Church: Reformed Baptist Church of Franconia | Text: 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1 | Date: November 2, 2025 | Speaker: Fred Zaspel

For those of you who are visiting, we are currently suspending, just for a brief time, our regular series of expositions through the Psalms, and we’re taking up the subject of the ordering of the church. And there are some reasons for that here, particularly one: it’s just always something that the church needs to be reminded of, but also we are in the process, early in the process, of looking to bring on another pastor, and we thought these kinds of studies would be good for us all to have in mind.

And so we’re in the fifth part of that series today, and we have looked at the apostles, we’ve looked at elders, we’ve looked at deacons, and now we want to look at the subject of the qualifications for the church officers. And of course, the famous passage for that is 1 Timothy chapter 3. If you will turn there with me, 1 Timothy chapter 3. And I’ll read through the first 13 verses.

“The saying is trustworthy: 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 a 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 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 in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”

Let’s bow together. Our Father, we have been blessed this morning already to be together with brothers and sisters in Christ sharing in this same faith, sharing in the same love and devotion for our Savior. And now we come to your word and we ask that you would reveal yourself to us by your word; speak to us. Give us a clear understanding of this passage. This is important for us in the life of our church, and we pray that in each one of us we’ll have a clear understanding of what you expect this church to be. Help us in it, guide us through it to be more like our Savior. We pray in his name, amen.

Qualifications for the Office of Overseer

Well, we have seen then that we started with the subject of the apostles and how they are, in a sense, the foundation of the church. Christ, of course, is the chief cornerstone, but the scriptures speak of the apostles as foundational to the church in that they are the ones who lay that foundation for us. They are the ones who give us Christ. They stipulate what it is we believe, how it is we are to behave. They communicate God’s Word and God’s will to us as churches, corporately and then also individually as well.

Then we’ve seen that the apostles then have stipulated for us in the church that there are to be two distinct offices in the church: elders, also called overseers or pastors. “Overseers,” that’s the word here used in verse 1 and in verse 2. That’s the word that’s traditionally translated bishop. We have elders. These are the administrators of the apostolic rule in the congregation. They are called to lead and to preside, to rule. We saw the kind of vocabulary that’s used in that regard. Then we saw the office of deacon as well, and they support the work of the church by addressing the various needs in the congregation. We saw that last time.

Now in 1 Timothy 3, and then also if you’d like to note, Titus chapter 1 as well, Paul is seeking to put the church in order. He tells us that explicitly in this chapter. And part of putting the church in order is establishing guidelines for leadership in the church. In this passage, it’s not just guidelines, but qualifications for the office of the elder and of the deacon as well. Verses 1 through 7 here, we have the qualifications for the office of overseer or bishop, elder or pastor. And then verses 8 through 13, we have the qualifications for the deacons.

Both of these offices, although they have a distinct purview in their responsibilities, both of these offices entail a degree of responsibility in different capacities. Each of these offices represent the church, and therefore, these offices are not open to just anybody. Certain qualifications, there’s a standard that must be met for it. We see that in verse 2, “an overseer must.” See that word again in verse 7, but that “must” carries through this entire passage through the qualifications for elders and for deacons. And what we’ll find as we go through this, if you’d like the Reader’s Digest version of it, is that the elders and the deacons must be exemplary Christians. That’s how we can summarize the whole thing. These are men who model the faith that we all profess. This is essential for the effectiveness of their work and we, as a congregation, as elders, as deacons, we dare not lower the bar. I’ve said it many times: it’s better to have no church officers than to have the wrong ones.

In some churches, when it comes to deacons in particular, the bar is often set very low. “Well, he’s a successful man in his business, he could be a good deacon.” “You know, he’s not been real active in the church. Maybe if we make him a deacon, he’ll get more involved.” Or in some churches, it’s just anybody who’s willing. If he’s willing to serve, he can be a deacon, something like that. But keep in mind here, as we go through this list, keep in mind that word “must” in verse 2. He must be above reproach and so on, and that carries us through the entire passage. Both of these capacities, both of these offices represent the church, and in some way then they carry responsibility, and it’s better to have no officers than to have the wrong ones. These qualifications must—there’s the word—must be upheld.

