseer, the apostle specially states that those who use the office of a deacon well obtain for themselves a good degree, and much boldness in faith which is in Christ Jesus – a truth, as it has often been pointed out, strikingly illustrated in the history of Stephen (Act 6:1-5; Act 6:8-15).

(e)The mystery of piety (verses 14-16)

(Vv. 14, 15). The apostle closes this portion of his Epistle by definitely stating that his reason for writing these things is that Timothy might know how one ought to behave oneself in the house of God.

We are told that the house of God is the assembly of the living God. It is no longer a building of material stones, as in the Old Testament days, but a company of living stones – believers. It is formed of all believers living on earth at any given moment. No local assembly is ever called the house of God.

Further, it is the assembly of the living God. The God who dwells in the midst of His people is not like the dead idols that men worship, that can neither see nor hear. That our God is living is a truth of blessed but solemn import, but one we can easily forget. Later the apostle can tell us that we can both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God (1Ti 4:10). The living God is a God that delights to support and bless His people; nevertheless, if the holiness that becomes His house is not maintained, God may make manifest that He is the living God in solemn governmental dealings as with Ananias and Sapphira, who experienced the truth of the words, It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:31).

Moreover, we learn that the house of God is the pillar and base of the truth. The pillar presents the thought of witness; the base is that which supports. The house of God is not said to be the truth, but the pillar or witness of the truth. Christ on earth was the truth (Joh 14:6); and again we read, Thy word is truth (Joh 17:17). However much the assembly may have failed in its responsibilities, the fact remains that, as established of God upon earth, it is the witness and support of the truth. God has no other witness on the earth. In a day of ruin it may be only a feeble few who will maintain the truth, while the great professing mass, failing to be a witness, will be spued out of the mouth of Christ.

It is important to remember that the assembly is not said to teach the truth, but to witness to the truth that is already found in the word of God. Nor can the assembly claim authority to decide what is truth. The word is the truth and carries its own authority.

(V. 16). As the assembly is the house of God – the living God – and the witness and support of the truth, how important that we should know how to behave ourselves in the house of God. In view of pious behaviour the apostle speaks of the mystery of piety, or the secret of right behaviour. One has written of this passage, This is often quoted and interpreted as if it spoke of the mystery of the Godhead, or the mystery of Christ’s Person. But it is the mystery of godliness, or the secret by which all real godliness is produced – the divine spring of all that can be called piety in man (J.N.D.). This mystery of piety is what is known to piety, but not yet manifest to the world. The secret of godliness lies in the knowledge of God manifested in and through the Person of Christ. Thus in this beautiful passage we have Christ presented as making God known to men and angels. In Christ, God was manifest in the flesh. The absolute holiness of Christ was seen in that He was justified in the Spirit. We are justified in the death of Christ: He was sealed and anointed altogether apart from death – the proof of His intrinsic holiness. Then, in Christ, as Man, God was seen of angels. In Christ, He was made known to and believed on in the world. Finally, the heart of God is made known by the present position of Christ in the glory.

All this is spoken of as the mystery of godliness, because these things are not known to the unbeliever. Such, indeed, can appreciate the outward conduct that flows from piety; but the unbeliever cannot know the secret spring of piety. That secret is only known to the pious; and the secret lies in the knowledge of God; and the knowledge of God has been revealed to them in Christ.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

CHAPTER 14

TO QUOTE A FEW CHILDREN I’VE HEARD, “MINE!”

INTRODUCTION:

Several years ago we took our daughter and grand daughter to Nebraska to see some relatives. We had noticed and mentioned earlier that our grand daughter had not used the “mine!” word in her short little life.

When we arrived at our relatives, it was not long before grand daughter and the relatives little children began playing together. Their son was very cruel in mentality. He walked up to me with a monster action figure with sharp edges and laid it on my forearm and scraped it as hard as he could down my arm. He looked at me with a grin and asked if it hurt. They were very grabby, picky, noisy, and selfish. It was about five minutes before our grand daughter used that term “MINE!” for the first time.

She learned very quickly that to keep in that house, is to holler MINE!

In this text we find that church leaders are to have a prerequisite, even before they are examined to see if they are qualified.

Let us turn to 1Ti 3:1.

SCRIPTURE READING:

1 “This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 “Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 “(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

6 “Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

7 “Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

Notice in that first verse that the church leader is to desire the office that he holds. We want to delve into this idea of desiring the office of elder in this study.

“There’s a story about a proud young man who came to Socrates asking for knowledge. He walked up to the muscular philosopher and said, O great Socrates, I come to you for knowledge. Socrates recognized a pompous numskull when he saw one. He led the young man through the streets, to the sea, and chest deep into water. Then he asked, What do you want? Knowledge, O wise Socrates, said the young man with a smile. Socrates put his strong hands on the man’s shoulders and pushed him under. Thirty seconds later Socrates let him up. What do you want? he asked again. Wisdom, the young man sputtered, O great and wise Socrates. Socrates crunched him under again. Thirty seconds passed, thirty-five. Forty. Socrates let him up. The man was gasping. What do you want, young man? Between heavy, heaving breaths the fellow wheezed, Knowledge, O wise and wonderful… Socrates jammed him under again Forty seconds passed. Fifty. What do you want? Air! he screeched. I need air! When you want knowledge as you have just wanted air, then you will have knowledge.” (M. Littleton in Moody Monthly, June, 1989, p. 29)

The church leader should be able to look at his position and say, “MINE!” They are to WANT AIR!

Now, understand what I am saying. I am not saying that church leaders are to act like little children nor am I saying they ought to be bad swimmers!

I am saying however, that a man should not be in church leadership unless he has considered the ramifications of this verse.

Once he is convinced in his own heart and mind that he desires the office, he should then be examined to see if he is qualified according to the rest of the text as well as the list in Titus.

You may be saying to yourself why consider the desire of an elder. I personally have not heard a message on the subject, and as I went looking for commentary information, I discovered that many do not discuss the thought when commenting on this passage. I want to comment on it in this study because to me it is a new problem facing the church. In years past I think most people that were in office were there because they enjoyed that ministry, but I’m not sure all officers today are there because of a desire to serve.

Many are the men that I have run across in positions in the church are qualified, but are not totally committed to their work and ministry. These men are doing a good work and are sincere in their effort, however they are not the men that God wants in that position – they don’t desire the work. God will call men to the work and give them the desire to fulfill that position by prayer and the Word not by being voted in.

I have also come in contact with men that desire to lead the church and do some of the preaching, but are not comfortable with the other aspects of today’s concept of pastoring. These men are not serving in the position that they should because of their churches traditional concept of pastoring. They have the desire but not the opportunity.

It is of interest that God might well call a man and give him the desire, long before he is qualified. That would indicate that training and discipleship are required in some cases. There might also be a man that has been in a church for many years, highly qualified, and is called later in life that is fully qualified.

The text is not limiting to a set pattern, but rather is limiting to a set list of qualifications. A call, a desire, and a life that is fitting the office that is desired.

We need also to point out that not all men should desire the office. There are more that will not desire it than those who do. God only needs a few to oversee the flock.

We want to take a look at the terms that are used in this verse, and then we will look at the implications of the text.

WORD STUDY:

“This [is] a true” This term is closely related to the word that is normally translated faith.

This term is used of someone that shows themselves faithful in business transactions/is used of a person that follows orders/is used of a person that is worthy of trust/is used of a person that can be relied upon. It is also used of God being faithful (1Co 10:13; 2Co 1:18).

The term is used of a person having faith in Christ’s resurrection and His Messiahship. “And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.” (Luk 7:50) It is the term that Luke used of Stephen in Act 6:8, “And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.”

