Discussion on Qualifications of Elders, Pt 1

to the eldership or the deaconate and also this year we will be re -evaluating the qualifications of Pastor Paul for the office and therefore it is needful that we consider again the issue of the qualifications of elders and deacons in the

Church of the Lord Jesus. Now, to start up,

I hope you have the outline with you. I sent it on our members

GC and we will go through this and we will discuss this issue objectively and more of a discussion type of thing.

So let's begin with reading 1st Timothy 3 verses 1 to 7.

1st Timothy 3 verses 1 to 7. Someone read it please.

Therefore, a verseer must be a well -reproached, a 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 followed by outsiders so that he may not fall in disgrace to the snare of the devil.

Okay, so that is from 1st Timothy chapter 3. And then a parallel text dealing with the qualifications is also

Titus chapter 1, beginning from verse 5 to verse 9.

Okay, so here are the qualifications.

Now, remember, before we enter into discussion, there are several things that I want to highlight.

First is that what elders must be, all the men in the

Church ought to be, or must strive to be by the grace of God.

We should never have the mentality that since a man is not aspiring for the office of an elder, then he doesn't need to really personally reflect on this qualification for his own growth and sanctification.

For what elders must be, all the men in the Church ought to be and strive to be by the grace of the

Lord Jesus. The second thing to emphasize by way of introduction is that only men who have been tested over the years regarding these qualifications should be put in the office.

So 1st Timothy chapter 3 verse 10, referring to the qualifications of deacons, can someone read it please?

1st Timothy 3 verse 10. Now notice in dealing with the qualifications, he said, these men must also, why the word also?

Well, because in the previous verses, he deals with the qualifications of elders.

So these men must also first be tested, not just not just the elders, but even those for the office of the deaconate.

These men must also be first tested and then let them serve as deacons if they are beyond reproach.

And we must never reverse the order, let them serve as deacons in order to test them.

That's the reverse. These men must first be tested and then let them serve.

And this testing requires a period of time where they are living their

Christian life in the context of the congregation. And people do see these qualifications manifested consistently in the lives of certain men.

Let these men first be tested and then let them serve.

Over the long haul, these qualifications must be present in each of those who will be considered for and put into the office.

In line with that, Paul reminds Timothy, exhorts

Timothy in 1st Timothy 5 and verse 22. 1st

Timothy 5 and verse 22. Someone read it? Okay.

Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily. The period of testing must require time.

And then, only then, if he over the period of time proves to have these qualifications, is he to be put in the office, installed into the office.

Either, and here particularly, he is referring to the elders.

Verse 17, the elders who rule well must be considered worthy of double honor.

Then verse 19, do not receive an accusation against an elder. And then in verse 22, do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others.

Keep yourself free from sin. So, Kenning period of testing is over a period of time.

No one should be installed into either the office of elders or deacon without a period of testing over time as to whether they really possess to a satisfactory degree these qualifications for elders as well as for deacons.

Okay? Now, the fact that we have two portions of God's word where the qualifications are given, if you compare 1

Timothy 3 and Titus 1, they are not exactly the same.

But these, the fact that they are not exactly the same does not mean that they are not essentially the same.

Okay? It's important in determining whether a man is qualified for the office is that we do not add to nor take away from what

God requires. These qualifications are essential if a man is to really function in the office well.

If he is to be fit for the work, he must possess this qualification.

It's a functional qualification. It is required because it is needed in the office.

So, we are not to add to what God requires, nor are we to take away what

God requires. Now, the fact that 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are not exactly the same does not mean that they are essentially the same.

For if we really study the passage, what is made explicit in one text is implicit in the other text.

And what is explicit in the other text is necessarily implied in the other portions where the qualifications are given.

So, not exactly the same, but essentially the same.

And remember that in the qualifications for the elders or for the deacons, we must not add to nor take away anything from it.

We have personal preferences that should not be acceptable.

It must be what God and what God alone requires.

Not to add to it, nor to take anything away. So, let's begin with the qualifications of elders.

We have read the text 1 Timothy 3, Titus 1. And if you look at the outline

I sent you, we will follow particularly the passage in Titus 1 because in Titus 1, it is more well organized in terms of the qualifications.

And although all of these mentioned in Titus are either explicitly stated or implied in Timothy, but Titus 1 is a more well organized presentation of the qualifications of the elders.

So, first, if we are to divide these qualifications, there are four categories of what is qualified of an elder.

First, the most predominant of all the qualification is that an elder must have an irreproachable life.

He must be above reproach. We've read that in 1

Timothy 3 .2, must be above reproach. We find that in Titus 1, verse 6, if any man is above reproach, and then it's repeated in verse 7, for an overseer must be above reproach.

