08 How to Choose Church Leaders You Can Trust (1 Timothy 3:1-13)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome to Wednesday in the Word. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. Churches often ask, who can fill this leadership position? But Paul suggests asking a different question. Who has already shown that they can be trusted with leadership? In this episode, we'll look at 1 Timothy 3 and why Christian leadership should grow out of proven character and service. You'll come away with a clearer way to recognize the kind of people who should be entrusted with authority in your church. This is the eighth talk in our series on the book of 1 Timothy. Today we will study 1 Timothy 3 verses 1 through 13. I'm so glad you're listening. As always, let's remind ourselves where we are in this book before we dive into chapter 3 today. Paul left Timothy and Ephesus to deal with false teachers and help guide a troubled community of believers. In this letter, Paul is concerned with two closely related themes. The first is that sound teaching should produce godliness, and the second is how believers should conduct themselves as members of the household of God. In chapter one, his focus was mainly on that first concern, sound teaching producing godliness. We saw that there were some teachers in Ephesus who were mishandling the scriptures. They used the law as a way to speculate about which one of them was the most righteous, rather than seeing that the law was intended to teach us that we're sinners who desperately need the mercy that God offers through Jesus Christ. At the end of chapter one, Paul charged Timothy to fight the good fight, holding on to faith and good conscience. In other words, hold on to his belief and good conscience and keep striving to teach others in a way that produces godliness or that produces people whose lives are increasingly shaped by the truth they believe. Then in chapter two, he switched to the second theme of how godly believers should behave in their community, and he began showing us what godliness looks like when we deal with authority. First, he addressed the authority figure most troubling to men, which at the time was kings, rulers, and the bureaucrats who had power over them. Paul told them not to respond to those kings and authority figures with anger and quarreling, but rather with prayer and a quiet confidence that God is in control. Then he addressed the authority figure most troubling to women, which at that time was their husbands, and he urged them to respond the same way he urged the men to respond with that quiet confidence that God is in control. In chapter two, Paul also introduced two important ideas. He used two Greek words that are important to understand this letter. The first was sound-minded, which is the Greek word sofrasune, and it means a right-minded understanding of ourselves before God, so being of sound mind in that sense. And the second was the word usually translated quiet, which is the Greek word Hesukia. And I argued that it refers to that kind of quiet, peaceful contentment that comes from trusting God rather than fighting against the boundaries he's placed around our lives. And we talked about those in the previous podcasts. So in chapter two, we looked at how believers respond to authority, and now I think in chapter three, Paul turns the question around. He looks at the believer who is in a position of authority and says, Well, how should they behave? Or more specifically, what kind of person should we give authority to? And that brings us to chapter three, verses one through thirteen. Let me read the entire section and then we'll go back and talk about it. If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober minded, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive. For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders so that he may not fall into disgrace, into the snare of the devil. Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience, and let them also be tested first, then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well, for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves, and also great confidence among the faithful that are in Christ Jesus. Now there is a debate about chapter three, just like we saw the debate about chapter two, but thankfully this debate is not as fierce as the one revolving around chapter two. For chapter three, the controversial question, or at least the debated question, is this. So they do not understand these lists as advice for a single congregation, but as directives for every gathering of believers everywhere. To support this view, scholars point to the similar list in Titus, where Paul adds in that list where elders are appointed in every town, and they argue in every town, that phrase means everywhere for all time. Then they would point to places like Acts 14, where Paul and Barnabas ordain elders in the churches they plant, and say, here, this is an example of the normative institutional pattern. And further, I think they refer to the phrase where in 315 where he says the church is the pillar and buttress of the truth, and that implies a stable structure that is capable of safeguarding doctrine. So they understand this chapter to establish permanent ecclesiastical offices that define the institutional church. And by specifying who may hold leadership roles and how they conduct themselves, they're saying Paul is providing the mechanism for the continuity, accountability, and the transmission of that sound doctrine through the organized church for generations. The other side of the debate argues that Paul is addressing an immediate pastoral need in Ephesus, and that he had no thought of creating a formal, organized institution. They argue that Paul is stressing personal character and faithfulness rather than an organizational machinery, and that because he uses the terms overseer and deacon as descriptions and he uses them interchangeably, that these are not titles conferring institutional authority. These