Barnes mentions of the word, “…means assuredly true; it was that which might be depended on, or on which reliance might be placed. (Barnes p 122)

“saying” This is the same word that is used to describe Christ as the Word, Logos. It is also the same word that is used to describe God’s Word the Bible. It has the idea of something that is spoken or said. It seems to be a general term which takes on special meaning when related to Christ and/or the Bible.

A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term logos around 600 BC to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John’s purpose in John 1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Joh 1:1)

“If a man” The term seems to indicate that any and all men are open to have this desire, yet only those so burdened, gifted and called would have the desire. If any man desires, is the idea. This presupposes salvation – the man must be a believer.

“desire” The Online Bible states: “to stretch one’s self out in order to touch or to grasp something, to reach after or desire something” They also list as a usage, “to give one’s self up to the love of money” Picture a greedy person – you know, like Scrooge McDuck – their desire for money – the man desiring to be a church leader should be so desirous.

Vinzant vol. 3 mentions “Originally to stretch forth, to reach after. Here it implies not only desiring but seeking after. The word implies eagerness….”

The term is a verb and the construction indicates continuing action that the person has involved himself in. He is actively desiring.

1Ti 6:10 “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” The term coveted is the term we are looking at.

Heb 11:16 “But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.”

“the office of a bishop” This seems to indicate the office or name of the position that is desired. (Lu. 19.44; Act 1:20; 1Ti 3:1; 1Pe 2:12.) The term elder or shepherd pictures the ministry of the one in that office.

The idea of investigation and inspection are seen in the term. These terms are used in the thought that as a church leader, the person would inspect the church constantly and determine what needs to be done and set into motion the work to accomplish this.

The shepherd does this constantly in the field with the sheep.

“he desireth” The idea seems to be to long for, or to desire. Since the word is translated lust and covet also, we must assume that this longing or desire is quite strong, indeed, strong enough I assume, to move the person to act upon that desire by seeking the office.

Christ used this word for a man’s lust for a woman in Mat 5:28.

Luke used the term to describe the desire of a hungry beggar wanting the crumbs from the rich man’s table: “And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.” (Luk 16:21)

“a good” There are many terms listed in the Online Bible to describe this term. Beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, precious, admirable and magnificent, to list some.

It is used of good works, of good fruit, good ground etc., indicating that this work that is desired is a GOOD DEAL. Something quite acceptable and good.

“work” This is a word that simply means that which occupies our time as we do things. Work normally indicates effort and exertion.

It is used of the works that believers have done which will be tried by fire at the judgment seat of Christ. 1Co 3:13-15

“good work” might also be translated a good office, or good ministry. Paul is telling Timothy to find men that desire to be involved in the oversight of believers. He is then to look at their overall character and find if they qualify according to the list that is set forth in the coming verses.

The Darby version seems to put it quite nicely: “The word [is] faithful: if any one aspires to exercise oversight, he desires a good work.”

To put it into the thought of our word study you might try this. It is true to say, if a man really desires to oversee the church, he is seeking a good ministry.

“Faithful is the saying” in the King James indicates that this is just a saying that is true. The Darby indicates that this is the Word of God that is faithful. A saying in the Word elsewhere dealing with this subject or the Word itself. Which case is correct? If we had a passage in the Old Testament or writings of the New Testament that predated I Timothy, we could suggest that the Darby translation was correct. If not, then the King James would be correct.

The literal translation of the verse states, “Faithful is the word” which does not indicate if it is just a saying or The Word. I do not find any previous reference to a person desiring the oversight of believers. There are a few references which mention that God is in the business of overseeing His people – Jer 31:28; Jer 44:27 for example. Luk 2:8 mentions of shepherds, “And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.” This illustrates our text. A shepherd desires to oversee the flock as does a church leader. However, no ref. to indicate previous mention of men desiring to oversee.

I think the King James is probably the closer to what Paul had in mind. I really do not see any indication that the Bible was in his mind.

I. BASIS OF THE WORK

The true saying is that if you desire the work, you desire a good work. Now, if there is any other desire, or if there is no desire, then the saying is not true of you.

The desire is for the work and nothing else! If there is anything else involved then you no longer have a true description of yourself.

Let’s consider some of the possible wrong desires. I would like to just list three possibles and read a verse for each.

IN THE NEGATIVE:

A. Not for money – 1Ti 3:3, “Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;”

Many are the stories that I could tell you of pastors that are more interested in the “pay package” than they are in God leading them into or out of a work.

Let one account suffice. One of our chapel speakers at the school where I taught was a camp director in Montana. He told us of a pastor that had told him that he was changing churches because he needed more money. Up front – that is no reason to change churches. The camp director asked the pastor how much he was getting at his present church. The pastor replied, “Only $40,000.”

B. Not for pride – 1Ti 3:7, “Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.” Most feel that the snare of the devil was his pride.

C. Not for self – 1Jn 2:15-17,

15 “Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

16 “For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.”

Do it because you feel compelled to do it for God! No other reason or desire should be involved.

IN THE POSITIVE:

I would like to submit three references and just list some of the positive aspects of this work.

A. THE CARING: Act 20:28, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” WATCHING AND FEEDING.

This work is done for the Holy Spirit because it is done at his command and call. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been in a number of meetings where people were almost railroaded into office by a congregation that needed someone to fill a position. This is not the desire of the Lord.

It relates to the oversight of the church.

It relates to the spiritual feeding of the people of that church.

It is done for those that Christ died for.

It is of note to me that in this great passage, given to the elders of the churches there is no mention of all the things that we feel a pastor is to do. Visitation, marriages, mowing, cleaning, funerals, community projects etc. Not that these things are bad, but they are not a Biblical job description for an elder.

The pastor is to be involved in feeding and watching for the people.

B. THE PREPARING: Eph 4:11-16

11 “And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 “That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

15 “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, [even] Christ:

16 “From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.”

Note: Christ = Head

Leaders of the body

For the perfecting of the saints.

For the edification of the saints.

For the protection of the saints

For body increase.

For the work of the ministry. (Both the ministers and saints.)

C. THE SENDING: 2Co 5:18-19; Mat 28:18-20; Act 1:8

I would like to list the II Cor. passage. The others are probably familiar to you – if not take time to read them later.

18 “And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.”

We are to be spreading the message of reconciliation to the world.

THAT IS MISSIONS!

All too often our leaders teach the people, and maybe even care for the people, but few churches send their people. The number of mission minded churches is on the drastic decrease today.

When on deputation, I ran into a church in Washington that had sent out more than fifteen couples to the mission field. That is a church that takes time to teach its people about the Lord’s command to go.

We want to move on now to the desire of the work.

II. DESIRE OF THE WORK

The man that is spoken of in this text is one that is somewhat consumed by what he wants to do.

I am reminded of people that I have seen that are involved in car racing. Their every moment is geared toward the next race and getting the car ready for that race.

Their money quite often is committed to the car, their time is committed to the car, their thought life is committed to the car and all else that they have is committed to the car.

So, the man that desires to oversee the church should commit himself, his time, his resources and his effort to doing the work of God.

If he is still in the seeking stage of his desire and not qualified then all should be committed to assuring that his life measures up to the standard that follows in I Timothy.

The man should want to do it.

The man should want to do it well.

The man should want to do it well for Christ.

The man should want to do it well for Christ only.

His total focus should be on the work that he is attempting to do for Christ and Christ alone. The work is not for his benefit, but for the benefit of Christ and Christ’s people.

And now the nature of the work. A GOOD WORK. Not one that brings shame or division to the church or Christ. A GOOD WORK!

III. NATURE OF THE WORK

A. It should be a work that glorifies God. There is no other logical reason to labor for God.

“[Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.” (Isa 43:7)

B. It should be a work that increases Christ’s body.

The whole concept of the Body of Christ is the growth, maturing and the working together of the members.