Now, the question then is, what does that mean for a man to be above reproach?

Well, first, obviously, to be above reproach does not mean to be sinless.

That's very clear from 1 John 1 .8 to 10. If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

If we say we have not sinned or we have not been sinning, we make

God a liar and the truth is not in us.

It's a fact revealed in scripture and observable and confirmed by observation that while we are here in glory, we are never above the reality of sinning.

We have remaining sin, we will sin. In James 3 also, verse 2, can someone read it?

James 3 and verse 2, beginning from verse 1 and then verse 2.

James 3, verse 1. James 3, verse 2. Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his own life.

Okay? For we stumble in many ways. Even the apostle

James admits to the fact that we have, we stumble in many ways.

So to be above reproach does not mean to be sinless. Nor does it mean that any man accused of wrongdoing or bad character is no longer above reproach.

Okay? Not a false idea that if a man is accused of wrongdoing or having a bad character, then automatically he is no longer above reproach.

If that were the case, then Jesus was not above reproach. Because Jesus was accused of so many false things.

That he was a glutton, he was a drunkard, that he was immoral because he associated with certain people, that he was a

Sabbath breaker, that he was a blasphemer. But the fact that there were many false accusations raised against Jesus does not mean that he was not above reproach.

For if people were simply proceed with truly determining with justice whether those things were really so, even

Jesus challenged them, if anyone can point out a wrong in me, let him do so.

So to be above reproach doesn't mean that anyone accused of wrongdoing or bad character is no longer above reproach.

That has to be proven. A mere accusation does not make him no longer above reproach.

So what then does it mean for a person to be above reproach? Well, explicitly indicated in Titus 1, if you look at your outline, it means that a man is to be irreproachable in two areas of his life.

In his home situation, Titus 1 .6,

and he is to be irreproachable in his personal. Let's look at that in Titus 1, verse 5.

For this reason, I left you in Crete, that you set in order what remains for the completion of the organization of the church, that is, and appoint elders in every cities

I directed you, namely, notice, if a man is above reproach, then he deals with his home situation.

The husband of one wife, having children who believe not accused of dissipation or rebellion, then he repeats it, for the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, and then he deals with his personal character, not self -willed, not quick -tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self -controlled, holding fast the faithful word, which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

So, there are two areas of this being irreproachable. First, in his home situation, and secondly, in his personal character.

And irreproachableness in one's character involve particularly two things, the absence of certain crippling vices.

Verse 7, for the overseer must be above reproach as God's steward, and then the vices, not self -willed, not quick -tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain.

And then there, to be irreproachable in character, there must be also certain necessary graces, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self -controlled, holding fast the faithful word, which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

So, irreproachableness then includes two areas. First, a man who is to be an elder must be irreproachable in his home situation.

This includes an elder's marriage life. Verse 6, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife.

In 1 Timothy 3 verse 2, this is also made explicit, the husband of one wife.

Now, what does that mean? Well, this means that an elder, if he is married, must not be one who was converted as a bigamist or as a polygamist.

He cannot be living in a compromise home situation.

He must be husband of one wife. This qualification is essential because an elder ought to be a proper domestic model for God's people.

In the Roman Empire, polygamy was very common.

And so, when the gospel spread to the different provinces in the

Roman Empire, many of those who were converted were either bigamists or polygamists.

But under the new covenant, that's no longer allowed. It was allowed under the old covenant.

David was a polygamist. Solomon was a polygamist.

Even prior to the old covenant, Abraham was a polygamist.

Jacob was a polygamist. But under the new covenant, since the

Holy Spirit has been given in the fullness of his saving operation, that is no longer permitted.

But pagans who were converted, many of them were practicing polygamists.

So, what do you do with the situation? Well, the situation, you can't unscramble a scrambled egg.

You have to live with the situation. But a man converted from that polygamist relationship, although he can be a member of the church, he cannot become an elder of the church.

Because an elder ought to be a proper domestic model for God's people.

Moreover, his abnormal situation in the home as a polygamist will leave a man very little time and energy in doing the work of an elder.

Now, are there any questions regarding this area of irreproachableness in terms of his married life?

Any questions? Kaning matter of polygamy, the idea that a man converted from a polygamist relationship when he is converted, and then he can become a member of the church while practicing polygamy, that is something very strange to us.

But that was a reality in the Roman Empire. Even the old covenant saints, many of them were practicing polygamists.

But under the new covenant, that's not allowed because the

Holy Spirit has been given in the fullness of his saving work.

Now, what do you do with people converted from paganism in a polygamist relationship?

Are they barred from the kingdom because they are practicing polygamists?