are just descriptions of people who serve. They would further point out that the focus on household management and moral character suggests that this is a community of believers rooted in the existing social structure of house churches. That's what existed at the time Paul wrote, rather than his creating a new bureaucratic system. And they point out that the early church didn't create an organized institutional denominational church right away, that they operated primarily through these informal networks of believers meeting in people's homes, with leadership emerging from the bottom up through gifted individuals, rather than from the top down through appointed offices. And they would say, yes, Paul's instructions are a safeguard to preserve the gospel with strong leadership, just like you think, but this is not a blueprint for an institution. Well, until I studied the book, I always assumed that Paul is describing the institutional church, because that was the traditional view, and that's how I heard it taught. And usually people would teach this as a standalone passage, not as part of teaching through the book. And so I assumed, well, it just must be describing the institutional church, because we see all these titles: episcopal, deacon, elder, steward, we see all those terms in the church today. But the more I've been studying this book as a whole, the more I think the second view that Paul is addressing a pastoral concern is correct, and that he is not meaning, it is not in his intent to establish an institutional church. Rather, he is describing what leadership looks like in the church. Now the debate matters because if Paul is establishing the organized church, then every church everywhere should look basically the same. If the traditional side is right, what we have here is an apostle of Jesus Christ telling us how to be organized. Therefore, all our churches everywhere and throughout time should conform to this plan. And that would imply there is one and only one way to do church, and we need to do it right. So at a minimum, we have to have a board of overseers, a board of deacons, because that's what Paul had Timothy do. But if Paul is speaking to a dynamic, changing situation of loosely organized house churches or communities of believers, then what we have here is what Paul thinks is necessary for a person to be recognized as a leader within any believing community. And that believing church could have whatever organizational structure seemed right and worked best given their time, place, and culture. If the second view is right, then we don't need to organize our churches exactly the same way in every time and place. We could assume there's more than one way to do it, and we could allow all kinds of factors to come into play as to how a particular church would be organized. Now both the traditional and non-traditional views will look for the same kind of leaders. The debate usually doesn't separate on that issue. Most people agree what leadership looks like. The debate is over whether there is only one way to do church or not. Given how I've understood chapters one and two, I have now come to believe that the non-traditional view makes more sense. As I understand the flow of the letter, Paul is concerned with this issue of godliness and how we live our lives. And he's spoken to men and women about how they lead godly lives while living under the authority of others. And now he's flipping the coin and says, What about those of you who have authority? How should you lead your lives? So when you pick godly leaders, Timothy, here's the things you should look for because these are the people who are doing it right. And then he describes what godly leadership for a community of believers looks like in whatever organization those particular believers choose. Now, could they choose elders and deacons? Absolutely. Nothing wrong with that. Before we look at the qualifications, let's look at the words that Paul uses to describe these leaders. He uses four Greek words, which have become the names for the offices in most churches today. The first word he uses is episcopas, which is usually translated overseer or bishop. We get the word episcopal from it. Episcopas literally means one who watches over. It's a compound of the preposition over with the verb to look or to watch. So its core lexical sense is an overseer or guardian, one who's charged with the watchful care of a group. In classical Greek literature and in secular life, this term was used for any type of official who exercised oversight. So it was applied to the inspectors of public works, curators at the temple, guardians of youth, magistrates who are responsible for a city, and so on. In the New Testament, the word appears five times. Four of the instances refer to human leaders within Christian congregations, and one refers to Christ Himself as the shepherd and overseer of souls. That's in 1 Peter. The second word is diakonos, which is translated deacon, and it's where we get our term deacon. It basically means a servant, a minister, an attendant. The basic idea is one who offers humble personal service. In classical Greek literature, it described the household servants who waited on tables, personal attendants who carried out errands, and the public functionaries who assisted the magistrates. The word emphasized practical and often menial service more than authority or oversight. In the New Testament, Diaconos appears about thirty times. It is used in a general sense for any type of servant. For example, the apostles are described as servants of the new covenant and servants of Christ using this word diaconos. It is also applied to Christ himself as the servant who came not to be served, but to serve. Those are the words we see in 1 Timothy. When Paul gives a similar list in his letter to Titus, he uses two more words, presbyteras and I'm not sure I'm pronouncing this right, Okinamas. Oikanamas, something like that. And in Titus, most people think he uses those two words interchangeably