If we are afraid of growth in our churches, we are afraid of what God wants. This is not uncommon today. Many are afraid their apple cart will be bothered, thus don’t like the thought of growth.

We were in a church that was interviewing a candidate. The man wanted to do some new things to see if he could bring about some growth in the very stagnant church. The people became nervous and asked all kinds of questions about why he wanted growth etc. They did not call the man. It was of interest to us that the man they called had similar ideas about growth but didn’t tell them about his ideas. They called him and he brought about growth in the church. GOD WILL HAVE HIS WAY, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

The whole idea of evangelism is growth in case you haven’t noticed. If we are leading people to Christ, then the body will be growing.

By the way, this is the problem today. We aren’t leading people to Christ fast enough to replace those that the Lord takes home. We either need to get out and begin evangelizing or ask the Lord to let the Christians live longer.

C. It should be a work that flows from the Holy Spirit.

Any labor that is not directed by the Holy Spirit,

any labor that is not empowered by the Holy Spirit,

any labor that is not centered in the Holy Spirit cannot be a work that is from God.

As a church there should be much prayer concerning all facets of the ministry. As church leadership meets to plan the future of the church, prayer should be the prime force behind their action.

We ought not move without orders from God.

APPLICATION:

1. FOR THE CHURCH LEADERS:

Do you leaders measure up? I see few churches holding leaders to this standard in I Tim three.

I have seen a few men of this caliber in my life. I met one a number of years ago. He was a very busy man in his own life, yet he desired to do the work of the Lord. He was working long hours at work and yet he spent many hours in church work.

He was not interested in glory or recognition, indeed, oft times he would do things and the pastor would take the credit – it didn’t matter to the man.

He was involved in ushering, he was a board member, he was involved in the missions committee, he was involved in visitation, and he was involved in other areas of the churches ministry.

He desired the work and he did it when given the opportunity.

2. FOR THE CHURCH MEMBERSHIP:

It is your responsibility to hold your church leaders to this standard.

NOT YOUR STANDARD,

NOT A PAST STANDARD,

NOT A FALSE STANDARD,

BUT GOD’S STANDARD!

In closing I would like to read four verses which show the balance of leadership in the church. We have Christ the Head, we have the leaders, and we have the people. There should be a balance between the three.

Act 20:28 mentions the ministry of the overseer as well as Christ the provider of salvation.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

1Ti 3:1 mentions that the overseer should desire to do the work that he is entrusted with, and then the following verses tell us of his qualifications.

“This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”

Heb 13:7 mentions that teaching is part of their ministry, as well as living a good example before man.

“Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation.”

Heb 13:17 tells the congregation that they are to obey the overseer. The congregation is also to submit to the overseer. The clear teaching of this verse is that the overseer must give account of his sheep.

“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you.”

I might be quick to point out that these last two verses do not teach that the pastor is in total power, and that he makes all decisions for the church. This is a false line of thinking that is being spread through the country by a Bible College in Missouri.

Illustration: We started going to a church that as we found out later had no board, the pastor controlled all aspects of the churchs life and program. He had come in and eliminated the board over time and was in total control of the church. His belief was that the people were there to do his bidding and he was to tell them what to do. If they did not follow him, they were standing against the Lord’s anointed.

Thus, we see that Christ is the provider of our salvation and head of the church. He directs the church via prayer through all the saints. The overseers are to set the tone of the church for the congregation, and the congregation is to obey and submit to the ministry of the overseer.

There is one item that has not been covered. Who makes sure that the overseer lives up to the qualifications? This should be the responsibility of all believers in that church. I assume that the elders will do much of the work with the person desiring the position, but the congregation should also be involved. They are the people that know the candidate the best.

So, we come to the end. The man that desires to be an elder is to desire that ministry with a Godly desire. The congregation in turn with, and through the present elders will assure that the man is qualified according to God’s standard.

Before I close, I must warn you. There is a danger in what I have told you. IF YOU HOLD YOUR CHURCH LEADERS TO THIS STANDARD, THEY ONE DAY WILL, AS THEY SHOULD, HOLD YOU TO THE SAME STANDARD. All except one of the qualifications for the elder are restated elsewhere in Scripture for all believers. The “apt to teach” is the only qualification that is not for all believers.

In our churches, we should be holding the leaders to this standard, and they should be holding us to the same standard. THINK OF IT – church purity in action!

When in Bible College in Denver we knew a graduate student that was pastoring a church. He was a student and was working near full time in the electronics industry.

He was quite busy in his life and was doing quite well in school, and the church he was pastoring was growing.

They had two children but one had been in poor health. They finally found a specialist that told them that the child had a serious long term expensive problem. The couple had no health insurance and did not know what to do. The man asked the student body to pray for his family.

A few days later the man’s boss called him in and asked him to transfer to a larger facility out of state, as management. It would include all moving expenses, a very large increase in salary and full benefits with the company, which included complete health insurance.

You see the dilemma. Leave the pastorate of the church and school and have all the financial security they needed and move up the corporate ladder or pass up a good promotion and face the thousands of dollars in upcoming medical expenses.

He again asked the student body to pray. In a few days he announced that he had decided that the pastorate was much more important to him, his family and His Lord than any money, job or security and that he had already turned the employer down.

That man desired the office of bishop.

15-CHAPTER 15

CHAPTER 15

Recently Leadership Magazine commissioned a poll of a thousand pastors. The pastors indicated that 12 percent had committed adultery while in the ministry which is one in eight pastors! The poll also revealed that 23 percent had done something they considered sexually inappropriate. Christianity Today surveyed a thousand of its subscribers who were not pastors and found that 23 percent said they had been involved in extramarital relations and 45 percent indicated they had done something they themselves deemed sexually inappropriate. One in four Christian men are unfaithful, and nearly one half has behaved unbecomingly! This becomes more important when we realize that Christianity Today readers tend to be college-educated church leaders, elders, deacons, Sunday school superintendents, and teachers.

God knows where men’s hearts and minds tend to wonder, and He knows that those ministering to His children ought to be of the highest caliber, thus He has set a very high standard – a standard that I personally have only seen invoked once in a single church in thirty years of ministry.

Many churches run out the standard when they need a pastor and read it and many study it to be sure they know what they are supposed to look for, but then when it comes to finding such a man they fail miserably. Many churches never hold this standard to their prospects because they are not willing to wait for God to provide His man for His church!

I. PREREQUISITE FOR HEADSHIP (ruling the house)

II. PREREQUISITE FOR FATHERSHIP (having children in subjection)

III. PREREQUISITE FOR LEADERSHIP (caring for the church)

INTRODUCTION:

SUSAN WESLEY’S RULES FOR CHILD TRAINING: She had 19 children, and raised them well with the following 16 rules:

1. No eating between meals.

2. All children in bed by 8:00 p.m.

3. Take your medicine without complaining.

4. Subdue self will in each child.

5. Work with God to save the soul of each child.

6. Teach the child to pray as soon as he can speak.

7. Require all to be still during family worship.

8. Give children nothing they cry for.

9. Give them only what they ask for politely.

10. To prevent lying, punish no fault which is first confessed.

11. Do not allow a sinful act to go unpunished.

12. Command and reward good behavior.

13. Preserve property rights, even in the smallest matters.

14. Strictly observe all promises.

15. Require no daughter to work before she can read well.

16. Teach children to fear the rod.

Now, I wish that these rules had been introduced as Wesley’s father’s rules, but they are good rules anyway.

I don’t want to talk about children specifically, though they are related to our study. We want to look at the elder qualification to be a good parent as a prerequisite to being a church leader.