And are they going to flip a coin to determine who they should take as the wife and the rest are left on their own?

Now, even that brokenness is covered by the blood of Christ.

And a man who is in a situation like that cannot become an elder of the church.

Yes? Are you saying if he remarries?

Well, yeah, then he is, I think, na matay ang wife, so he already only has one wife.

I never thought of that.

What do you do with that? Technically, presently, he has only one wife, although he had been in a polygamist relationship before.

I don't have a ready answer to that question. Pero ina na ka -broken ang situation in the

Roman Empire. But that is something that the gospel covers.

Yes? If a man is considered single, now, hindi nga he has to be married.

It's important to emphasize that husband of one wife. Some take it to mean he must be married if he is to be an elder.

But that can't be because even St. Apostle Paul was an apostle of the universal church.

He was an elder of the universal church. 1 Peter chapter 5,

Peter said, as fellow elders. But of course, he was not married. Timothy was not married.

Titus was not married. And there were men who would move from church to implanting churches, overseeing the universal church.

But they were not married men. So, hindi nga required na married.

But normally, it's expected, since elders belong to one church that they reside in that particular area, if he is married, then normally he would be a married man.

So, a married man, he must be husband of only one wife. Now, later on, kung single siya, you can still—well, if single siya, he's not in a compromised home situation.

That's a mean to say that di siya pwede ma -elder.

There are other qualifications explicitly stated later sa 1 Timothy 3.

He must be one who manages his own household well, proven in the context of his home.

But that's made explicit later in our treatment of the qualification.

And that is only implied in Titus. The next is that he must have children who are not rebellious.

So, I would not put it in that category.

It belongs to another qualification. But we don't want to create too much latitude in terms of this qualification, because those things are dealt with in the other mentioned qualifications.

So, let's not overstretch what it means. Husband of one wife means husband of one wife. Kung married siya, he must be committed only to one woman.

And he must only be committed to one woman. That means sexually only with one woman, one flesh with that woman.

So, hindi natin i -overly extend ang qualifications, kasi we will be going beyond what it really intends.

Kanang other things are dealt with in the other qualifications mentioned.

Di nalang ito i -conflate -conflate. If the basis of the divorce is immorality, unfaithfulness on the part of the other party, then that really dissolves the marriage.

So, if he marries, then he is still husband of one wife.

Kasi the only thing that breaks up a marriage is gud.

The only basis for divorce, gud, is sexual immorality. Maumang gud na ang mabreak sa marriage.

Kasi the one thing that really differentiates marriage is ang sexual union between a man and a woman.

So, mauna nga, ma -involve gani ang third party in that way. That really breaks the marriage.

So, pwede gud na i -end ang marriage because of that. So, if na -end ang marriage on a biblical ground and the person remarries or marries another, then that is not—he is still husband of one wife.

Clear man na sa Matthew 20. Ngayon si

Christ, except for immorality, lo, mantaan na nga problema diri, pero

In sa Matthew 19 verses 3 and following, some

Pharisees came to Jesus testing him and asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?

And he answered and said, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?

And said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.

They said to him, Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?

He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way.

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, and then there's a very important exception, exceptional clause, except for immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.

So Jesus made it very clear that there is one ground to dissolve the covenant of marriage, and it is sexual or it is immorality.

So if the ground is immorality on the part of one spouse, when he divorces, and then the guy marries another, then he is still husband of one wife.

Any other questions? Yes? What to do with that?

Well, I think we have to think in terms of his present situation. Because if in his present situation, he is husband of one wife,

I think that is the thing that is important because it is a functional qualification.

What do you require? Because he is to be a model of domestic godliness.

If you're an elder, you have to set an example of what it means to be a husband.

And plus, in a polygamous relationship, can you imagine the rivalry and the amount of energy in trying to manage a home?

That will really absorb you if you are to focus on your domestic duties.

So, the qualification is functional. The reason why it is given is not arbitrary.

But it's because it is required for one to function in the office.

So, the reason for the qualification is functional. These are not arbitrary qualifications.

So, we have to think in terms of the present situation. Any other questions?

An elder must be irreproachable in life.

And that means irreproachable in his home situation, including his married life, husband of one wife, and included in his home situation is the elder's children.

Go back to Titus 1 verse 6, if a man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and then still dealing with irreproachableness in his home situation, he adds, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.

Now, what does that mean? 1 Timothy 3 verse 4, this is also mentioned, keeping his children under control with all dignity.

So, even his children, irreproachable in his home situation, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion, and mentioned in 1

Timothy 3, keeping his children under control with all dignity.

Now, I don't know why translations still continue to translate having children who believe.