with episcopas, and that all three describe the same person. Presbyteras usually is translated elders, and it's where we get our term presbytery. It literally means an old man. It is a comparative form of the word for old or aged. It was therefore an elder or one advanced in years. In classical Greek literature, it described the older men who had positions of influence within families or tribes or cities, such as the people who advised rulers or judged disputes, and they had this position because of their seniority, the council of their age, not an office. In the New Testament, the word appears over 60 times, and it retains the sense of just an older man or an elderly person. Twice in Acts, Paul addresses presbyters and the churches, and then we have our lists in Timothy and Titus. Episcopas and Presbyteras often appear in parallel, suggesting they describe the same group of leaders. And the last word, Okanamos, however you pronounce it, is usually translated steward. This is the manager of a household. It describes the person who's been entrusted with the care, oversight, and distribution of resources belonging to another. It's literally a compound of the word house and the word to manage. In classical literature, it referred to that trusted servant who supervised the affairs of a large household, who managed the finances, the servants, the agriculture, and everything in the master's absence. In the New Testament, the word appears about 10 times. It is used literally of the stewards in the parables of Jesus and figuratively of those entrusted with spiritual responsibilities. For instance, Paul applies the term to himself and the other apostles and says they are stewards of the mystery of God. And then Peter, I think, uses the same imagery to encourage believers to serve as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Now in Titus, Paul uses those three words, episcopal, presbyteros, and steward, interchangeably. And I think he's doing the same thing in 1 Timothy. The more I study this, the more I think Paul is not describing offices or the flow chart of an organization, but he's just describing leaders in any kind of church. And that the two separate lists are not really separate offices, but they are different aspects of leadership. So I am more and more coming to the belief that this is the same leader, but we're looking at two different responsibilities that that leader does. Let me give you an analogy to explain how I'm understanding this. Picture a good coach. A coach wears a lot of hats, but two of the hats he wears, he must be a disciplinarian and an encourager. Each aspect of that role has its own qualifications. So the disciplinarian must be firm, but he must also be consistent. Likewise, the encourager must be warm and also be consistent. So I put consistent on both lists. Am I being redundant? Well, it might look that way at first, but consider what happens when consistency is missing from one of the lists. A coach who benches players for missing practice one week and then shrugs it off the next with a different player is not a good disciplinarian. No matter how firm he sounds, when he enforces the rules, if he doesn't enforce them consistently, his players are going to stop trusting him. Consistency makes the firmness fair instead of moody. A coach who praises the efforts only when his team is winning is not a good encourager, no matter how warm his words sound. His players are going to stop trusting him if he has no words of praise when they lose. Consistency is what makes his words sincere instead of flattery. So the same attribute qualifies the coach for two different tasks. So it belongs on two lists. And if I'm listing the qualifications for a coach, and I say, first he must be a disciplinarian and I give a list, and then he must be an encourager and I give a list, my list may very well overlap. And naming consistency twice on each list is not repetition, it's precision. As we get into the list, I think you'll see that's what I think is going on here. They're focusing on different aspects of the same job. And I think that explains why he often uses these terms interchangeably, or at least why he doesn't always use the same term in the same way every time he writes. If he were establishing separate offices, then we would expect him to avoid mixing up the titles and give guidelines for all the offices at some point. But instead, he seems to use these terms as synonyms for each other, the way we might talk about a coach as a manager, a trainer, a mentor, an encourager, and so forth, depending on what aspect of his job we're emphasizing. So I think that's going to become clear as we study the text. Let's look at it. 3.1. If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Now, the first thing I have to tell you is the word office is not in the Greek text. Paul simply says, if anyone wants to be an overseer, if anyone wants to be an episcopas. The translators added the word office to indicate that that's what they think he's talking about, but Paul does not say office. Also, I think aspires is a little too strong of word in this context. That makes it sound like someone is so ambitious that they covet the prestige and honor that comes from some high office. But we can tell as we get into the qualifications that that kind of covetous ambition would not be a good thing. In fact, it might be a disqualifier. I think willing is a better translation. If anyone is willing to be an oversire, he desires a good work. Timothy is in the business of identifying people who can help him lead the church. And if they're willing to do that, that's a good thing. It's not that they've been campaigning for it, but if called, they're willing to serve. Now we get the list, 3-2. Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach. Now the way I think Paul has organized these lists is that this is the qualification. An overseer must be above reproach. This is not one qualification in the list of a dozen or more unrelated random qualifications. This is the qualification. Because if I say someone has to be above reproach, that's kind of vague and nonspecific. Well, what does that look like? And so Paul gives the list to make it more specific, and everything that follows in the list must be true in order to say that that person is above reproach. And interestingly, you'll notice when we first met Timothy in Acts 16, that's how he was described as above reproach. I think in 3.8, when he starts the list of deacons, he says deacons likewise must be dignified or respected, and that functions the same way. Deacons must be respected, and then he goes on and describes through the list what it looks like to be respected. So to go back to my analogy, he's saying a leader must be above reproach and a leader must be respected. This is like saying a coach must be an encourager and a coach must be a disciplinarian. These are different aspects of their job, but it's the same person. Well, that raises the question: above reproach by whom? Who would do the reproaching of the overseers and who is the person respecting the deacons? Well, I think Paul tells us in the summary of each list, and for the overseers, the summary is in 3.7, and for deacons, it's in 313. And for overseers, he says, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace. So the one doing the reproaching of the overseers is the outsiders. Those who serve as overseer must be well thought of by people outside the church because they are the public face of the church. So they need to be above reproach by the outsiders. Likewise, he says of deacons in 313, for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves, and also great confidence among the faithful in Christ Jesus. Now I've retranslated that. The ESV says great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. The more I study that, I think what that's not at all what he's saying. He's saying believers. They need to have confidence among the faithful believers in Christ Jesus. In other words, inside the church. Those who serve as deacons need to be respected inside the church. They have to have the confidence of the flock they serve, or no one's going to grant them any authority whatsoever. For them to lead the church, the people they're leading need to have confidence in them. So this is part of the reasons why I understand these lists as two aspects of the same job. Leaders in the church need to be above reproach by outsiders and they need to be respected by insiders. Now, could you organize your church with two different offices called elder and deacon and give them different responsibilities, one facing out, say, and one facing in? Yes, absolutely. Nothing wrong with that. Since I don't think that Paul is establishing an institution, I think it's okay for a church to have those two offices, or maybe three, or whatever meets their needs. I don't think Paul is laying down an organizational flowchart. I think he's talking about how do you find someone for leadership? What does godliness look like in a leader in the church? And he's telling us leaders in the church have authority, and you don't want to give that authority to just anybody. You want to give it to the people who are above reproach by outsiders and who are respected by insiders. So in this first section, Paul is concerned that the leaders in the church not give the outside community any ammunition that they could use to attack the church. And we can see why he'd be worried about that, because the Christian church has always faced opposition. We know from Acts 19 that when Paul preached in Ephesus, idol worship declined so much that people stopped buying idols from the silversmiths. And it got so bad eventually the Silversmiths Guild rioted because they were so angry with Christians for disrupting their trade. And Paul faced anger, he faced danger everywhere he went, from both Jews and Gentiles. And when he left, the people in the churches that he left behind faced that same danger. So leaders needed to be well thought of by outsiders so they didn't fall into disgrace and give ammunition to their opponents to attack the church. They needed to be people of upstanding character so that outsiders couldn't accuse them by saying, well, look at what lazy, promiscuous drunks those Christians are. So the first job of a church leadership is how they're viewed by outsiders. They need to be above reproach, and then he tells us what that looks like. If you don't have the qualities on the list, you're a person of disrepute, and if you have the qualities on the list, you are above reproach. Let me read two through six. Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well with all dignity, keeping his children submissive. For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Let's quickly run through them. He should be the husband of one wife, that is, he should not be the kind of man who has a reputation as a womanizer. He should have the reputation of being faithful to his wife, and everybody knows it, because he doesn't conduct himself in a flirty way that leads people to think that he would stray if given the chance. Instead, he's above reproach because everyone understands that he is the kind of person who intends to remain faithful to his wife. Then sober minded, this word can be used as the opposite of drunk, but it's often used metaphorically, and I'm inclined to see this as the metaphorical use. In other words, he must be sober minded, he must not be a fool, he must be clear-sighted, which allows him to see clearly, think clearly, and not have his judgment impaired by folly. So he's awake, he's alert, he's paying attention, he's focused on the gospel and applying it to the way he lives his life. He's not lulled into complacency by the pleasures and distractions of this world, and therefore his judgment is not impaired by foolishness. Next on the list is self-controlled, which is the same root word that we saw in chapter one and two. Again, I think this means right thinking, and it's working in tandem with sober-minded, the