1 Timothy chapter 3

vs 1

Why does Paul use the word presbyteros (translated 'elder') in Titus, but uses episcopis (translated 'overseer' or 'bishop') here? Most of us would say it doesn't matter, and that they mean the same thing. The Catholics (and the Anglicans too) see a big difference - to them, a bishop is the person who has control over a number of churches, whereas an elder is a position over a single church. Their method of episcopal church governance is based on this distinction - made partly from the Bible and partly from church history.

Of course, in Titus Paul uses the terms interchangeably from one sentence to another...

Whatever Paul means, his idea is that the offices of church governance are a good work for people to aspire to.

vs 2

This list is very similar to the one in Titus. Some scholars think Titus is just a shortened form of 1 Timothy. Others probably think 1 Timothy is an expanded version of Titus. Whatever.

There are some interesting things in this list. Able to teach is one I think is interesting. We have a leadership committee at our church, and of the three people on it when I arrived, only one regularly gives sermons. Do the others not teach? Well, they can - but it doesn't necessarily mean giving sermons. Indeed, in their pastoral duties, being hospitable and respectable (and even beyond reproach to a degree) is far more important in many ways.

The next question is - should they be married? It says the husband of "but one wife" so they obviously shouldn't be a polygamist, but can they be unmarried? Well, in the society Paul is writing to and living in, being unmarried really isn't an option. Very few people remained unmarried.

vs 3

Many of these qualities are good and worthwhile simply because they mean you are less likely to harm relationships. We often have difficulty understanding the value of relationships in such a society, and the social faux pas it is to do something which harms them. Not quarrelsome is a hard one for me.

vs 4-5

Here Paul gives a nice little commentary on why their family should be well managed - because if they can't control rowdy kids, then they can't control a church. Having children who didn't respect you would have been a mighty blow to your respectability. I mean, today people can have kids screaming all over the place, and while someone might say "if those were my kids, 'POW!'", generally people don't have that same attitude anymore. Only two kinds of people do in our society I am told - those with children who are perfect, and those who don't have children. Maybe Paul writing this comment shows he didn't have children? Who knows.

vs 6

Of course you don't put new converts in charge of a whole church. These are all common sense really. To us they seem like grand commandments from God. To Paul, they are probably just a list of common sense necessities for good leaders so that he knows what to look for. To us some of them may seem excessive, or we might think it's impossible for a person to be all of these things. And you know what? It probably is! I don't think Paul would have knocked back anyone from this position because they didn't fulfil one of these criteria. These are things to aspire to as much as to fulfil.

Remember also that some of these churches might only be less than two years old - so how new is a new convert?

vs 7

This is a hard one. The need for someone who has a good reputation with outsiders is a breath of fresh air - it means that the position of eldership is not the position for someone locked inside a church building. People outside the church should know him as someone who is of good reputation. An extra-church role is seen for elders here.

But how does having a bad reputation make you disgraceful and fall into a devil's snare? Firstly, I think we've got to separate the disgrace from the snare. I think Paul's talking about two separate things that will happen.

Well, reputation is literally "witness". So an elder must have a good testimony to outsiders. If they don't, it seems, firstly they will be an object of scorn or contempt, or people will find fault with them and they will be blameworthy.

They will also, it seems, be ripe to fall into activities with outsiders that will harm their testimony. A bishop who goes around sleeping with people's wives is the most obvious example (and may well have been what Paul was insinuating with the trap metaphor). But an elder who rips people off in business would be the same - his weak testimony to outsiders would make him a disgrace, and bring disgrace on the church by him being its representative.

vs 8

Deacons (deaconos - servant, minister) have very similar expectations of them. But we'll get on to them more tomorrow.