Turn to 1Ti 3:4-5 with me. “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”

This father achieves obedience of his children in the following way – by having them in subjection with gravity.

He stands as head – runs it as head. There is a chain of authority with him at the top. One of the biggest hindrances to a proper upbringing of children is a family that has no authority. If the father runs things one way and the mother another there is no way that the children can know what is expected. The parents need to discuss what they think the proper family is to be, then the father is to make the final decision and the couple should go forth with a united front in the raising of their children.

The man should be able to control his children. If his children aren’t saved and turn out bad it is not necessarily a disqualification in this area, unless of course, he has neglected the family’s training. He should be able to control the children. Their salvation is up to God, and their life’s decisions are theirs BUT their raising and discipline are the fathers overall responsibility.

The father must teach, guide and exhort. Vine mentions, “to stand before, hence to lead, attend to” This indicates care and diligence. Not something that is accomplished by remote control, nor is it something that is accomplished by delegating authority to the mother. Mom is an integrated part of the process but not the defining moment of the process.

Ruleth is the same word that is translated ruleth in Rom 12:8. This is the context of ruling a church congregation. These two verses only strengthen one another. (the others usages are: 1Th 5:12 “are over”; 1Ti 3:12 and Tit 3:8; Tit 3:14 where it appears as “to maintain”.)

In many church government setups the elders are simply there to facilitate the desires of the congregation. This is not the thought here in this passage. There is more to the office of elder than doing the bidding of the congregation. The congregation sets the purpose of the assembly, makes final big decisions, and assists in seeking qualified men, but the leadership is in the hands of the church leaders.

The term subjection has the thought of a deep decision or commitment. It is used in 2Co 9:13 as submission to the Gospel. This is not a subjection or submission that is now and then – the submission to the gospel is a serious, deep, one time, total, life altering matter.

So the children of the family of a church elder should be committed to their fathers headship and leadership – not now and then – not when it is convenient – not when the child wants to – AT ALL TIMES!

Some feel that the elders children ought to have a higher standard set upon them. This is not necessarily fair, but this passage may indicate that this is a true observation. Not that the kids are perfect, but held to a higher standard in their family relationships.

The thought of “children” is not that of a small child necessarily. The term is used of young to older. Vine states, “it gives prominence to the fact of birth”. (It is used in Mat 9:1-2 of a man; Mat 2:18; Mat 3:9 as children under two; Rom 8:16 = adults are children of God; Col 3:20 as in children obey your parents.)

There may be a sense that adult children should still be in proper relation to the father as in Honor your Father and Mother.

Thayer mentions of the term gravity “the characteristic of a thing or person which entitles to reverence and respect, dignity, majesty, sanctity, honour, purity” The elder should run his house in such a way that his children automatically see him as a man that is entitled to respect and dignity.

One of the merchandise managers at the store where I work is such a man. I call him by first name, but find myself a little uneasy in doing so. This man is not a believer, but he seems to have his house in order, he seems to have his work in order, and he seems to have his life in order.

I have a great respect for this man. I feel that he is deserving of any respect, help, or assistance I can ever give to him. He did not ask me for this respect. The respect comes from my knowing his character.

Many are the children in this world that have no respect nor dignity toward their parents. In the store we see children mouthing off to their parents constantly, even to the point of swearing at them and calling them names.

One of our pastors when we were going to Bible college had one good son and one that was not so good at times. The poor one was rebellious to a point – didn’t care for church – long stringy hair – very rough type. He didn’t turn out a pride and joy as a teenager BUT, he was under subjection. One look from his father and foolishness or wrong doing was stopped. He was always in church. He always did as his father asked him to do. He seemed later on to have turned out okay. He bothered some people in the church, but they were not seeing the whole story – only the outward trouble.

Before you condemn a pastor for a bad teen, see if he has him in subjection. This is the requirement – not that all kids turn out as super saints. The result of a good elder is not always 100% spiritual on fire Christians.

This man lead his small struggling congregation over a number of years to establish a large church with a very adequate building. He had some in his church that were as his sons. Some were outstanding members, and some were stinkers. The pastor as in his family brought his membership to a place of unity and lead both his natural family and his spiritual family to success.

Barnes has a real mouth full on this point. I am not sure I lived up to his standard – in that I have and probably always will be way over humored! “Having his children in subjection with all gravity. This does not mean that his children should evince gravity, whatever may be true on that point; but it refers to the father, he should be a grave or serious man in his family; a man free from levity of character, and from frivolity and fickleness, in his intercourse with his children. It does not mean that he should be severe, stern, morose–which are traits that are often mistaken for gravity, and which are as inconsistent with the proper spirit of a father as frivolity of manner –but that he should be a serious and sober-minded man. He should maintain proper dignity, he should maintain self-respect, and his deportment should be such as to inspire others with respect for him.”

I believe that humor and fun can be a part of a family’s life. Grave to me would be seriousness of purpose for the family, not necessarily a personality trait. Everyone knowing this is a Godly family would be the thought in my mind.

Verse five (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Verse five shows the why of verse four.

The term house may imply, as well as controlling the family as the context speaks of, but also of the material things. He should be able to run his house in a proper manner, keeping his bills paid, keeping his house in repair and keeping his house in pleasant appearance. Some preachers today are behind in their bills if not delinquent, and are behind in their homes upkeep. This ought not be so.

Now, just why would Paul tell Timothy that an elder must be a good head of house to be a good elder?

SOME THOUGHTS:

If he is a good head of house he will be a good leader for the church. Paul likens the one job to the other. The job, the principles of, and the work of being a good head of house are JUST the qualifications for the elder.

a. He will be the one that heads up the church.

One that assists and helps sets the course for the church.

One that trains the church.

One that nurtures the church.

One that encourages the church.

One that assists the church to its fullest potential.

One that DISCIPLINES THE CHURCH.

b. I suspect that Paul saw another characteristic that a good father will bring to a church.

The father that is head of his house and a responsible father to his children is one that has a great love and concern for the family. So, the elder that has a love and concern for his people will be the leader of the church that he ought to be and will be the responsible leader that he should be.

c. On the other side of the coin we must relate the thought of submissive children to the congregation.

There is absolutely no way a church can march forward if the people are not willing and desirous of following the men that God has placed over them.

Think of the logic of this. A child has no choice in the father that is placed over them by God. The church member may have little choice over the elders that are placed over them by God. Both should be in subjection to the respective leader.

NEVER CAN A CHURCH HOPE TO BE SUCCESSFUL FOR GOD IF THE PEOPLE ARE NOT WILLING TO ALLOW THEIR ELDERS TO LEAD THEM.

THEY CANNOT FORCE THEM TO FOLLOW,

THEY CANNOT FORCE THEM TO SUBMIT TO THEM,

AND THEY CANNOT FORCE THEM TO RESPECT THEM.

If they are God’s men for the hour then that ends the discussion. The church member should work and live in the church membership as a good child of God.

d. And this brings us to the final thought. The church member is a Child of God. The elder is placed over the child of God as an earthly father or guide. THIS IS NOT HOW STANLEY DERICKSON SET IT UP – IT IS HOW GOD SET IT UP!

The elder should have the responsibilities of a father, the elder should have the authority of a father, and the elder ought to have the respect of a father.

NOW, DON’T GO OUT TELLING EVERYONE I WANT TO BE CALLED FATHER! I don’t know this to be a fact, but I suspect that this may be the basis for the Roman Catholic thought of the priest being called father.

APPLICATION:

1. Never consider a candidate that does not have his family with him. How in the world can you consider his qualification in this area if you have never met the family?

2. It is wise to see the family for more than a couple hours. This is one of the reasons that many churches are asking that their candidates spend a week with the church before being considered.