word we just looked at. To be clear-minded and right thinking is to be someone who can see straight, think clearly about reality, and avoid the foolishness and folly other people might fall into. The next word is respectable. A church leader needs to be well respected because of the way they interact with other people, particularly outsiders. You don't want a leader who's rude or angry or treats people badly because that creates a bad impression for the church. Instead, you want a leader who is respectable because they treat others with respect. Hospitable. Hospitable is to be generous towards strangers and other people in need. It was a very important virtue in the ancient world, so it's not really surprising it's on the list. Anyone who is hospitable is generous and helpful to other people. And especially in that day, if you lacked hospitality, it would be seen as dishonorable. Able to teach, I think he means able to explain the gospel accurately. I don't think he has to be a professional, polished speaker, but he needs to be able to explain what Christians believe, what they don't believe, what they hope in, what's true and what isn't true. He has to understand the gospel well enough to proclaim it well. Then not addicted to much wine. Basically, I think the idea is he should have a responsible relationship to alcohol, and that should be visible to the outside community. So the outside community should not see him as having a problem with wine, or I would apply that today, any other addictive substance. I think the next three words work together to basically form one idea, not contentious, but peaceful, not quarrelsome. Someone who is contentious could be either physically violent or verbally violent. They could be pugnacious, prone to fighting, picking arguments, prone to confrontation, that either comes to physical blows or verbal battles. They could be contentious in the sense of argumentative, picking fights, trying to prove they're right, getting into arguments with other people all the time. I'm inclined to think that Paul has both the physical and the verbal in mind here, so that the person that you appoint as leader should have a reputation not for being argumentative, but for being kind and peaceful, someone who can mediate a fight rather than cause it. Someone who is not easily agitated, who does not create conflict, but someone who can resolve disputes and solve conflict and remains calm in the face of pressure. Then he says, someone who's not a lover of money, money and wealth should not be his guiding principles or the most important goal in his life. It's fairly obvious when you meet someone who has an inappropriate or overwhelming desire for money and material of possessions, avoid that type of person as a leader. And then in three, four, and five, he talks about managing his household well and keeping his children submissive. Okay, what's that about? I think the idea is rather than driving his children with an iron fist and beating them into submission, rather than squandering his wealth on himself and leaving his family in need, he should be the kind of servant leader that loves and cares for his family, with the result that his children respect him rather than live in terror of him. So they don't rebel at his authority because it's evident that he cares for them and he's looking out for them. If his household is hateful, dysfunctional, and everyone's at each other's throats all the time, that's not the leader you want. And that person should probably focus on the needs of his household rather than the church. Anyway. Let's pause on this idea of having submissive children for a second. What about the man who's mature? He fits all the other qualifications, but he has children who are unbelievers, or maybe they disrespect him as a father. After all, children have free will, they're going to make their own decisions, they can reject the faith no matter how well their parents taught them. Does that disqualify a father from leadership in the church? Well, remember, Paul is describing a person you put forward as a public leader. The people you put forward to be the public face of the church need to be above reproach. Now that doesn't mean that every single person who is wise, mature, able to teach, and so forth needs to be a leader or gets to be a leader. If the state of their family means that they are not above reproach to outsiders, then they can serve elsewhere. They don't need to be the public face of the church. If their household is in disarray in a way that gives ammunition to the detractors of the gospel to reject the gospel, then they're not the best choice for leadership. So I don't think Paul is saying if you have prodigal children, you're not worthy to serve the church anywhere, anytime, anyway. That's not what he's saying. He's saying if your children give the community cause to reject the gospel, then find a different place to serve. Find a less public place to serve. There's plenty of ways to serve the church. Find another one. Now we might object, but why play to the unbelieving community? Why should they be the judge? I mean, isn't it God who's our judge? Well, yes, that's true. And Paul, I think, would be the first to acknowledge God is our judge. And notice Paul is not condemning people with prodigal children. He's not saying that these people are somehow less fit or second-class Christians and they can't be seen in public in the church or anything like that. He's just saying they're not the best people to be the public face of the church in the believing community because they might give the non-believing community cause to reject the gospel. And we can see why that would be a big concern to Paul, because that's his mission and it's our mission too. Like Paul, we are to take the gospel to the world and seek to persuade as many people as we can to believe the gospel and to place their hope in Jesus. And that means we want to minimize anything that causes unbelievers to reject us or refuse to listen outright. He wants