Now we learn in verse one, the office of overseer—this word used to be translated bishop—this is episkopos. This is where we get the episcopal form of government where they have bishops and then pastors below them and a little denominational structure like in the Roman Catholic Church or in the Anglican Church or in the other churches as well. We have seen that those terms are used interchangeably of the same office, but here it’s specified: the bishop or the overseer, the same, the elder, the pastor. And he tells us in verse 1 that this office of overseer is a noble task. It’s a valued work. This is part of what Paul has said in many other places where there’s a value placed on the ministry of the Word. This is basic to every Christian’s life and to the church’s life corporately as well. And so this is a noble task.

Seven Positive Qualifications

And then verse two begins the list of qualifications for the office of overseer. Just by way of overview, in verse two, we have seven positive qualifications: He must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.

Let’s work our way through these quickly. Verse 2 begins in a broad, all-encompassing kind of way and says that the bishop, the overseer, must be above reproach. That doesn’t mean necessarily faultless. Well, if it meant faultless, then no son of Adam would be qualified for the position. It clearly doesn’t mean that. It means he’s above criticism. His observable life has no obvious glaring faults. No one can point to him and say, “Yeah, well, he is…” and point out faults that would disqualify him. And this first one, he must be above reproach, is something of a summation of all the rest that follow. There’s nothing in his life that would call his character into question. In regard to Christian living, he’s exemplary.

Verse two then also tells us he must be the husband of one wife. Now there’s been lots of discussion what all is entailed in this. One—and this is cultural heresy in our day—it does assume that he’s a man, the husband of one wife. Actually, our chapter division here, chapter 3 and verse 1, interrupts the discussion a little bit. The discussion of church leadership already began back in chapter 2, verse 11. Prior to that, Paul is already setting things in order with regard to the congregation and how it’s to behave and how it is to look with the men and women and so on.

But in verse 11 specifically, he tells us, “Let a woman learn quietly in all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather she’s to remain quiet.” And then the next verse, verses 13 through 15, he goes on to give his explanation for that. That’s not our focus this morning, but it is worth noting when he says he must be the husband of one wife, he does assume that it is a man. That may be heresy to our culture; that is Paul’s direction, that is God’s direction, both in the home and in the church. There’s to be that structure of leadership.

So, first of all, he’s to be the husband of one wife. Now, there’s been further discussion. What does that mean and what does it prohibit? First off, it seems very clearly to put the lie to the requirement of the Roman Catholic Church of a celibate priesthood. Here it says explicitly, “Bishop must be the husband of one wife.” There it is. But beyond that, what is it requiring? “Husband of one wife.” This expression could be translated “one woman man” in that respect, but clearly the man is with the woman, the relationship with him is that of a wife, so it’s very rightly translated the husband of one wife.

It’s not likely that Paul is requiring that an elder be married, but it does assume that. But I don’t think Paul would discount a widower. Paul himself was not married as he wrote this, it seems. So what is Paul prohibiting here? A husband of one wife. Some have said that, well, he’s prohibiting polygamy. That might be involved here. That’s entirely possible. Many have discounted that because polygamy was illegal in the Roman Empire. It was not allowed. But of course, on the outskirts of the empire in the Jewish world, as well out in the outskirts, it might have been practiced here and there. Paul might be saying that. Because it was not a major problem, I doubt that’s what Paul has in view here.

So Paul, and by the way, we have another expression here in chapter 5, verse 9, we read that a widow to meet certain qualifications for the church’s support, she must be the wife of one husband. So there’s the same expression only in the reverse, the wife of one husband. That clearly doesn’t mean that there was a wife with multiple husbands, polygamous that direction. That was never a problem historically in any culture. A woman would want more than one husband? Not sure about that. Polygamy is probably not the issue in view here.

Some have taken this, husband of one wife, to be a prohibition of divorce. That’s possible. That is, I think, more reasonable since divorce was so common in the Roman Empire. But whether this is aimed at divorce I’m not entirely certain because Paul and Jesus both explicitly give some exceptions and allowances for divorce, but yet it might be that Paul is speaking broadly here, allowing those exceptions. He must not be a divorcee in the sense that that could reflect on his managing his house well, another qualification that comes by. At the very least, what he is telling us is that this is a moral requirement. He’s a one-woman man. He’s the husband of one wife. He’s not a philanderer. He doesn’t play around. He’s not flirtatious. He’s trustworthy. This has to do with his marital fidelity. It at least means that.