Now, the word there, believe, is simply the word faithful. Having children who believe does not mean that his children have to be converted, but the word translated, believe, could also be translated, faithful, or trustworthy, or dependable.

The children of elders must be those whom their parents can trust.

They are trustworthy. And this is further explained in Titus 1 by way of negative description, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.

In other words, the children of elders must not be those who are known to be wild or spoiled brats, for as long as they are under the authority of their parents, they must be those who are faithful and dependable.

They are not the kind of kids who, when their parents are gone, would invite their friends at home and have a wild party, or in the school, would be the most rebellious, who would vandalize or refuse to submit to those in authority, who are rebellious.

May control ang elder in the conversion of their children.

But there is common grace, restraints that you can put on your children that to a certain degree, they are trustworthy.

They're not going to run around wild, destroying property, having wild parties.

While they are under the elder's authority, they must be those who are trustworthy, not accused of wild living, not accused of rebellion.

So, any questions about disqualification? Napag -translation, having children who are believers?

No. So, does it mean if you have a child, even if your child is not a believer, you are disqualified because you are not a believer?

No. I don't know why they insist on translating it this way in many English translations, when the word, therefore, believed could be translated faithful, dependable.

So, any questions?

Yes. As long as the children are under the authority,

I know of one elder in the Reformed Churches here, well -known.

While his kid was under his authority, was he a normal kid?

He wasn't wild. But then when he left home, he was homosexual.

So, that was the question. Is he going to be disqualified from the office?

While under his authority, he kept him under control in that sense.

Normal kid yun, hindi ka murag sa minyong bataak, wild ba ini?

So, while under one's authority. Beyond that, parehaan tung

Jehu, who was that king who was while he was under the authority of one of the priests, he was a good king in his minor age.

Pero paka matay at duniya, he really turned bad. So, we're talking about children still under the authority of their parents.

They must be kept under control. Mo na ang language sa 1

Timothy chapter 3. Keeping their children under control with all dignity.

Not through verbal abuse or using the fist.

Pero, they are managed. They are kept under control while under their authority.

So, it's not a matter of age. It's a matter of, under pa ba sa authority?

Sa parents. The children. Okay?

Does that satisfy you? Any other questions about this?

Yes. Yeah. O, dili na nimo i -appeal.

But, because he's a single man.

Pero, naagya po i -test nimo. One of the reasons, what is made explicit sa 1

Timothy is he must keep his children under control kay required manggudna.

Because, if he cannot take care of his own, if he cannot manage well his own children, how can he take care of the house of God?

So, functional manggudna ba? O dili sya kamanage sa iyang kuhuling ng mga anak, how much more in the wider scale ang mga members?

So, you can apply that test in other situations. But, we will deal with that when we go through the qualifications.

O single sya, i -test nga yapon sya, o hibao ba sya mo handle ng mga tao?

So, but, that is what we're going to deal with kay one of the qualifications.

If you look down at your notes, he has to have a proven ability to rule.

So, matest mangga yapon ka, ana, bisag single ka, o nabagay ability to rule, whether in your workplace, whether over your siblings, na matay ang dad early, ikaw na mo mo handle sa, mo take care sa iyong mga siblings, ana makita ang iyong ability to manage, to rule over a group of people.

So, even o single ka, matested mangga yapon ka, ana, but not in the context of marriage lang.

Pero, normally manggud, ang elders are married men. That's the norm.

Married yod sila, kay resident guna sila in one church. Di na sila parehang pool na mag -missionary journey ba.

So, normally gud, menu gud na sila, so that he can even model what a husband should be.

He can even model what a father should be. So, normally, ang context gud is, ang iyong marriage life mo ay area where you can test him.

Pero, o single sila, you can also test it in other areas. Okay, any other questions in relation to irreproachable in one's home situation?

Ang iyong marriage life o ang iyong children? Okay, so, we'll close in prayer.

I hope you go through this outline. Ngaroon mas makuha na to ang mga questions for digestion gud ini.

So, let's have a word of prayer. Our Heavenly Father, as we go through this qualification, help us to remember that this is the will of the

Lord Jesus Christ for the church. The church is the house of God, not our own.

And therefore, the ones to be put in office are only those who meet the biblical qualification.

And yet, in applying this in various situations, we need wisdom, we need discernment.

We ask and pray that you would be our help, Lord, in doing this so that we will put all and everyone who is really qualified and desires the office, and that we will not put anyone who does not fit the biblical qualifications.

We pray that you would even help us to look at ourselves in the light of this, for we know that what elders must be, all members should strive to be.

Father, we pray that you will seal these things to our hearts, for these things we pray in Jesus' name.