to give the gospel a chance in the eyes of those non-believers. And so leaders need to be above reproach. In 3.6, he says he must not be a recent convert or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. So all he's saying here is if someone is new to the faith, they haven't been tested yet. They're not mature yet. It's not clear that they are grounded in their faith, such that they have both feet firmly planted there and are not going to fall away or fail to thrive. Putting new converts in leadership puts a ton of pressure on them. And one of the things that is going to tempt them is what he calls growing conceited. They could get proud of their status as leader, and that could be their downfall. Pride is often the thing that trips us up. And then they might do something disgraceful that brings dishonor to them and to the believing community. So just give them time and space to be tested and to gain some maturity. And then in 3-7, I think this is the summary statement. He starts moreover, but I would translate that so then he must be well thought of by outsiders so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. So he started this list with he must be above reproach. He gives us examples of what it looks like to be above reproach, and then he summarizes he must be well thought of by outsiders. Look for a tested, seasoned, mature believer who isn't likely to walk away or fall into disgrace. I don't want to get too sidetracked on this idea that he talks about a snare of the devil in this verse. The Greek word here can refer to Satan himself, the supreme antagonist of God, but it can also mean any antagonist of God. Human beings can be described with this word as well. And in this context, I think he means anyone opposed to God, any opponent, any person who's an opponent of the faith or a detractor. And that might mean the devil himself, or it might be one of his human minions. Now we get the list for deacons. And again he starts, deacons likewise must be men of dignity, and I see that functioning the same way as above approach, and then the list that follows it summarizes what it means to be a person of dignity. Let me read that for you. This is 8 through 13. Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain, but holding to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These men must also first be tested, then let them serve as deacons if they are above reproach. Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well, for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves, and also great confidence among the faithful in Christ Jesus. Again, I've talked about how I translate 313, great confidence among the faithful, not in the faithful. And I see that as a summary statement. Those who serve inside the church need to be in good standing among the faithful in their flock. This word he translates confidence, this great confidence, has the idea of blunt or open speech. They should be able to speak freely, frankly, boldly, confidently. And they're able to speak and teach freely among the believers in their flock because they are respected. They have gained the respect of the people listening. For someone to lead, he has to be respected enough by the people he seeks to lead, such that those people grant him authority. If the flock he's trying to lead don't respect him, then he's not going to be able to lead them or teach them at all. So if he's going to teach, if he's going to guide the church, the church needs to be willing to listen to him. So what does it mean to be respected, to be dignified? He explains with this list. They must not be double-tongued. That means they're to be consistent, they're to be aligned with the truth. They don't say one thing on Sunday morning and then a different thing at work on Monday morning. So they're not double-tongued and not saying one thing on one occasion and then saying something else on a different occasion. Leaders have to resolve a lot of disputes, and it's very tempting to say what every side wants to hear just to keep the peace. But you lose respect if you do that, if you say what everyone wants to hear rather than what's true. So they need to consistently teach the truth and teach it in a way that's not contradictory or duplicitous. Not seeking after much wine. Again, they have to have a responsible relationship to alcohol or any addictive substance, not be controlled by it, not greedy for dishonest gain. Paul is probably talking about money here, just like the first list, they're not to be lovers of money or pursuing wealth. But there's another viewpoint I read that's beginning to appeal to me. If you think the context is most strongly flows backwards and he's giving the same kind of qualification that he gave for the overseers, then you see this as money. But if you see the context as flowing primarily forward with what he says next, then he could be talking here about dishonestly. Winning converts. That's the dishonest gain. So they wouldn't care if we were teaching the truth. They just want to build up our numbers so we have a bigger church or at least bigger than that other guy. That would be dishonest gain. Once I had a church leader tell me to stop teaching so much about the cross in Sunday school because it wasn't seeker-friendly. He told me I needed to talk more about God's love and then not even mention all that stuff about sin or the cross until later after we've got them in the door. Well, I would say that's dishonest gain. We need to proclaim the truth of the gospel clearly and accurately and not try to change it to make it more appealing just to get numbers in the door. So Paul could mean that kind of thing, greedy for dishonest gain of money or dishonest gain of converts. Can't prove it, but I'm starting to lean toward that converts one because the next thing he says is they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. Now we've seen this idea of clear conscience before in the book. Instead of winning converts who don't know or embrace the gospel but are just