Now, verse 2 next speaks of—we have two terms in respect to the man’s self-discipline, his self-mastery—temperate and self-controlled. “Temperate,” that is not rash, he’s not given to excess, he’s well-balanced, he’s careful, he’s sane, he thinks clearly under pressure, he’s a man of sound judgments. “Self-controlled,” that’s a synonym for the temperate as well. He’s sensible, he’s moderate, sober-minded, he’s not given to extremes and blow-ups. He’s temperate and self-controlled.

Next, he’s respectable. That is, he must be of good behavior. He’s well-ordered, acts appropriately in appropriate circumstances. His life isn’t marked by chaos and confusion and foolish decisions. His life isn’t in turmoil. He’s respectable.

Next, he’s hospitable. The expression means one who loves strangers. I think the idea is that he has an open door kind of policy, not only for the people of the congregation, but for others as well. He’s hospitable. He’s one who shows kindness and hospitality to those in the congregation and to those on the outside as well—a man who loves others.

And then next, this qualification has to do with his abilities: he’s able to teach. So not only is he well informed biblically, but he’s gifted in such a way that he’s able to communicate that to others. And that’s not only in a doctrinal sense, so he’s able to articulate sound doctrine, but also bringing the Bible to bear, God’s word to bear on the lives of people. “This is how we should live. In this circumstance, that would be a bad choice. This would be a good choice, and this is why, because the scriptures direct us this way.”

And in fact, Paul elaborates on this in Titus chapter 1, verses 9 and following. He says he must hold firm to the trustworthy word as he has been taught. And note the implications here: “so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also able to rebuke those who contradict it. For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers, and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.”

So here’s a man who must be able—he’s going to be an overseer in the congregation—who must be able to say, “This is right, this is wrong. This is truth, that is error. Here’s what we believe, this is what we will not believe.” He’s able to identify false teaching and he’s able to refute it. There’s a corrective function involved in this “able to teach” requirement. And so he’s able to bring the word of God then to bear on the lives of the people, both in terms of what we call faith and practice. What we believe, how we behave. He’s able to handle the scriptures then responsibly, explain what we believe, why we believe it, and so on.

I want to mention this, that I think I’ve said it before here, that I’m old enough to remember back 40 years ago, it was not common for churches to have elders. We had one pastor and then a board of deacons. And that was standard in churches. Reformed congregations a little bit different, but the standard was one pastor working solo and maybe with an assistant or two or whatever, but the pastor and then the board of deacons. And we began to recognize—John MacArthur made a lot of noise over this—that the New Testament standard is a plurality of elders leading in a congregation, not just one by himself. Some others did as well. And so it became recognized that the plurality of elders was the standard.

And so it has caught on by now; 40 years later, this has become really the rage in churches: “We must bring on more elders to rule.” And as good and as right as that is, in the doing of it, I have seen it over and again, where in the ambition to bring in a plurality of elders, they’ve lowered the bar, particularly in regard to this qualification, “able to teach.” And lowering the bar, you bring in men who are not able to lead the congregation through the scriptures and bring it to bear, and it breeds all kinds of problems into the church. Again, better no elders than the wrong ones. This is like all of them; this one must be upheld: able to teach.

Four Negative Qualifications

And then verse 3, we have four negative qualifications: Not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

The next one he gives us in verse three is his drinking habits: He’s not a drunkard. This word that’s used here certainly, certainly forbids drunkenness, but I think it’s a little bit broader than that in its connotations. Very wooden, literally translated, something like “one who lingers beside his wine.” Nobody likes to drink—well, that guy, I’ve not seen him drunk, but boy, he likes to drink. I think that’s kind of in view here as well. So this is not an absolute prohibition of drinking alcohol, but it is saying that the man must be very careful and it will show up then; his self-discipline will show up in the way that he handles his drink as well. Part of his self-discipline.

Next, he tells us about his temper and disposition: Not violent, but gentle. Not quarrelsome. He’s not a bully. Not one given to blows. He’s not one who threatens to punch the guy in the nose because he doesn’t agree, or “he better do it that way or you’ll get pushed,” something like that.