3. The pastor and his family are to be the example of a proper family to those that they minister to.

One of the reasons the mission we were with was so excited about us going to Ireland was this very fact. The Irish have a very poor concept of the family and the mission wanted the Irish believers to see what a Christian family was to be like – not that ours was perfect – only a lot more of a family than the Irish had ever seen. We did not ultimately go to the field, but since several very strong families have raised support and arrived on the field.

4. The man that does not fulfill this qualification is not to be a church leader. If a man has not raised his family well, then God does not feel that he can raise a church family well.

Again, this is not open to discussion. This is the way God set it up and this is the way that God wants it.

5. One final family concept that relates to the church family concept is unity. The family that is properly raised is a family unit – there should be a real unity of purpose.

So, in the church there should be a real unity – indeed, there must be a unity of purpose lest the church crumble.

Pleiades is a set of seven stars in the constellation Taurus. They are supposedly the seven daughters of Atlas in Greek mythology. The seven make up a loose cluster of stars. Six are visible to the average person. The interesting part of this cluster of stars is that they are in separate and distinct orbits, which one day will lead them in different directions. This will result someday in the disappearance of the star cluster Pleiades.

I think that this illustrates quite well the church that has several people going several different directions – often their own direction. The church that is not united in purpose will one day cease to exist.

I trust that as time goes along the church universal will start looking very seriously at the qualifications for elders before calling men into the leadership.

I also trust that if there is ever a time that an elder of the church ceases to rule his own house well, that he is asked to step aside before he rules God’s house not so well.

God did not set these qualifications for the fun of seeing if Timothy could find someone to fulfill them. THESE ARE GOD’S REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MAN THAT IS GOING TO LEAD HIS CHILDREN!

God knows what outcome He wants for His children and He will provide the men that will get that job done!

Don’t be afraid to require what God requires!

Don’t be afraid to be picky!

Don’t be afraid to await God’s man!

A final quote from Barnes:

“One that ruleth well his own house. This implies that a minister of the gospel would be, and ought to be, a married man. It is everywhere in the New Testament supposed that he would be a man who could be an example in all the relations of life. The position which he occupies in the church has a strong resemblance to the relation which a father sustains to his household; and a qualification to govern a family well, would be an evidence of a qualification to preside properly in the church. It is probable that, in the early Christian church, ministers were not infrequently taken from those of mature life, and who were, at the time, at the head of families; and, of course, such would be men who had had an opportunity of showing that they had this qualification for the office. Though, however, this cannot be insisted on now as a previous qualification for the office, yet it is still true that, if he has a family, it is a necessary qualification, and that a man in the ministry should be one who governs his own house well. A want of this will always be a hindrance to extensive usefulness.”

If this standard had been the standard used for leaders over the last fifty years, we would not be faced with the problems we have in churches today.

The sexual impropriety

The stress on cash

The stress on self-centeredness

The church problems

We must seek and wait till we find men of this caliber instead of electing warm bodies to offices that our constitutions require us to fill.

16-CHAPTER 16

CHAPTER 16

I do not know who the person is that produced this, but I like their humor. It came to me on the internet.

“So Long, Pastor.”

“You Know It’s Over When:

“When the flood of dinner invitations is reduced to a trickle and the menus switch from sirloin to burgers, you know the honeymoon between you and your congregation is over.

“In the beginning you reign from your pedestal, feeling invincible. The first tremors are so subtle that you ask, “Did I imagine that?”

“Then the pedestal begins to rock as enthusiastic handshakes and vigorous pats on the back are replaced by cordial smiles and forced praise for the “fine” sermon you preached. You tip-toe, you dance, you flail your arms, but eventually you topple. And the worst part is, you never saw it coming-just like the last time.

“See if you have overlooked these warning signs of a disgruntled congregation:

You return from vacation to find the visiting preacher’s name on your mailbox.

Your church is about to split, and neither group wants you.

Shut-ins pull the window shades and pretend they aren’t home when you come for a visit.

Mom moves her membership letter to another church.

You’re told God is calling you to the mission field-now.

You’re cast as the donkey in the Christmas cantata.

Your wife moves her membership letter to another church.

The trustees have been marching around your house the last six days praying and carrying

lanterns.

Your secretary starts sending out your resume.

The congregation forces the members of the pulpit committee to wear sackcloth and make a public apology.

Church members start referring to you in the past tense.

Your “love offering” is a two-for-one coupon at Ponderosa.

You show up at the church on Monday morning to discover the locks have been changed.”

Jackie Macgirvin Ministries Today

Having covered the desire and the ruling of the house previously, lets move into the first seven verses of chapter three.

Verse one: This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

A true saying: Truth. If you say what is true people will know what is going on. If you say part of truth and leave out part people won’t know what is going on.

I used to work with a man that would ask a question based on part of the information then wait for an answer. Then when you’ve said yes, he gives you more information.

He asked me if I could go to a meeting in another state. I began asking questions because I knew him. Come to find out the TWO day meeting required me to go the night before, which also required me to pay for three nights in a motel and meals – not quite what a simple “Can you go to a meeting” means.

Don’t do that to people! I’ve seen husbands and wives do it, I’ve seen parents and children do it, and I’ve seen pastors and church people do it. USE THE TRUTH!

Some might wonder, so if we are being so Biblical in our churches, why don’t we have bishops? (The office of a bishop is a good work.) The NASB uses the term

overseer which is the same as the elder of the church.

It is the Greek word “episkopos”. It has the idea of taking the lead and care of the sheep.

In the New Testament times the churches had elders – Plural. It is assumed that one was in overall charge, but a plurality of leadership and decision making.

As I view the Scriptures, the elder is the highest office of church leadership. The pastor is an elder if you have a hired pastor and he qualifies. The spiritual leadership of the church is in the elders. It is the elders that should set the direction of the churches spiritual activities including worship, fellowship, prayer, and evangelism.

Some churches call the pastor elder and the deacons are the board of the church. Some have the elder as pastor, the deacons as spiritual leaders under the elder, and a trustee board to care for the material items of the church.

As we discuss elders, I am in my mind speaking of the pastor and board. Then the deacon board is the part of church leadership that cares for the material end of things. Don’t confuse this with paid staff preachers being elder boards. Some teach that the elders are paid staffers only – no laymen. There is absolutely no indication in the Word that all elders are to be paid officers.

I used to give my theology students a listing of the occurrences of deacon and elder in the New Testament and ask them to define the offices. They always defined the elders as the spiritual leaders and the deacons as the material leaders. They always saw the pastor as part of the elders.

If second year Bible College students can see this, why haven’t the pastors and teachers of past ages been able to grasp the concept?

It is not relevant what you call the spiritual/material leaders as long as you see a distinction. I personally believe that the Bible sets forth the elders as the spiritual and the deacons as the material ministers of the church, but if you want to call them something else I don’t see that it is a large problem. Just be sure you have two groups caring for these areas of the church.

Paul mentions the desire of a good work in one verse and uses six verses to show the spiritual qualifications for the work.

How would you describe the man that “desires the office of bishop?” What does the term desire communicate to you?

Desire = literal “to stretch oneself out after” Something you labor and sacrifice for. Similar to the desire you have for that new car or house.

Matthew Henry mentions, “If a man desired the pastoral office, and from love of Christ, and the souls of men, was ready to deny himself, and undergo hardships by devoting himself to that service, he sought to be employed in a good work, and his desire should be approved, provided he was qualified for the office.”

I suspect that this is the basis of the thought of calling and ordaining to the pastorate. It should be something that really wells up from within to bring the person to take active steps to become the overseer of a congregation. In the New Testament context, that would have been within his own congregation rather than the thought of seeking approval of other pastors as ordination is today.