warm bodies in the pew, we want to win converts who understand the gospel. Therefore, our teachers must explain what has been revealed about faith with a clear conscience. Now a mystery is just something that was formerly hidden but has now been made known. And we want our servant leaders to accurately and clearly proclaim the truth that has been made known so that the people who convert clearly embrace and believe it. So how closely is 3-9 tied to 3-8? I'm not sure. Is he explaining what he means by dishonest gain? Could be, or is he moving on to a new topic of knowing the gospel well? Yeah. I'm still on the fence on that one. I'm not ready to abandon the more traditional view of 3.8 as dishonest financial gain. But this idea that 3-8 is gaining converts dishonestly has appealed to me. In either case, I do think 3-9 is important because being respected alone isn't enough. People can be charming, and we people can charm others into respecting them when in fact they are dishonest. So, in addition to being respected by other believers, they also need to have a flawless understanding of the gospel itself so that they can lead other people into that understanding. Then 310, he talks about letting them be tested. And there's some debate. Does he mean let them also be tested first? Does he mean both the deacons and the overseers be tested? Or just the deacons? I think you can make a case either way from the grammar. And I think it makes sense that both be tested first. And I don't know why he'd just apply the test only to deacons. But I think in either case he's saying take care to evaluate anyone before you appoint them to leadership. Give them some responsibility and see how they handle it. Test them, evaluate them, and then decide. Then moving on to 11 and 12. This is the ESV. I think I read you the New American Standard earlier. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanders, not sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. The New American Standard says women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gospels, but temperate, faithful in all things. And that is the debate. The word translated wives here is just the word for women. It's the same word we saw in chapter two, the other big debated passage. And as we see in Greek, sometimes Paul will add their wives or their women to make it clear he means wives. And in this instance, he does not add any pronouns. This could be wives, this could be women. He could be saying likewise, women who serve as deacons should similarly be worthy of great respect, not gossips, serious about the gospel, trustworthy in all things. And it's basically the same language he used to describe the men, worthy of respect, sober-minded and faithful, not given over to folly, but wise women who can think clearly about their lives and act accordingly. Now, as you may be aware, there is some debate over this verse about whether Paul means likewise the wives of the male leaders, likewise the women of men who serve as deacons, that's one option, or likewise the women deacons who serve as deacons. That's another valid option. And the context determines which is which. As I said, sometimes Paul will add a pronoun to help us out. He'll say their own wife, their own woman, meaning their own wife. He does not. And the debate matters because some see this as Paul saying, women who hold the role of deacon should have the same qualifications as men who hold the role of deacon. Others think Paul means likewise the women who serve as both overseers and deacons should have the same qualifications as the men who serve as both overseers and deacons. And the third major view is that Paul is just referring to the wives of the leaders. And he's saying, just like they need to have submissive children and manage their household well, they need to have wives of a character that is also above reproach. So those are the three major options: women who serve as deacons, women who serve as leaders, or the wives of the men who serve it in those leadership roles. Now, from my study, I can find no magic bullet to settle this debate about what Paul means. Grammar, word choice, language usage, appealing to the context, do not definitively settle the debate one way or the other. Because of how I understand chapter two, I am now more inclined to see this as likewise the women who are leaders in the church. But I'm still thinking through all the implications of this, and I cannot prove any one of those views one way or the other definitively. So there you go. It's an open debate. Surprise. Now he summarizes the list. For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence among the faithful in Christ Jesus. Again, I see this as his summary statement. Those who would seek to serve the church need to be respected and in good standing among the flock they seek to serve. Because if their flock doesn't respect them, they can't teach them or lead them or do anything. But if they are respected, then they have great freedom to speak and teach. Now again, I don't think Paul is saying that if you don't fit the qualifications on this list, you're not fit to serve in the church or somehow you're a second-class citizen or something like that. I don't think that's what he's saying at all because I don't think he views those servant roles as any kind of powerful position of authority. They are servant leaders. They are a way we can serve the church. And if you don't fit the qualifications, then find another way to serve. There are lots and lots of ways to volunteer and to serve your church. So let's try to wrap this up a little bit. I see Paul is using the term overseer and deacon here interchangeably. Like a coach has to be both an encourager and a taskmaster. To serve the church, you need to have both an inward face and an outward face. When you represent the church to the non-believing world, that requires a certain level of respect and being above reproach. And when you seek to teach and lead the flock inside the church, that requires a similar