Now, the elder we find elsewhere must be prepared to reprove, rebuke, exhort, but he’s not a man who settles matters with his fists. He’s gentle. That is the opposite of contentious. He doesn’t fly off the handle when people disagree. And this one is really very important because there are a number of contentious and quarrelsome people who will test him on it. But he doesn’t respond in kind. In Titus chapter 1 verse 7, he remarks, “he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered.” That’s the sense here.

And then next, his attitude toward money. We’re still in verse 3. His attitude toward money: He’s not a lover of money. He’s not greedy. He’s not covetous. He’s not driven by a desire for money. He’s not in the ministry for the money—known too many who are in it for that—but that would not be the driving motivation in his service.

And I think very importantly, he’s not the kind of guy who’s going to treat others in the congregation according to how much money they can put in the offering plate. Seen that as well. I remember one time an elder mentioned to me—not here, don’t worry about it, not here—”See so-and-so over there? A visitor came in. Make sure he gets a visitor’s letter.” I always send a courtesy visitor’s letter to visitors. “Well, make sure he gets a special one. He’s got lots of money.” And I don’t think—I’m confident he couldn’t see me bristling. But I’m also not confident that I should have said what I said. And what I said in response was, “Maybe I should be more like Jesus and show preference to the poor.” Not a lover of money. That’s not what motivates him in his work. He’s above that.

Three Final Qualifications

And then verses 4 through 7, we have three final qualifications, and then each of these is elaborated on.

Verse 4 speaks to his family leadership. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive. So his family is well-ordered, his children are respectful, they’re obedient to him, his children are not uncontrolled, they’re not insubordinate. And then he elaborates on that one in verse five: “For if someone”—notice the “for,” so he’s explaining here—”For if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” So he’s reasoning here from the lesser to the greater. He’s got to manage in both capacities, in the home and the church. If he can’t manage his own home, well forget it. He’s not going to be able to manage the church.

Verse six speaks to his spiritual maturity. He must not be a recent convert. Now that’s somewhat implied in the qualification “he must be able to teach,” but this is more; it speaks to his developed character. He’s not only a believer, but he’s a believer of a certain degree of maturity. After all, “elder” means something. It indicates some kind of spiritual maturity. Now that can be relative to the congregation. In Thessalonica, Paul was not there a long time at all and left elders overseeing the congregation. They couldn’t have been men who were years steeped in Christian growth because they’d only heard the gospel rather recently. So this is relative to the congregation perhaps, but still he must be one who shows some degree of spiritual maturity.

Now, later on, in chapter five, Paul will give instruction: “don’t lay hands suddenly on anyone.” That is, don’t appoint anyone as an elder too soon. Make sure you understand who he is and what he is like. And that’s what’s implied here as well. If he—verse six elaborates—”or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil.” So even if a capable man is elevated too soon, it could ruin him.

Now we have in our church constitution—several have pointed this out to us, to the elders—we have in our church constitution a requirement that says that an elder, before he can become an elder, must be a member of the church for a full year. And then some of you have thought through that. And you thought, “Okay, we’re going to bring in a new pastor, and yet he can’t be in. How’s that going to work?” With me, that worked out fine. I was local, and so I could be here preaching on staff for a year and then made an elder. But it clearly needs to change. But you can sympathize with why it was put in. It’s to conform with this demand.

Now, I think what we should recognize—we’re going to make some changes with that, I think, with the Constitution. We’ll bring that to the congregation at another time. But what we will do is recognize that there are various ways to discern this. Our own experience with him, that’s going to be limited. We’re going to have to depend on others that we trust, others who know him. And this is a case-by-case kind of call. And so we’ll work it out, but we must work it out with this qualification in mind. He must not be a recent convert and he must have some kind of background as well.

And then finally, verse seven has to do with his outside reputation. He must be well thought of by outsiders so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. He must be above reproach. His reputation outside the church—people recognize him as an upstanding man, one who’s to be honest, fair, peaceable, loving, kind, and all of the qualifications that we find here.

Qualifications for Deacons

Alright, so these are the qualifications for elders. Now then, we begin with deacons in verse 8. “Deacons likewise.” So, just like the elders, the deacons themselves must be held to some certain kinds of qualifications for the office. The deacon, remember, he’s a servant. That’s what the word means. Here it’s an official capacity, the office of servant. But he must meet certain qualifications as well. He must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. All of that is similar to what we’ve seen already with regard to the elders. The qualifications are very similar.