It would seem that this thought would eliminate most church government ideas where the men are nominated from the floor, or nominations in any manner. The desire would indicate to me that the man really wants to have this ministry and lets others know of that desire.

It would require that those in charge be knowledgeable of this desire as well. As they see the desire then they should evaluate the possibilities of this man taking on the position.

I was contacted by a junior in high school recently that was interested in ministry. It took several notes back and forth to assist him, but finally I was able to put him in contact with some mission boards that could use him and help him in planning toward mission work.

The point – he is a junior in high school with a desire from God to serve in the church.

Someone needs to tuck him under their wing and disciple him – train him – nurture him in things of the Lord.

I encouraged him to talk to his pastor. I suspect the mission boards will assist him greatly also.

Evaluation should be made on the basis of what we will be seeing as far as qualification and the qualities of the man should be viewed as well.

The qualifications seem to require more than just a “yes” when asked to take the position. The evaluation should include not only the man’s desire, but he should be honest and open as to his qualifications in all of these areas before he takes the position.

He should also be open to the input of the leadership as to the needs of his life. They may see some failings that he needs to work on.

This whole idea is shown very nicely in relation to the workmen of the tabernacle in Exo 36:2, “And Moses called Bezaleel and Aholiab, and every wise hearted man, in whose heart the Lord had put wisdom, even everyone whose heart stirred him up to come unto the work to do it:”

I would even suggest if you have a man that has none of these qualifications in his life, that the elders should start training him. Make him a workman for the deacons, begin to study and disciple, if he can keep confidences include him in some board meetings so that he can learn. This should be a gold mine for the elders. Train and cultivate that “desire” into an elder. As he matures, you will have a new leader.

I received a very sad commentary on the church recently. One of the major mission boards is launching a new program aimed at helping local churches understand their need to be training leaders and raising up missionaries. They then will assist in helping the church set into motion leadership training.

Pretty sad that the church has to be told of its responsibilities and have to be trained in how to accomplish them!

There are fifteen to seventeen qualifications depending on the listings.

Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson

3:1 This {1} [is] a true saying, {2} If a man {a} desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

(1) Having completed the treatise of doctrine and of the manner of handling of it, as well also of public prayer, he now in the third place comes to the persons themselves, speaking first of pastors, and afterwards of deacons. And he uses a preface, so that the church may know that these are certain and sure rules.

(2) The office of bishop, or the ministry of the word is not an idle dignity, but a work, and that an excellent work: and therefore a bishop must be furnished with many virtues both at home and abroad. Therefore it is necessary before he is chosen to examine well his learning, his gifts, his abilities, and his life.

(a) He does not speak here of ambitious seeking, of which there cannot be a worse fault in the Church, but generally of the mind and disposition of man, prepared and disposed to help and edify the Church of God, when and wherever it will please the Lord.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

C. The qualifications for church leaders 3:1-13

Paul proceeded from his instructions concerning worship in the church to lay out qualifications for leaders of the church. He did so to give Timothy guidance in selecting these important individuals. He discussed women and leadership in 1Ti 2:11-15, and now he turned to men and leadership, specifically, the personal qualities necessary for effective church leaders.

"The PE do not give institutional authority to the overseers and deacons. They describe the type of person who may serve the church in a certain role: one whose character is above reproach, who has illustrated management skills at home; who can teach (in the case of the overseers), etc. This person will teach what is true and will refute what is false. While some authority may be implicit in the title and the nature of the position, nowhere does the text explicitly say what is so often asserted by modern writers (e.g., Young, Theology, 22; cf. 120), that the author’s solution to the rise of heresy was to force a structure onto the house of God . . . and appoint authoritative leaders who could combat the error because of their institutional position. There is no explicit institutional authority promoted in the PE." [Note: Mounce, p. lxxxi. His reference is to F. Young, The Theology of the Pastoral Epistles.]

"The nature of the qualifications set out and the broad concern for the leaders’ reputations suggest that respectability of the sort that would sustain or establish the church’s credibility in society was uppermost in mind." [Note: Towner, The Letters . . ., p. 240.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

1. Qualifications for elders 3:1-7

The Ephesian church already had elders long before Paul wrote this letter (Act 20:17-35).

"If our identification of the false teachers as elders is correct, then Paul’s reason for this set of instructions is that Timothy must see to it that elders are living according to their appointment, that is, by these standards. At the same time, of course, the whole church will be listening in and will thus be given the grounds for discipline of erring elders as well as for their replacement (cf. 1Ti 5:22; 1Ti 5:24-25)." [Note: Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy . . ., p. 79.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Paul cited another well-known saying (cf. 1Ti 1:15) to introduce and give support to what he was about to teach.

"Overseer" (Gr. episkopes) is a term that emphasizes this leader’s leadership and management responsibilities and is evidently synonymous with "elder" (presbuteros; 1Ti 5:17; 1Pe 5:1) and "pastor" or "shepherd" (poimen; Eph 4:11). Paul used the term "elder" more frequently, so I have chosen to use it in commenting on this pericope. At the time Paul wrote the Pastorals the office of elder was common in the churches since he had appointed elders in churches that he had founded (Act 14:23). The history of the elder office in the church goes back to the elder office in ancient Israel. The Jews continued this organization in their synagogues, which they began during the Babylonian Captivity. [Note: See Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership, pp. 137-52.]

". . . while the synagogal eldership did influence church eldership, the influence was of a general nature." [Note: David A. Mappes, "The ’Elder’ in the Old and New Testaments," Bibliotheca Sacra 154:613 (January-March 1997):92.]

Paul did not say that each congregation of Christians required at least one elder to be a church. Moreover there appears to have been more than one elder in some churches (e.g., Act 20:17; Php 1:1) but not necessarily in all. Elder was an official position of leadership in the church that carried with it pastoral responsibility (1Pe 5:1-2). "Elder" describes the maturity of those who normally hold this position, primarily spiritual maturity. "Overseer" describes the major responsibility inherent in the position, namely, oversight of the church. "Pastor" describes the gift and work necessary to fulfill this position, the gift and work of a shepherd.

A person can aspire to hold an office out of good or bad motives. The "trustworthy statement" Paul cited assumed good motives: the desire to do a worthy work, not personal aggrandizement. Church congregations should be careful to investigate the motivation of men who aspire to become elders. Such an aspiration can lead a young man to study, labor, and sacrifice to prepare for leadership in a church. Some do this by enrolling in seminary.

"The saying in fact focuses less on the person than on the position. Thus Paul is not commending people who have a great desire to become leaders; rather, he is saying that the position of overseer is such a significant matter, a noble task, that it should indeed be the kind of task to which a person might aspire. Thus, despite the activities of some, he does not for that reason negate the position itself." [Note: Fee, 1 and 2 Timothy . . ., p. 79.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 10

ORIGIN OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY; VARIOUS CERTAINTIES AND PROBABILITIES DISTINGUISHED. – 1Ti 3:1-10

THIS passage is one of the most important in the New Testament respecting the Christian ministry; and in the Pastoral Epistles it does not stand alone. Of the two classes of ministers mentioned here, one is again touched upon in the Epistle to Titus, {Tit 1:5-9} and the qualifications for this office, which is evidently the superior of the two, are stated in terms not very different from those which are used in the passage before us. Therefore a series of expositions upon the Pastoral Epistles would be culpably incomplete which did not attempt to arrive at some conclusions respecting the question of the primitive Christian ministry; a question which at the present time is being investigated with immense industry and interest, and with some clear and substantial results. The time is probably far distant when the last word will have been said upon the subject; for it is one on which considerable difference of opinion is not only possible but reasonable: and those persons would seem to be least worthy of consideration, who are most confident that they are in possession of the whole truth on the subject. One of the first requisites in the examination of questions of fact is a power of accurately distinguishing what is certain from what is not certain: and the person who is confident that he has attained to certainty, when the evidence in his possession does not at all warrant certainty, is not a trustworthy guide.