but slightly different kind of respect and dignity to be granted the authority to lead. I think the list seems redundant because both inward and outward facing leaders have to be respected. They have to be above reproach. And the redundancy does not require that these be separate offices performing separate functions, but they're just two aspects of a leadership role. And each aspect has its own qualifications, and those qualifications overlap. So what does that mean for church authority? Well, let me reflect for a minute. Authority is granted. From God's perspective, Jesus has authority over you and me and all of creation. But his authority over you and me is never something that he enforces. Jesus asks us to voluntarily grant him authority. We have to voluntarily choose to trust him and respect him and follow him. We see the apostles treating their authority the same way. Paul as an apostle has been delegated authority by Jesus Himself. He has the authority to say, Jesus taught this, but Jesus did not teach that. And he has the authority to establish a community of believers in a city and lay down the law about how they should treat each other. But he never enforces his authority on anyone. People either grant him authority or they don't, and mostly they didn't. You'll notice he spends a lot of time in his letters defending his authority. But he never acted like a king. He never demanded that people honor him or respect him. He asked that they voluntarily grant him the authority of apostle. And the same is true of Timothy as a delegate of Paul. They know that Paul considers Timothy worthy to represent him, and so the people in Ephesus voluntarily grant him authority on that basis. It's likely that if they reject Paul, then they're going to reject Timothy too. And we would expect the same thing to be true of whoever Timothy chooses to help him lead the flock. People in the flock will voluntarily grant them authority because Timothy has said they're worthy of it, or they've seen with their own eyes that they're worthy of it, or they won't. And I think ideally that's how the organized church should work today. But more often than not, it's the title or the degree after your name that gives you authority. But I think it should be more your qualifications, the way you've lived and served. So today, if you occupy the office of a bishop or a priest or a pastor or whatever, the office, the title grants you authority. And we in the church are all supposed to respect you because you earned that title somehow. And if you don't respect that title, then the organization sometimes kicks you out. And I think that's kind of backwards. Ideally, church leaders would be picked because they have been deemed worthy by the people they are leading, by the congregation, or the leadership in that congregation, and that the congregation would voluntarily grant them authority because they've seen them as trustworthy servants. So there would be no pastors acting as kings or no elders acting as, you know, the congress or something. There would be no institutions demanding respect for the office. So how would we apply that in the church today? I think instead of looking around for warm bodies to fill a slot, we should look around at the congregation and say, who is already serving the congregation, like an elder or a deacon or whatever role we're seeking to fill? Who's already been volunteering and doing that job without the title? And if we see them serving, then nominate them for that role. In other words, don't appoint someone to a position of church leadership just because you have so many slots to fill and you have to put somebody in it. Only give it to them if they've if they're qualified in the sense that they have come to your attention as somebody who has already been serving and leading this kind of life. And then you delegate that authority to them because they've already started serving the church and prove themselves worthy. It's kind of a different way of thinking about it. It's the difference between thinking of the church as an institution that needs to survive as an institution, or thinking of church as a community where you need a broad leadership to lead the group. So the questions we should probably ask when we look for leaders in the church is not who could fill this position, but who has already shown us that we can trust them. The other thing I noticed about this list is Paul's list is remarkably ordinary. He doesn't tell Timothy to find the most charismatic person in the room, the most successful businessman, the best fundraiser, the most impressive speaker. He just tells them to find ordinary, mature, godly people whose lives have already demonstrated that they can serve and be trusted. And that brings us back to the theme that's been running through these chapters. In chapter two, Paul asked, how does a godly person behave when someone has authority over them? And now I think in chapter three, we've seen him ask, what does a godly person look like when he's when we're thinking about giving authority to them? And in both cases, the answer begins with a character shaped by the truth of the gospel. Thank you for listening to Wednesday in the Word, the podcast that explains not only what a passage means, but also shows you how to figure it out. You'll find the blog version of this episode at wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Timothy 8. You can listen to all the episodes in this series on wednesdayintheword.com or wherever you listen to your podcast. There's no charge, no spam and no ads. Just free trustworthy resources to help you grow in your understanding of scripture. If this podcast has blessed you, please consider following it wherever you listen. But most importantly, tell a friend what you learned, and maybe where you learned it. RCMusic is graciously provided by Reggie Coast. You can hear all of Reggie's music on heartfeltmusic.org. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I'll see you next week at Wednesday in the Word.