Verse 10: “let them first be tested; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless.” That is to say, before he’s appointed deacon, there must be some kind of evidence that he’s a man who will fulfill that office well. So lying behind that is a man who’s already demonstrated that he’s willing to serve. He’s got some kind of record in the congregation already. So we must not be too hasty in appointing.

And then verse 11, he brings in the deacon’s wives as well. Now some have argued here that this is not the wives involved, but this is actually a female deacon. That is possible. But I think—and I’ll give the arguments for that another time if you would like—but I think that it’s best here to translate it as our translators have and how it’s translated consistently in the English versions: “their wives.” So this has to do with the deacon’s wives. “Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things.” That is, the wife’s behavior is reflective of the husband’s management of his home. And so when he is brought on as deacon, in a sense she’s brought on trial as well. The wives also must be able to model Christian faithfulness and Christian virtues.

Coming back in verse 12, he comes to the deacons again. “Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well.” Again, that’s similar to the elders. And he concludes in verse 13 with something that’s very interesting, and that is highlighting the benefits or the rewards of their faithfulness. “For those who serve well as deacons gain” two things. One, “a good standing for themselves,” and two, “great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.”

So those who serve well as deacons gain, first of all, good standing for themselves. That is the respect that is necessary for the good functioning, the well-functioning of their office. And he earns the support of others. And then also he gains, by his faithful service, great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus. There’s been a lot of discussion on that part of the verse. What does that mean, earning great confidence in the faith? The word that is used here, it’s often taken—some people take it to mean he gains assurance of salvation, assurance of faith because of his service. That’s possible. That’s not the way this word that’s translated here this way, “confidence,” it’s not the way it is used. It’s more in the sense of boldness. The idea, I think, seems to be that here is a man who gives himself to faithful service as a deacon, and by that service his faith is strengthened; he gains more confidence to serve Christ with even increased zeal.

Well, these considerations then are what serve to motivate the man in his work as a deacon. Not a love for money and other things, but these stated in verse 13. By the way, verse 9 gives us something that I think is not commonly appreciated. “They must hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.” So this is not only of elders; this is for deacons as well. I mean, of course it’s for elders as well. But for the deacons it’s specified: they must hold to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

That is to say, the deacons also have a firm grasp of Christian teaching. And they hold it with a good conscience. They’re not having second thoughts about it. And so when the culture comes to bear and says, “We in our pluralistic age, we know better. You can’t say Jesus is the only way,” the deacons aren’t thrown by that. They have a firm grasp of biblical teaching. The culture comes with its feminist emphasis—some of the women’s role in the church—they’re not thrown by that. They’re not pressured by it. They hold the faith with a good conscience. Whether it’s the sexual standards, the meaning of marriage, all of the things that are pushed on us today, these are men who are convinced of the faith, they don’t have second thoughts, and they hold it in a good conscience. So there are some, what should we say, biblical theological requirements for the office of deacon as well.

The Emphasis Is On Character

All right, now quickly before we close it up, some observations about all this that we’ve seen. First of all, notice in all of these qualifications, the emphasis is on character. What the man is, how he behaves—he’s principled, he’s a man of personal integrity. And in all of these qualifications, there’s one outstanding qualification that has to do with his abilities, and that is the elders must be able to teach. Now there’s a possible second managerial type of qualification that is both elders and deacons must manage their homes well. But in all of that, the emphasis overwhelmingly in this is that of character. The focus is what the man must be.

Now why is that? Why is that so important that Paul stresses that so highly? The answer, of course, is that we are the church. We are a people grounded in the gospel of Christ. The gospel of Christ does not come to us only saying, “Hey, you can be accepted by God, by faith.” It does that. That’s not all it does. The gospel promises not only acceptance, it promises transformation. The gospel comes to us and says, “Jesus will have you. He’ll accept you as you are, but he intends to change you.” And he’s going to make you different. And these who take this office must be those who can demonstrate in their own lives that the gospel has had that influence in their lives. It has a shaping value in what they are and how they live.

These are people who have learned to be Christ-like. In all of the exceptions that we have to have for each of us as sons of Adam, the characteristic of these men must be that they can demonstrate what it is to be like Christ. They must model Christian spiritual attainment and what Christian living is like. And Paul says we dare not elevate a man to the office who can’t demonstrate with his life that he has come under the influence of Christ through the gospel.

So here’s a man in plain terms; here’s a man who says, “Here’s how you are faithful to your wife. Here’s how you manage your home. Let me show you what it means to be temperate, self-controlled.” And others must be able to look at him and say, “There’s a man who models what he preaches.” Others must be able to take their son and say, “You can be like him.”

In Hebrews chapter 13 and verse 7, the writer there exhorts the congregation: “Consider the outcome of the ways of your leaders in the church and imitate their faith.” Imitate their faith. And what he means there is not simply believe what they believe. Live like they believe, like they live. The Apostle Paul, several times over in the New Testament, will exhort his readers: “be followers of me, as I am of Christ.” Now you think on that, you think, “Okay, are you arrogant? Be followers of me, do what I do, live like I live.” But 1 Timothy 3 is telling us that if a man cannot say that, he’s not qualified to be an elder or a deacon. A man ought to be able to say, “Watch me and I’ll show you what it is to live for Christ.”

I have a friend who said that when he was in college, they had a—Christians there on campus had a Bible study, and they brought in a visitor one day, a friend brought in a friend, and this young man had grown up in a nominal Christian home; that is, his parents professed to be Christians on Sunday mornings. It was a liberal brand of Christianity, where Christianity is something you do on Sunday mornings, but it really makes no difference the rest of the week. And that was his background, and that was his understanding of what a Christian is. And he expressed that to the group: that it doesn’t really make any difference.

And the leader of the group was really wise. He said, “Watch me.” Of course, he takes it back for a minute. “What do you mean, ‘Watch me’?” He said, “In fact, my roommates and I, we’ve got an extra room. Move in with us if you’d like. Watch me, and you see if it makes a difference.” Well, he didn’t move in with them, but for a challenge like that, you can’t help but notice. And he watched, and he watched, and in time he came to Christ and recognized that the gospel does make a difference. And what Paul is telling us here is that these men for this office, for whatever mistakes they may make, they are men who are able to say, “Watch me, and I’ll show you what it is to live for Christ.”

You now, as a congregation, you have every right, and in fact, you have the responsibility then to expect and to uphold these kinds of standards when we appoint men to office here. And it’s for your sake, it’s for the church’s sake today, it’s for the sake of the church tomorrow and the next generation. The men appointed to these offices must be distinguishable as Christians.

The Ordinaries of These Qualifications

Now, having said all of that—and I’m not going to take anything away from it—but having said all of that, lest you require more than God requires, I want to make a second point. Not only is the emphasis here on character, but I want you to notice, and back through all of these qualifications, what I call the ordinariness of these qualifications. I’ve often seen it the case that when you go through this list of qualifications with a sitting board of elders or deacons or something, someone will often remark, “Well, that’s challenging,” and I get that, of course it is. But on another level, there’s really not much here that’s exceptional. He’s got to be faithful to his wife. Can’t be a drunk. Can’t punch people in the nose. My goodness, you can’t do that either! And I tell you, that is exactly the point. That this man, whatever his imperfection, he models what it is to be a Christian. He’s consistent in it. Not that he’s flawless in any kind of way, but these qualifications are simply what every Christian is called to be. The point then is that he embodies what every Christian then must be, and we must be able to say, “Watch him and see that it’s so.”

Now, for most of these topics that we’re going through in this, it doesn’t make for the most exciting of studies. I understand that. But I have to tell you, it would be very difficult to find a topic that is more important to our Lord Jesus than the right ordering of his church. To have the church ordered in such a way that it reflects the gospel that we’re here to proclaim. So it becomes an important topic for us as well. I think from this then we will turn to a study or two on the subject of church life and what that looks like in the New Testament.

Let’s bow for prayer. Our Father, we thank you for this guidance that you’ve given to us. For those of us who hold the office, Lord, I pray that you’ll give us grace. May we never besmirch the name of Christ, hurt the testimony of the church. And as we look ahead for bringing on others, we pray that you’ll be so gracious to give us men who live up to this in an exemplary way for the health of your people, we pray in Jesus’ name, amen.