It would be impossible in a discussion of moderate length to touch upon all the points which have been raised in connection with this problem; but some service will have been rendered if a few of the more important features of the question are pointed out and classified under the two heads just indicated, as certain or not certain. In any scientific enquiry, whether historical or experimental, this classification is a useful one, and very often leads to the enlargement of the class of certainties. When the group of certainties has been properly investigated, and when the various items have been placed in their proper relations to one another and to the whole of which they are only constituent parts, the result is likely to be a transfer of other items from the domain of what is only probable or possible to the domain of what is certain.

At the outset it is necessary to place a word of caution as to what is meant, in a question of this kind, by certainty. There are no limits to skepticism, as the history of speculative philosophy has abundantly shown. It is possible to question ones own existence, and still more possible to question the irresistible evidence of ones senses or the irresistible conclusions of ones reason. A fortiori it is possible to throw doubt upon any historical fact. We can, if we like, classify the assassinations of Julius Caesar and of Cicero, and the genuineness of the Aeneid and of the Epistles to the Corinthians, among things that are not certain. They cannot be demonstrated like a proposition in Euclid or an experiment in chemistry or physics. But a skeptical criticism of this kind makes history impossible; for it demands as a condition of certainty a kind of evidence, and an amount of evidence, which from the nature of the case is unattainable. Juries are directed by the courts to treat evidence as adequate, which they would he willing to recognize as such in matters of very serious moment to themselves. There is a certain amount of evidence which to a person of trained and well-balanced mind makes a thing “practically certain”: i.e., with this amount of evidence before him he would confidently act on the assumption that the thing was true.

In the question before us there are four or five things which may with great reason be treated as practically certain.

1. The solution of the question as to the origin of the Christian ministry has no practical bearing upon the lives of Christians. For us the problem is one of historical interest without moral import. As students of Church History we are bound to investigate the origins of the ministry which has been one of the chief factors in that history: but our loyalty as members of the Church will not be affected by the result of our investigations. Our duty towards the constitution consisting of bishops, priests, and deacons, which existed unchallenged from the close of the second century to the close of the Middle Ages, and which has existed down to the present day in all the three great branches of the Catholic Church, Roman, Oriental, and Anglican, is no way affected by the question whether the constitution of the Church during the century which separates the writings of St. John from the writings of his disciples disciple, Irenaeus, was as a rule Episcopal, collegiate, or Presbyterian. For a churchman who accepts the Episcopal form of government as essential to the well-being of a Church, the enormous prescription which that form has acquired during at least seventeen centuries, is such ample justification, that he can afford to be serene as to the outcome of enquiries respecting the constitution of the

2. various infant Churches from A.D. 85 to A.D. 185. It makes no practical difference either to add, or not to add, to an authority which is already ample. To prove that the Episcopal form of government was founded by the Apostles may have been a matter of great practical importance in the middle of the second century. But, before that century had closed, the practical question, if there ever was one, had settled itself. Gods providence ordained that the universal form of Church government should be the Episcopal form and should continue to be such; and for us it adds little to its authority to know that the way in which it became universal was through the instrumentality and influence of Apostles. On the other hand, to prove that episcopacy was established independently of Apostolic influence would detract very little from its accumulated authority.

A second point, which may be regarded as certain with regard to this question, is, that for the period which joins the age of Irenaeus to the age of St. John, we have not sufficient evidence to arrive at anything like proof. The evidence has received important additions during the present century, and still more important additions are by no means impossible; but at present our materials are still inadequate. And the evidence is insufficient in two ways. First, although surprisingly large as compared with what might have been reasonably expected, yet in itself, the literature of this period is fragmentary and scanty. Secondly, the dates of some of the most important witnesses cannot as yet be accurately determined. In many cases to be able to fix the date of a document within twenty or thirty years is quite sufficient: but this is a case in which the difference of twenty years is a really serious difference; and there is fully that amount of uncertainty as to the date of some of the writings which are our principal sources of information; e.g., the “Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles,” the Epistles of Ignatius, the “Shepherd of Hermas,” and the “Clementines.” Here also our position may improve. Further research may enable us to date some of these documents accurately. But, for the present, uncertainty about precise dates and general scantiness of evidence compel us to admit that with regard to many of the points connected with this question nothing that can fairly be called proof is possible respecting the interval which separates the last quarter of the first century from the last quarter of the second.

This feature of the problem is sometimes represented by the useful metaphor that the history of the Church just at this period “passes through a tunnel” or “runs underground.” We are in the light of day during most of the time covered by the New Testament; and we are again in the light of day directly we reach the time covered by the abundant writings of Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others. But during the intervening period we are, not indeed in total darkness, but in a passage the obscurity of which is only slightly relieved by an occasional lamp or light-hole. Leaving this tantalizing interval, about which the one thing that is certain is that many certainties are not likely to be found in it, we pass on to look for our two next certainties in the periods which precede and follow it.

3. In the period covered by the New Testament it is certain that the Church had officers who discharged spiritual functions which were not discharged by ordinary Christians; in other words a distinction was made from the first between clergy and laity. Of this fact the Pastoral Epistles contain abundant evidence; and further evidence is scattered up and down the New Testament, from the earliest document in the volume to the last. In the First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which is certainly the earliest Christian writing that has come down to us, we find St. Paul beseeching the Church of the Thessalonians “to know them that labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and to esteem them exceeding highly in love for their works sake” (1Th 5:12-13). The three functions here enumerated are evidently functions to be exercised by a few with regard to the many: they are not duties which every one is to discharge towards every one. In the Third Epistle of St. John, which is certainly one of the latest, and perhaps the very latest, of the writings contained in the New Testament, the incident about Diotrephes seems to show that not only ecclesiastical government, but ecclesiastical government by a single official, was already in existence in the Church in which Diotrephes “loved to have the preeminence” (3Jn 1:9-10). In between these two we have the exhortation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “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”. {Heb 13:17} And directly we go outside the New Testament and look at the Epistle of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth, commonly called the First Epistle of Clement, we find the same distinction between clergy and laity observed. In this letter, which almost certainly was written during the lifetime of St. John, we read that the Apostles, “preaching everywhere in country and town, appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith”-the last words being an inaccurate quotation of the LXX of Isa 60:17.

And a little further on Clement writes: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishops office. For this cause, therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all-these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishops office unblamably and holily. Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe, for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place. For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honorably, from the ministration which they had kept blamelessly” (42., 44.).

Three things come out very clearly from this passage, confirming what has been found in the New Testament.

(1) There is a clear distinction made between clergy and laity.

(2) This distinction is not a temporary arrangement, but is the basis of a permanent organization.

(3) A person who has been duly promoted to the ranks of the clergy as a presbyter or bishop (the two titles being here synonymous, as in the Epistle to Titus) holds that position for life. Unless he is guilty of some serious offence, to depose him is no light sin.

None of these passages, either in the New Testament or in Clement, tells us very clearly the precise nature of the functions which the clergy, as distinct from the laity, were to discharge; yet they indicate that these functions were of a spiritual rather than of a secular character, that they concerned mens souls rather than their bodies, and that they were connected with religious service (). But the one thing which is quite clear is this, -that the Church had, and was always intended to have, a body of officers distinct from the congregations to which they ministered and over which they ruled.

