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.

Reading 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1

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 1 Timothy 3 verses 1 to 7.

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

On 7, the office of overseer desires a noble task. Therefore, an overseer must be a well-approached, 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 old 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, for 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 1 Timothy chapter 3. And then a parallel text dealing with the qualifications is also Titus chapter 1, beginning from verse 5 to verse 9.

This is why I left you in Greece, so that you might put what remained into order and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. If anyone is above reproach, a husband of one wife, and his children are believers, and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination, for an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach.

He must not be arrogant, a contemptor, or a drunkard, or violent, or greedy, or vain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word of God, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine, and also to refute those who quench it.

Qualifications Are for All Men in the Church

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.

1 Timothy 3 .10, referring to the qualifications of deacons, can someone read it please? 1 Timothy 3 .10, now notice in dealing with the qualifications, he said, this man 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 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 1 Timothy 5, and verse 22.

1 Timothy 5, and verse 22. Someone read it? 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, no? 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.

The Qualifications Are Essentially the Same in Timothy and Titus

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.

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.

An Elder Must Be Above Reproach in Home and Character

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 qualifications is that an elder must have an irreproachable life.

He must be above reproach. We have read that in 1 Timothy 3 .2. He 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 -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.

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 rival his own life.

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 .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 city as 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.

Marriage, Polygamy, and Divorce in the Elder’s Qualifications

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 marriage life? Any questions? The 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?

No, 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?

Yes.

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. But it's not like a broken situation in the Roman Empire, but that is something that the gospel covers. If a man is considered single, he has to be married.

It's important to emphasize that husband of one wife. Some take it to mean that 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, St. Peter said, as fellow elders. But of course, he was not married. Timothy was not married. Titus was not married. There were men who would move from church to church, implanting churches, overseeing the universal church.

But they were not married men. So it's not required to be 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, if he is single, you can still... Well, if he is single, it's not in a compromised home situation. It doesn't mean to say that he can't be an elder.

There are other qualifications explicitly stated later in 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 wouldn't 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. If he is married, 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 we don't want to overly extend the qualifications. Because we will be going beyond what it really intends. Because other things are dealt with in the other qualifications mentioned. We don't want to conflate this.

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. Because the only thing that breaks up a marriage is, the only basis for divorce is sexual immorality.

That's the only thing that breaks up a marriage. The one thing that really differentiates marriage is the sexual union between a man and a woman. So if the third party is involved in that way, that really breaks the marriage.

So you can end the marriage because of that. So if the marriage ends on a biblical ground, and the person marries another, then he is still husband of one wife. It's clear in Matthew 20. Now, Christ, except for immorality, there are two problems here.

In Matthew 19, verses 3 and following, 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 past situation, 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, with two families, can you imagine the rivalry, 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 just arbitrary. It is 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. Okay? Any other questions? So, what is your home situation?

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? In 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 mentions 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 as a 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, they are not the kind of brats who would vandalize or refuse to submit to those in authority who are rebellious.

Because the elders have no control 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 are not going to run around wild, destroying property, having wild parties.

While they are under the elders' authority, they must be those who are trustworthy. Not accused of wild living. Not accused of rebellion. So, any questions about disqualification? Is there a translation as having children who are believers?

No.

So, does it mean that if you have children, even if your children are not believers, you are disqualified because they are not believers? 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. Is that disqualification? You don't say it's disqualification, but it's not disqualification because it's wild. So, any questions?

Yes.

Okay.

As long as the children are under the authority. I know of one elder in the Reformed Churches here, while his kid was under his authority. Was he a normal kid? He wasn't wild. But then when he left home, he became 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, he was a normal kid. He wasn't a wild kid. So, while under one's authority.

Beyond that, Paraya Anton Jehu, who was that king while he was under the authority of one of the priests. He was a good king in his minor age. But when Anton died, he really turned bad. So, we're talking about children still under the authority of their parents.

They must be kept under control. That's the language in 1 Timothy Chapter 3. Keeping their children under control with all dignity. Not through verbal abuse or using the fist. But 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, are the children still under the authority of their parents?

That's it.

The children.

Okay?

Does that satisfy you? Any other questions about this?

Yes.

You didn't appeal because he's a single man. But you did test him. One of the reasons, what is made explicit in 1 Timothy is that he must keep his children under control because it's required. 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, is it functional? If he cannot manage his own children, how much more in the wider scale are the members? So, you can apply that test in other situations. But we will deal with that when we go through the qualifications.

If he's single, he must be tested. He must be different from other people. So, that is what we are going to deal with. One of the qualifications, if you look down at your notes, he has to have a proven ability to rule.

So, when you are tested, even if you are single, if you have the ability to rule, whether in your workplace, whether over your siblings, if your dad died early, you take care of your siblings, how can you see your ability to manage, to rule over a group of people?

So, even if you are single, you must be tested. But not in the context of marriage. Normally, the elders are married men. That's the norm. They are married because they are residents in one church. They don't have the same role as missionaries.

So, normally, they are married so that he can even model what the husband should be. He can model what a father should be. So, normally, the context is that your marriage life is an area where you can test him.

But if he is single, you can also test him in other areas. Any other questions in relation to irreproachable in one's home situation? In one's marriage life or in one's children? Okay, so we'll close in prayer.

Closing Exhortation and Prayer

I hope you go through this outline. Now, we can get the questions for digestion. 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.