4. For our fourth certainty we resort to the time when the history of the Church returns once more to the full light of day, in the last quarter of the second century. Then we find two things quite clearly established, which have continued in Christendom from that day to this. We find a regularly organized clergy, not only distinctly marked off from the laity, but distinctly marked off among themselves by well-defined gradations of rank. And, secondly, we find that each local Church is constitutionally governed by one chief officer, whose powers are large and seldom resisted, and who universally receives the title of bishop. To these two points we may add a third. There is no trace of any belief, or even suspicion, that the constitution of these local Churches had ever been anything else. On the contrary, the evidence (and it is considerable) points to the conclusion that Christians in the latter part of the second century-say A.D. 180 to 200-were fully persuaded that the Episcopal form of government had prevailed in the different Churches from the Apostles time to their own. Just as in the case of the Gospels, “Irenaeus and his contemporaries” not only do not know of either more or less than the four which have come down to us, but cannot conceive of there ever being either more or less, than these four: so in the case of Church Government, they not only represent episcopacy as everywhere prevalent in their time, but they have no idea that at any previous time any other form of government prevailed. And although Irenaeus, like St. Paul and Clement of Rome, sometimes speaks of bishops under the title of presbyter, yet it is quite clear that there were at that time presbyters who were not bishops and who did not possess Episcopal authority. Irenaeus himself was such a presbyter, until the martyrdom of Pothinus in the persecution of A.D. 177 created a vacancy in the see of Lyons, which Irenaeus was then called upon to fill; he held the see for upwards of twenty years, from about A.D. 180 to 202. From Irenaeus and from his contemporary Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, we learn not only the fact that episcopacy prevailed everywhere, but, in not a few cases, the name of the existing bishop; and in some cases the names of their predecessors are given up to the time of the Apostles. Thus, in the case of the Church of Rome, Linus the first bishop is connected with the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul, and, in the case of Athens, Dionysius the Areopagite is said to have been appointed first bishop of that Church by the Apostle Paul. This may or may not be correct: but at least it shows that in the time of Irenaeus and Dionysius of Corinth episcopacy was not only recognized as the universal form of Church government, but was also believed to have prevailed in the principal Churches from the very earliest times.

5. If we narrow our field and look, not at the whole Church, but at the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria, we may obtain yet another certainty from the obscure period which lies between the age of the Apostles and that of Dionysius and Irenaeus. The investigations of Lightfoot, Zahn, and Harnack have placed the genuineness of the short Greek form of the Epistles of Ignatius beyond reasonable dispute. Their exact date cannot as yet be determined. The evidence is strong that Ignatius was martyred in the reign of Trajan: and, if that is accepted, the letters cannot be later than A.D. 117. But even if this evidence be rejected as not conclusive, and the letters be dated ten or twelve years later, their testimony will still be of the utmost importance. They prove that long before A.D. 150 episcopacy was the recognized form of government throughout the Churches of Asia Minor and Syria; and, as Ignatius speaks of “the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth ( )” they prove that, according to his belief, episcopacy was the recognized form everywhere. {Eph 3:1-21} This evidence is not a little strengthened by the fact that, as all sound critics on both sides are now agreed, the Epistles of Ignatius were evidently not written in order to magnify the Episcopal office, or to preach up the Episcopal system. The writers main object is to deprecate schism and all that might tend to schism. And in his opinion the best way to avoid schism is to keep closely united to the bishop. Thus, the magnifying of the Episcopal office comes about incidentally; because Ignatius takes for granted that everywhere there is a bishop in each Church, who is the duly appointed ruler of it, loyalty to whom will be a security against all schismatical tendencies.

These four or five points being regarded as established to an extent which may reasonably be called certainty, there remain certain other points about which certainty is not yet possible, some of which admit of a probable solution, while for others there is so little evidence that we have to fall back upon mere conjecture. Among these would be the distinctions of office, or gradations of rank, among the clergy in the first century or century and a half after the Ascension, the precise functions assigned to each office, and the manner of appointment. With regard to these questions three positions may be assumed with a considerable amount of probability.

1. There was a distinction made between itinerant or missionary clergy and stationary or localized clergy. Among the former we find apostles (who are a much larger body than the Twelve), prophets, and evangelists. Among the latter we have two orders, spoken of as bishops and deacons, as here and in the Epistle to the Philippians (1) as well as in the Doctrine of the

2. Twelve Apostles, presbyter or elder being sometimes used as synonymous with bishop. This distinction between an itinerant and a stationary ministry appears in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, {1Co 12:28} in the Epistle to the Ephesians, {Eph 4:11} and perhaps also in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles of St. John. In the “Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles” it is clearly marked.

There seems to have been a further distinction between those who did, and those who did not, possess supernatural prophetical gifts. The title of prophet was commonly, but perhaps not exclusively, given to those who possessed this gift: and the “Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles” shows a great respect for prophets. But the distinction naturally died out when these supernatural gifts ceased to be manifested. During the process of extinction serious difficulty arose as to the test of a genuine prophet. Some fanatical persons believed themselves to be prophets, and some dishonest persons pretended to be prophets when they were not such. The office appears to have been extinct when Ignatius wrote: by prophets he always means the prophets of the Old Testament. Montanism was probably a forlorn attempt to revive this much desired office after the Church as a whole had decided against it. Further discussion of the gift of prophecy in the New Testament will be found in a previous chapter (6).

1. The clergy were not elected by the congregation as its delegates or representatives, deputed to perform functions which originally could be discharged by any Christian. They were appointed by the Apostles and their successors or substitutes. Where the congregation selected or recommended candidates, as in the case of the Seven Deacons, {Act 6:4-6} they did not themselves lay hands on them. The typical act of laying on of hands was always performed by those who were already ministers, whether apostles, prophets, or elders. Whatever else was still open to the laity, this act of ordaining was not. And there is good reason for believing that the celebration of the Eucharist also was from the first reserved to the clergy, and that all ministers, excepting prophets, were expected to use a prescribed form of words in celebrating it.

But, although much still remains untouched, this discussion must draw to a close. In the ideal Church there is no Lords Day or holy seasons, for all days are the Lords, and all seasons are holy; there are no places especially dedicated to Gods worship, for the whole universe is His temple; there are no persons especially ordained to be His ministers, for all His people are priests and prophets. But in the Church as it exists in a sinful world, the attempt to make all times and all places holy ends in the desecration of all alike; and the theory that all Christians are priests becomes indistinguishable from the theory that none is such. In this matter let us not try to be wiser than God, Whose will may be discerned in His providential guiding of His Church throughout so many centuries. The attempt to reproduce Paradise or to anticipate heaven in a state of society which does not possess the conditions of Paradise or heaven, can end in nothing but disastrous confusion.

In conclusion the following weighty words are gratefully quoted. They come with special force from one who does not himself belong to an Episcopalian Church.

“By our reception or denial of priesthood in the Church, our entire view of what the Church is must be affected and molded. We shall either accept the idea of a visible and organized body, within which Christ rules by means of a ministry, sacraments, and ordinances to which He has attached a blessing, the fullness of which we have no right to look for except through the channels He has ordained (and it ought to be needless to say that this is the Presbyterian idea), or we shall rest satisfied with the thought of the Church as consisting of multitudes of individual souls known to God alone, as invisible, unorganized, with ordinances blessed because of the memories which they awaken, but to which no promise of present grace is tied, with, in short, no thought of a Body of Christ in the world, but only of a spiritual and heavenly principle ruling in the hearts and regulating the lives of men. Conceptions of the Church so widely different from each other cannot fail to affect in the most vital manner the Churchs life, and relation to those around her. Yet both conceptions are the logical and necessary result of the acceptance or denial of the idea of a divinely appointed and still living priesthood among men.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary