New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT #10---- QUALIFICATIONS FOR MINISTRY

Church Minister Qualifications?

An expounding on the teaching of Paul in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1

Part One

 by

  Keith Hunt

   Paul was inspired to inform Timothy about the basic

qualifications that a man should meet who desire the office of

OVERSEER in the Church, and also to retain that function.

I have written in a more specific way concerning the

"dis-qualification from the ministry" in another article, which

the reader can obtain upon request. I have also shown elsewhere

that the NT uses the words "episkopos" (1 Tim.3) and

"presbuteros" (Titus 1) to mean the same function within the

Church. This truth can also be found in a long explanation by

William Barclay in his DAILY STUDY BIBLE ( 1 Timothy), 

and also in BARNES' NOTES ON THE NT. Today we called 

such men as "minister" - one who ministers or serves the spiritual 

need of the Church. In the NT they were also known by the term 

"elder."   

   Paul tells Timothy, chapter three of his first letter, that there is 

nothing wrong with a man desiring the function of a pastor 

(bishop/elder/minister).  He then does not yet have this 

function per se but could qualify for it.  Paul then relates to 

Timothy a number of specific areas in which a man must reach 

a certain standard to qualify for such a serious function within

the community of the Church of God.  Obviously then, by Paul 

even suggesting such standards, it should be clearly seen a man 

does not function automatically as a bishop, as a Elder/Pastor, 

just because he is "x" number of years in the Church, though not 

a few years is required according to a few of the qualifications we

shall be looking at later.  These qualifications and attaining them 

make it impossible to adopt the ministerial policy that some

have adopted, namely, that all men in the Church can takes turns

in overseeing or pastoring the congregation.

   Paul was instructing Timothy with no such ideas or theology. 

To him, it was not wrong to desire that function but it was not

automatic, you had to meet a very demanding criterion. 

   What Paul laid down to Timothy was specific qualifications

BEFORE and leading up to a man's official recognition by other

Elders and the Church, but the principle does carry over after

that Eldership is passed on to him, with a few other principles

involved(which I shall get to later) in handling Elders who were

"to be blamed" (Gal.2:11) after their function had been in place

for some time.

   Before we look at each qualification, an over-view I think

would be of benefit to us. For that over-view I shall quote from

the DAILY STUDY BIBLE by Barclay:

   "This passage is further interesting in that it tells us

something of the appointment and duties of the leaders of the

Church.

   (i) They were formally set apart for their office.  Titus was

to ordain elders in every Church(Titus 1:5). The office-bearer of

the Church is not made an office-bearer in secret; he is set

apart before the eyes of men; the honor of the Church is publicly

delivered into his hands.

   (ii) They had to undergo a period of testing. They had first

to be proved(1 Timothy 3:10). No one builds a bridge or a piece

of machinery with metal which has not been tested. The church

might do well to be MORE STRICT THAN SHE IS IN THE 

TESTING of those chosen for leadership.

   (iii) They were paid for the work which they had to do. The

laborer was worthy of his hire (1 Timothy 5:18). The Christian

leader does not work for pay, but, on the other hand, the duty of

the Church which chose him for the work is to supply him with the

means to live.

   (iv) They were liable to censure (1 Timothy 5:19-22). In the

early Church the office-bearer had a double function. He was a

leader of the Church; but he was also the servant of the Church.

He had to ANSWER FOR HIS STEWARDSHIP. No Christian 

office-bearer must ever consider himself ANSWERABLE TO NO 

ONE; he is ANSWERABLE to God, and to the people over whom 

God gave him the task of presiding.

   (v) They had the duty of presiding over the Christian assembly

and of teaching the Christian congregation (1 Timothy 5:17). The

Christian office-bearer has the double duty of administration and

instruction. It may well be that one of the tragedies of the modern 

Church is that the administrative function of the office-bearer has 

usurped the teaching function almost entirely........

   (vi) The office-bearer was not to be A RECENT CONVERT. 

Two reasons are given for this advice. The first is quite clear. 

It is "in case he becomes inflated with the sense of his own

importance." The second is not so clear. It is, as the Revised

Standard Version has it, "lest he fall into the condemnation of

the devil." There are three possible explanations of that strange

phrase.  (a) It was through his pride that Lucifer rebelled

against God and was expelled from heaven. And this may simply 

be a second warning against the danger of pride. (b) It may mean

that, if the too quickly advanced convert becomes guilty of

pride, he give the Devil a chance to level his charges against

him. A conceited Church office-bearer gives the Devil a chance 

to say to the critics of the Church: 'Look! There's your Christian!

There's your Church member! That's what an office-bearer is

like!' (c) The word diabolos has two meanings. It means devil 

and that is the way in which the RSV has taken it here; but it

also means SLANDERER. It is in fact the word used for slanderer

in verse 11, where the women are forbidden to be slanderers. So

then this phrase may mean that the recent convert, who has been

appointed to office, and has acquired, as we say, a swelled head,

gives opportunity to the slanderers. His unworthy conduct is

ammunition for those who are ill-disposed to the Church. No

matter how we take it, the point is that the conceited Church

official is a bad debt to the Church.

   But, as the early Church saw it, the responsibility of the

office-bearer did not begin and end in the Church. He had two

other spheres of responsibility, and if he failed in them, he was

bound also to fail in the Church.

   (i) His first sphere of duty was his own home. If a man did

not know how to rule his own household, how could he be 

engaged upon the task of ruling the congregation of the Church? 

(1 Timothy 3:5). A man who had not succeeded in making a

Christian home could hardly be expected to succeed in making a

Christian congregation. A man who had not instructed his own

family could hardly be the right man to instruct the family of

the Church.

   (ii) The second sphere of responsibility was the world. He

must be 'well thought of by outsiders' (1 Timothy #:7). He must

be a man who has gained the respect of his fellow-men in the

day-to-day business of life. Nothing has hurt the Church more

than the sight of people who are active in it, whose business and

social life belies the faith which they profess and the precepts

which they teach. The Christian office-bearer must first of

all be a good man" (Emphasis mine).

End of quotes from William Barclay.

   The points Paul gives to Timothy here are points of GENERAL

principle. As I expound each area you will see why I say they are

of general principle. Paul did not go into all and every unusual

situation that could arise within the life of the Church, where these 

principles would have to fit.

BLAMELESS:

   The Greek word is "anepileptos."  The Greeks themselves define

the word as meaning "affording nothing of which an adversary can

take hold."  Some would say it means "un-rebukable" or "not open

to attack" or "beyond criticism."  This Greek word is used of an

act or technique which is so perfect that no fault can be found

with it. On the surface it would disqualify just about any man

(except the few humanly righteous individuals like Job) from ever

becoming a minister or holding on to such a function. 

     Thankfully the NT shows through the lives of two of the

greatest apostles that there is a deeper meaning here meant by

the word "blameless."  For Paul and Peter could, even after their

start in the ministry, sin, or be "blamed" (Romans 7:14-25;

Galatians 2:11-15), and in Peter's case, that publicly before

others.  While 1 Timothy 5:19,20 shows that two or three

witnesses were needed to bring an accusation against an Elder, it

also shows that ministers were not beyond criticism - not beyond

attack - they were rebukable, and if found guilty of sin, it

requires "rebuke before all" as a punishment and as a detriment

to others.  Peter was rebuked by Paul before all for his fault

and sin (Gal.2).  After a man has become a Christian, is he going

to be a "good man whose life cannot be spoken against" (Living

Bible) 100% of the time?  He will somewhere, at sometime, said or

done something to someone in the church or outside the church, in

fact or in the mind of that person, who will feel they can

"blame" him.

   Some believe that after a man enters the faith and becomes a

Church leader, there can be no reproach worthy of public rebuke

at all of any kind. They say such a man can be forgiven and come

back into the Church, but not as an elder or overseer, because

his Christian life can now be spoken against.

   Paul does not go into elaborate detail with this

qualification, so we must not jump to any hasty conclusions and

we must let the rest of the NT throw needed light on any

questions we may have as to what Paul was meaning in laying down

this first qualification. 

   The whole NT shows that "blameless" here used CANNOT mean he

may never make an error or sin which is worthy of public rebuke.

For when Peter sinned and was to be blamed in front of the whole

Church (and maybe outsiders got the wind of it all as well -

Gal.2) his ministry would have come to a quick END!  But we find

Peter years later (about A.D. 63) still calling himself an

Apostle and Elder (1 Pet.1:1; 5:1) under the inspiration of the

Holy Spirit. He was recognized by the Church as a true servant of

God. 

   There is a way that a man can be "blameless."  It is the way

that all true Christians can be blameless.  This qualification

was put first because it is probably the most important one.  A

man can be blameless when he is fully and totally REPENTANT! 

When he exhibits the quality of being humble and always willing

to admit his errors and sins, willing to see himself as a sinner,

and is always in that repentant attitude of mind.  When he does

not PRACTICE as a way of life, sins, but repents of them when he

does sin or makes an error, then God can forgive such a person -

he is washed clean in the blood of the Lamb - he is counted as

righteous, he is held is under grace, he is held as in a state of

BLAMELESSNESS!  Please read carefully 1 John 1:8-10; 2:1-2.  

Now read Luke 1:5, 6.  Zacharias the priest and his wife Elizabeth 

had that right repentant attitude and so it is recorded that as far

as God was concerned they were "righteous" and they were

"blameless."  Paul was inspired to say that "all have sinned" and

the NT tells us that only Jesus Christ of all humans NEVER

SINNED, not even once. All other living human beings have sinned

at some point in their lives(of course we are excluding little

babies that die as babies).  Zacharias and Elizabeth did sin, but

they were forgiven because of their repentant attitude of mind,

as was the great King David of old, and so they were held under

God's grace and declared as was Abraham - righteous, blameless.

   The man who will serve in the overseership of the Church must

be a man of repentance, and the Godly kind of repentance, not the

repentance of the world, needing to be repented of again and

again ( Cor.7:8-10).  David sinned by committing adultery, his

sin was pointed out to him, and he truly repented, never to

commit that sin again. Peter sinned and led others into sin and

error. He had that missing of the mark shown to him and he

repented, never to fail in that manner again (Gal.2).

   So it must be, at the top of the list, the servant of the Lord

and the Church must be in such a repentant attitude of mind at

all times that he will be held by God as a blameless man.

THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE:

   There is no secret meanings to the Greek words used here. The

literal Greek means and reads, "the husband of one wife." 

   William Barlay has a long section on this matter in his Daily

Word Study. It is good for us to record some of his words.

     "......Some few take it to mean that the Christian

leader cannot marry a SECOND TIME, even AFTER his wife's

death......But in its context here we can be quite certain that

the phrase means that the Christian leader must be a loyal

husband, preserving marriage in all its purity. In later days the

APOSTOLIC CANONS lid down: 'He who is involved in two 

marriages, after his baptism, or he who has taken a concubine, 

cannot be an episkopos, a bishop.'

   We may well ask why it should be necessary to lay down what

looks obvious. We must understand the state of the world in which

this was written. It has been said, and with much truth, that the

only totally new virtue which Christianity brought into the world

was CHASTITY. In many ways the ancient world was in a state of

MORAL CHAOS, even the JEWISH world. Astonishingly as it 

may seem, certain Jews still practiced POLYGAMY. In the Dialogue 

with Trypho,  in which Justin Martyr discusses Christianity with a

Jew, it is said that 'it is possible for a Jew even now to have

four or five wives' (Dialogue with Trypho, 134).  Josephus can

write: 'By ancestral custom a man can live with more than one

wife' (Antiquities of the Jews, 17:1,2).

   Apart altogether from these unusual cases, DIVORCE was

tragically easy in the Jewish world. The Jews had the highest

ideals of marriage.......For all that, the Jewish law allowed

divorce. Marriage was indeed the ideal, but divorce was

permitted......(Note: the two main schools of the Pharisees had

different views on divorce, the one held it was only possible

under very strict circumstances, while the other school said you

could divorce for just about any reason, large or small. You can

imagine which school was the more popular - Keith Hunt).

   .......The tragedy was the that the wife had no rights

whatsoever. Josephus says, 'With is it is lawful for a husband to

dissolve a marriage, but a wife, if she departs from her husband,

cannot marry another, unless her former husband put her away'

(Antiquities of the Jews, 15:8,7).

   In the case of a divorce by consent, in the time of the NT,

all that was required was two witnesses, and no court case at

all. A husband could send his wife away for any cause; at the

most a wife could petition the court to urge her husband to write

her a bill of divorcement, but it could not compel him even to do

that......

   In the HEATHEN WORLD things were infinitely WORSE. 

There, too, according to Roman law, the wife had no rights. Cato said: 

'If you were to take your wife in adultery, you could kill her with

impunity, without any court judgment; but if YOU were involved in

adultery, she would not dare to lift a finger against you, for it

is unlawful.'........"

   Barclay goes on to give more examples and historic words from

the Roman Empire to show how bad the state of affairs was for

marriage under their system. He ends by saying, "Happy marriage

was the ASTONISHING EXCEPTION. Ovid and Pliny had THREE 

WIVES; Caesar and Antony had FOUR; Sulla and Pompey had FIVE; 

Herod had NINE; Cicero's daughter Tullia had THREE husbands. 

The Emperor Nero was the third husband of Poppaea and the fifth 

husband of Statilla Messalina. It was not for nothing that the Pastorals

laid it down that the christian leader must be the husband of one

wife. In a world where even the highest places were DELUGED in

IMMORALITY, the Christian Church must demonstrate the CHASTITY,

the stability and the sanctity of the Christian home" (Emphasis

mine).

   We know from the words of Christ Himself (Mat. 19 etc) that

divorce is allowed for sexual unfaithfulness. Paul was also

inspired to state other situations where divorce and re-marriage

is acceptable and allowed by God (1 Cor. 7). I have covered that

very fully in my 70 page study called "Divorce and Re-Marriage,

What the Bible Really Teaches."  So this here cannot be saying

that a man in the ministry can only be married once, and can

never marry again under any circumstances, not even the death of

his wife. This here is not saying that such men must remain

single until their death. Paul, once said that they (Barnabas and

himself) had the power or authority to carry about a wife as did

Peter. Most scholars agree that Paul was a married man at one

time, but nothing is said what happened to her. Not allowing

servants of the Lord to marry when within the law of the Lord to

do so, has brought many sad and  terrible consequences upon the

largest of all the Christian Churches.  Every day it seems to

hear or read about single men in the ministry of that  large

Christian denomination that have fallen into sexual abuse with

those they were sent to serve and care for.

   It is also obvious that here the allowable "polygamy" life

style that was found under the Old Covenant, was not to be

allowed for the NT minister.

   Albert Barnes in his commentary on this has what I consider

some good logical words of understanding, he writes in part:

   "......There has been much difference of opinion on the

question whether the passage means that a minister should not

have more than one wife at the same time, or whether it prohibits

the marriage of a second wife after the death of the first...That

the former is the correct opinion seems to me to be evident from

the following considerations;

     (1) It is the most obvious meaning of the language....At a

time when polygamy was not uncommon, to say that a man should

'have but one wife' would naturally be understood as prohibiting

polygamy. (2) The marriage of a second wife after the death of

the first, is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as wrong. The

marriage of a widow to a second husband is expressly declared to

be proper (1 Cor.7:39)and it is not unfair to infer from that

permission that it is equally lawful and proper for a man to marry 

the second time. But if it is lawful for any man, it is also right 

for a minister of the gospel........Marriage is as honorable for a 

minister of the gospel as for any other man......(3) There was a 

special propriety in the prohibition, if understood as prohibiting 

polygamy. It is known it was extensively practiced, and was not 

regarded as unlawful. Yet one design of the gospel was to restore 

the marriage relation to its primitive condition; and though it might 

not have seemed ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY to require of EVERY 

MAN who came into the Church to divorce his WIVES, if he had 

MORE THAN ONE, yet, in order to fix a BRAND on this 

IRREGULAR practice, it might have been deemed desirable to 

require of the ministers of the gospel that they should have but 

one wife. Thus the PRACTICE of polygamy would GRADUALLY 

come to be regarded as dishonorable and improper, and the example 

and influence of the ministry would tend to introduce correct views 

in regard to the nature of this relation........" (Emphasis his).

   It is more than interesting to note that the NT is SILENT in

any specific way as to the subject of polygamy. What I mean is,

you cannot find any verse in the NT that addresses it in a direct

way such as : "We know under the OT God allowed polygamy, but

from this moment on all men wanting to come into the Church must

divorce all but one wife."  For starters, how would you determine

which wives to divorce? The man may have married two or three at

the same time, and a few others later.  

  They were legal marriages, and God had laws governing such 

allowances. Then, what would happen to these women who had been 

cared and provided for? 

  Would the Church just coldly cast them aside and say "tough luck,

your own your own."  What if the wives to be divorced had

children? Where would they go and with whom?  Ah, there is much

we have not given thought to concerning how the NT Church dealt

with the very real issue of polygamy. The Church today can face

the same situation as it goes into certain parts of the world where it 

is still practiced. Certainly it would be taught that under the NT 

polygamy is not the marriage ideal God wants for His children, 

but to immediately cut families apart who have known no

difference would probably bring more evil and harm on them than

allowing the situation to continue until nature or death takes it

course, with the understanding that such men now coming into more

light, will not acquire to themselves any more wives. 

   As Barnes said, with the ministers setting the NT example on

marriage, and the process of time taking its natural course, the

Church would eventually only have a man married to one wife at

one time, and polygamy would be a thing of the distant past.

     Certain things under the NT did not just come to an end

over-night. The use of the Temple and sacrificial laws continued

within the Church for decades, note Acts 21. The process of time

and correct teaching, with physical circumstances, eventually

ruled the day. Even the truth about the OT doctrine of

"circumcision" took many years before it prevailed, together with

some big theological battles along the way, as recorded in Acts

15. 

   Do we here find that a pastor is to be a married man?  Or at

least a man who had been married at one time, if not at the

present?

   Paul is giving GENERAL principles without introducing all the

exceptions to the rule, without going into all the various

different specifics that could arise within the life of a Church or 

those being selected for the Eldership. Overall then, he is instructing 

Timothy and the Church, that for a man to be a wise and understanding 

overseer in the Church, for a man to be able to give wise and helpful 

service to the married, with all the problems marriage can bring, 

it would be better for him to be a married man, or a man who has 

experienced marriage at some time in his life.  In verses 4 and 5 

Paul once more, practically taking for granted, automatically assumes 

the men chosen to oversee the Church will be married men.

   Certainly, some of the men in the ministry of the first century were 

by all indications, living as SINGLE men. Jesus said there would be some, 

to whom it was given, who would make themselves without sex(eunuchs) 

for the Kingdom of heaven's sake.

   These men would be the exceptions and not the rule. Paul may have

been such a "eunuch for the Kingdom's" sake, as his writings indicate 

at times.

   If such men had wives at home, or if they had lost them through death, 

or had never been married (being eunuchs for the Kingdom from the 

beginning) is not made clear. 

   The GENERAL principle of 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is that a

minister should be married. It is hard for me to imagine and to

understand how a man pastoring a flock of the Lord's could do so

effectively (with all the married couples it would undoubtedly

contain) if he himself was not married or had at least been

married at some point in time. The most effective instruction is

given by those who have experienced what they are instructing. Of

course this does not hold true to the !00% mark. A man should not

MURDER in order to teach someone not to murder.  But for

counselling married couples with their various trials and tests

and problems, it sure does help to have been there.

   If a man looses his wife in death during his ministry, does

that mean he is then taken out of the Eldership?  Of course not! 

All indications are that Paul, during his service in the ministry

lived as a single man. There is no indication he had a wife, and

some sentences of his give strong teaching that he was living as

a eunuch - sexless, and not married.

SOBER:

   The word "vigilant" as in the KJV is not in the Greek.  The

Greek word for "sober" is NEPHALIOS.  It means, sober, watchful,

vigilant.  His mind is "sound."  He is not "double-minded" as

James wrote about, one day this way and the next day that way,

one day spiritually hot and the next day spiritually off the

wall, and out in left field. He is not easily swayed from truth

to error, not easily tossed about with every wind of doctrine

that floats by his mind. He is not ruled by his emotions or

outside pressure or circumstances, that do not pertain to the

solid truth of the matter. He certainly will have emotions as did

Jesus, but he knows how and when to use them.  He will not be

perfect in this area, as he is still human, but most of the time

his mind is sober and sound.

   He will be decorous and know how to act properly towards

people. He will have a sound and sober mind in this very

important area of life, as much of his work is related to dealing

with people, to talking to people.  He will know the customs and

etiquette of the people he serves, or he will endeavor to learn

them and use them when conversing with different people from

different nationalities and races. 

   Can a man desiring the office of pastor or one who is now a

pastor, not ever make an error in knowing how to deal with

people?  Again, if we are looking for 100% perfection in the men

called to oversee the Church, then we would have no overseers or

pastors in the Church. We strive for perfection but fully and

complete perfection waits for the resurrection. 

   The overall general principle is that the Church leader

basically and for most of the times, by far most of the times,

knows how to deal with people. He is generally very sober minded

in his thoughts which translate into actions as he leads and

takes care of the Church of God.

DISCREET, WELL BEHAVED:

   Two Greek words are found here whereas the KJV has "of good

behaviour."  The Greek words are SOPHRON and KOSMIOS. 

   I will use the words of William Barclay to describe and

expound what these two words relate to us.

   "We have translated ‘sophron’ by 'prudent,' but it is

virtually untranslatable. It is variously translated 'of sound

mind, discreet, prudent, self-controlled, chaste, having

complete control over sensual desires."' The greeks derived it

from two words which mean 'to keep one's mind safe and sound.' 

The corresponding noun is 'soophrosunee,' and the Greeks wrote

and thought much about it. It is the opposite of intemperance and

lack of self-control. Palto defined it as ' the mastery of

pleasure and desire.'  Aristotle defined it as 'the power by

which the pleasures of the body are used as law commands.' 

Philo defined it as 'a certain limiting and ordering of the

desires, and which adorns those which are necessary with

timeliness and moderation.' ........Jeremy Trench describes

"soophrosunee" as 'the condition of entire command over the

passions and desires, so that they receive no further allowance

than that which law and right reason admit and approve.'  

Gilbert Murray wrote of 'soophroon' :  'There is a way of

thinking which destroys and a way which saves. The man or woman

who is 'soophroon' walks among the beauties and perils of the

world, feeling love, joy, anger, and the rest; and through all

he has that in his mind which saves. Whom does it save? Not him

only, but, as we should say, the whole situation. It saves the

imminent evil from coming to be.'  E.F. Brown quotes in

illustration of 'soophrosunee' a prayer of Thomas Aquinas which

asks for the ' quieting of all our impulses, fleshly and

spiritual.'

   The man who is 'soophroon' has every part of his nature under

control, which is to say that the man who is 'soophroon' is the

man in whose heart Christ reigns supreme.

   The companion word is 'kosmios,'  which we have translated

'well-behaved.'  If a man is kosmios in his outer conduct it is

because he is 'soophroon' in his inner life. Kosmios means

ORDERLY, HONEST, DECOROUS. In Greek it has two special 

usages.

   It is common in tributes and inscriptions to the dead. And it is

commonly used to describe a man who is a good citizen.  Plato

defines the man who is 'kosmios' as 'the citizen who is quiet in

the land, who duly fulfils in his place and order the duties which 

are incumbent upon him as such.'  This word has more in it

than simply good behaviour. It describes the man whose life is

beautiful and in whose character all things are harmoniously

integrated.

   The leader of the Church must be a man who is 'soophroon,' his

very instinct and desire under perfect control; he must be a man

who is 'kosmios,' his inner control issuing in outward beauty.

The leader must be one in whose heart Christ's power reigns and

on whose life Christ's beauty shines."

   This is what Albert Barnes has to say: "........he should be a

gentleman.  He should not be slovenly in his appearance, or rough

and boorish in his manners.......A minister of the gospel should

be a finished gentleman in his manners, and there is no excuse

for him if he is not.......He has usually received such an

education as ought to make him such, and in all cases ought to

have had such a training.......He should be an example and a

pattern in all that goes to promote the welfare of mankind, and

there are few things that are so easily acquire that are fitted

to do this, as refinement and gentility of manners. No man can 

do good, on the whole, or in the 'long-run,' by disregarding the

rules of refined intercourse; and, other things being equal, the

refined, courteous, polite gentleman in the ministry, will always

to more good......."

   Wow!  Now if we read all that again, I guess we could question

if any man is fit for the overseership in the Church of God. Let

us remember a leader must have a large dose of those qualities,

but perfection in those areas will not come until he is no longer

human but divine, and carnal human nature is no more. Still, 

the man who would qualify for Eldership in the Church will 

have proved that such qualities are a big part of his character 

here and now as he conducts himself within the congregation 

and those on the outside in the world.

GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY:

   I like what Richard Nickels (founder of "Giving and Sharing")

wrote on this: " to 'enjoy having guests at his home' (Living

Bible). Certainly this means more than putting up with people who

drop by. It means having a great care for serving others, getting

to know and appreciate others, listening to their problems,

lending them help when in need, and so much more. Care and

concern for other people is certainly a major criterion for a

faithful minister."

   Barnes writes: "This is often enjoined on all Christians as a

duty of religion......It was a special duty of the ministers of

religion, as they were to be examples of every Christian virtue."

   William Barclay says: "This is a quality on which the NT lays

much stress. Paul bids the Roman Church to 'practice hospitality'

(Romans 12:13). 'Practice hospitality ungrudgingly to one

another,' says Peter (1 Peter 4:9). In the Shepherd of Hermas,

one of the very early Christian writings, it is laid down: ' The

episkopos must be hospitable, a man who gladly and at all times

welcomes into his house the servants of God.'  The Christian

leader must be a man with an open heart and an open house....The

ancient world had a system of what were called 'guest

friendships'. Over generations families had arrangements to give

each other accommodation and hospitality. Often the members of

the families came in the end to be unknown to each other by sight

and identified themselves by means of what were called 'tallies.'

The stranger seeking accommodation would produce one half of 

some object; the host would posses the other half of the tally; and

when the two halfs fitted each other the host knew that he had

found his guest, and the guest knew that the host was indeed the

ancestral friend of his household.

   In the Christian Church there were wandering teachers and

preachers who needed hospitality. There were also many slaves

with no homes of their own to whom it was a great privilege to

have the right of entry to a Christian home. It was of the

greatest blessing that Christians should have Christian homes

ever open to them in which they could meet people like-minded to

themselves. We live in a world where there are still many who are

far from home, many who are strangers in a strange place, many

who live in conditions where it is hard to be a Christian. The

door of the Christian home and the welcome of the Christian heart

should be open to all such."

   Coming back to the local town and congregation that Elders

serve in, a minister I once knew very well, being a part of his

congregation, would, during the cold winter months on the

Canadian prairies, have three couples or couples and singles,

over each Saturday night to his home.  He and his wife and the

other six, would simply play table games together and fellowship.

   This way he said he could really get to know the people he

served, in an informal relaxed manner.  He himself was "down to

earth" as they say, and with his friendly hospitality, he built a

warm and loving Church. I well remember the day he and his wife

went back to the USA, where they were from. The whole

congregation felt that a part of them had been ripped away.

Indeed he was a fine example of a minister "given to

hospitality."

   

   Sorry to say I have also known ministers who were not

hospitable at all. Ministers who were cold, distant, never had

anyone in their homes unless it was on "official church" business

of some kind.  Obviously and as a natural outcome of this type of

personality, they tended to be harsh and dictatorial in their

conversations and in their sermons. People wanted to avoid them

as much as possible. Few were sorry to see them "saddle up and

move along" except they did feel sorry for the next congregation

who would have to endure such a minister.

   They were probably "ministers falsely so-called" who should

never have been ordained to the ministry in the first place, but

somebody was taken in by their "good looks" - "bright education"

- "charisma" - "powerful preaching" - "gift of the gab" or some

other Hollywood attributes.  And then they may have been ordained

by some "politicking" going on the their church organization. I'm

sorry to say but such evil has and does exist in some quarters of

some Church denominations.

   The true servant and minister of the Lord will be a man who is

"given to hospitality."

APT TO TEACH:

   Adam Clarke in his Bible commentary says: "Seventh - 

He should be APT TO TEACH; one CAPABLE OF TEACHING; 

not only WISE himself, but READY to communicate his wisdom 

to others. One whose delight is, to instruct the ignorant and those who 

are out of the way.......the bishops have been in general men of great 

learning and probity, and the ablest advocates of the Christian system,

both as to its AUTHENTICITY, and the PURITY and EXCELLENCE 

of its DOCTRINES and MORALITY........" (Emphasis Clarke).

   Albert Barnes writes: " Greek, DIDACTIC; that is, capable of

instructing, or qualified for the office of a teacher of religion. 

As the principle business of a preacher of the gospel is to TEACH, 

or to communicate to his fellow men the knowledge of the truth, 

the necessity of this qualification is obvious. No one should be allowed 

to impart INSTRUCTION to others of the doctrines and duties of

religion; and no one should feel he ought to continue in the

ministry, who has not industry, and self-denial, and the love of

study enough to lead him constantly to endeavour to INCREASE in

knowledge, that he may be qualified to teach others. A man who would 

TEACH a people, must himself keep in ADVANCE of them on

the subjects on which he would instruct them." (Emphasis Barnes).

   William Barclay writes in his Daily Study Bible: ".......It is

one of the disasters of modern times that the teaching ministry

of the Church is not being exercised as it should. There is any

amount of topical preaching and any amount of exhortation; but

there is little use in exhorting a man to be a Christian when he

does not know what being a Christian means. Instruction is the

primary duty of a Christian preacher and leader. The second

thing is this. The finest and most effective teaching is done not

by SPEAKING but by BEING.......that in him men see the reflection

of the Master......" (Emphasis his).

   I also like what Richard Nickels has to say: "A keen ability

to teach is not something one picks up overnight. It takes

patience to be a teacher, being gentle unto all, 2 Tim.2:24,25.

It is not an erudite scholar......Teachers need to adapt what

they say to each individual pupil........Some ministers are on an

'authority binge,'......not recognizing the fact every good

teacher should know that some of his pupils have more potential

than their teacher. One apt to teach helps each student fulfil

his or her potential. Also, any real teacher teaches so well that

his students are able to master the subject and teach others

as well, 2 Tim.2:2. show me a true minister, and he will be

surrounded by faithful men he has trained, who are able to 

teach others also."

   You will notice Paul does not say a man qualified for the

ministry must be a "great preacher."  There is a difference

between "preaching" and "teaching."  A man may have a wonderful

gifted voice for preaching, he may be able to "spell bind" his

audience with oratory and the inflections of the voice, he may be

able to put together a great message with words and examples, but

out of that "preaching mode" he may be a dismal failure at

"teaching" the heart and core of Christianity to anyone.

   All ministers of the Lord must be apt to teach, but they do

not all have to be apt to preach.  Preachers are needed in the

Church and in the Evangelistic field, but be assured those gifts

will be given to those ministers whom the Lord chooses to receive

those gifts. The one requirement for all in the Eldership is that

they are able to "teach."

   Does a man need a Ph.D. in "Bible teaching" before he can be

ordained to the ministry? Of course not!  He will no doubt make

teaching errors of one sort or another before his ordination, and

no doubt after it also, during his ministry. No human, except

Christ Jesus, had perfect knowledge in his physical life time.

Knowledge is something we are to continually grow in and seek

for. The teaching of true Bible knowledge and the Christian way

to live is a life time commitment and vocation. The man for the

ministry must certainly show he has ability to teach the words of

the Lord to others, but he must also show within that ability

that he has the attitude of mind to be willing to be corrected,

to admit errors, to prove all things, to love the truth, and to ever 

seek for it, to stand on it when found, so in all that he can continue 

to teach it to others. 

NOT GIVEN TO WINE:

   The Greek word is PAROINOS.  From the DAILY STUDY 

BIBLE by Barclay we read: 

   "In the ancient world wine was continually used. Where the

water supply was very inadequate and sometimes dangerous, 

wine was the most natural drink of all. It is wine which cheers the

hearts of gods and men (Judges 9:13). In the restoration of

Israel she will plant vineyards and drink the her wine (Amos

9:14). Strong drink is given to those who are ready to perish,

and wine to those whose hearts are heavy (Proverbs 31:6).

   This is not to say the ancient world was not fully alive to

the dangers of strong drink. Proverbs speaks of the disaster

which comes to the man who looks on the wine when it is red

(Proverbs 23:29-35). Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler

(Prov.20:1). There are terrible stories of what happened to

people through over-indulgence in wine. There is the case of Noah

(Gen.9:18-27); of Lot (Gen.19:30-38); of Ammon (2 Sam.13:28,29).

Although the ancient world used wine as the commonest of all

drinks, it used it most abstemiously. When wine was drunk, it was

drunk in the proportion of two parts of wine to three parts of

water. A man who was drunken would be disgraced in ordinary

heathen society, let alone in the Church........

   'Paroinos' means ADDICTED TO WINE, but it also means

QUARRELSOME, and VIOLENT. The point that the Pastorals 

make here is that the Christian must allow himself no indulgence 

which would lessen his Christian vigilance or soil his Christian

conduct" (Emphasis his).

   Adam Clarke writes: "An eighth article in his character is, he

must not be given to wine. This word not only signifies one who

is INORDINATELY ATTACHED TO WINE, A WINEBIBBER or 

TIPPLER, but also one who is IMPERIOUS, ABUSIVE, INSOLENT, 

whether through wine or otherwise. KYPKE contends for this latter 

acceptation here. See his PROOFS and EXAMPLES." 

(Emphasis Clarke).

   

   Banes' Notes on the NT says: "......The Greek word occurs in

the NT only here and in Titus 1:7. It means properly, BY WINE;

i.e., spoken of what takes place BY or OVER wine, as revelry,

drinking songs, etc. Then it denotes, as it does here, one who

sits BY wine; that is, who is in the habit of drinking it. It cannot 

be inferred, from the use of the word here, that wine was

absolutely and entirely prohibited; for the word does not

properly express that idea. It means that one who is in the HABIT

of drinking wine, or who is accustomed to sit with those who

indulge in it, should not be admitted to the ministry......"

(Emphasis his).

   I think we can get the true picture of what Paul was saying

and laying down here as one of the qualifications for the

ministry.  Anyone who is controlled by wine or alcohol, who

cannot live without it as we say, who must have it on a regular

basis, and/or who must always be in the company of those who sit

by wine, etc. to partake of it and their revelry, cannot be in

the Eldership of the Church.

   It would seem the days of Paul were not unlike our days today

in some regards. Then as today, certain individuals must meet

together in the local taverns/night-clubs or pubs(as they call

them in Britain) to drink and socialize, or their day was not

complete.  I have know people in my immediate family of relatives

in Britain, who organized their day around the local evenings

drinking fellowship in the pub. A huge tidal wave had to come

before they would miss that daily sitting by the wine.

   A Christian minister cannot be such a person in the daily

habits of his life.

   We note here that Paul is NOT prohibiting the use of wine per

se.  Jesus was called a "winebibber" by some of the religious

leaders of his time, not because he regularly drank Welch's Grape

Juice from the corner store. If that was all Jesus drank, simple

grape juice, they would have had no reason to try to claim He was

over-indulging in alcohol. They really were trying to claim he

was an alcoholic, because they knew He did partake of fermented

juice of the grape - wine.

   Jewish theology (the main common theology) from way back when,

has always taught and understood the words of God to allow the

consumption of alcohol in moderation. They have always understood

that God condemns getting DRUNK, or being an alcoholic, and not

the drinking of alcohol per se.

   A man wanting to be an overseer, or a man who is already one,

cannot exhibit a way of life that shows he is under the control

of alcohol.  If that is the case, then such a man cannot be

ordained to the ministry and if he is already a minister, he must

be asked to resign. He must have all ministerial duties removed

from him and should himself seek help, be encouraged to seek

help, to overcome his problem. I do not say he may not at some

point in the future be allowed back into the ministry, but that

is another matter I will not take up here, but leave to be covered 

under the subject of "Church Discipline for the Members and the 

Ministers."

   Suppose a man who could be ordained to the ministry should,

under some trial or temptation, fall and become on one occasion

"given to wine" - become under its control - in plain language,

DRUNK. Does that single error of sin FOREVER disqualify him 

from being considered for the ministry? I think not!  Oh, sure there

may have to be help given to him. He certainly will have to

repent. A number of things may have to be looked into to see if

this was just a one time fault, or if other underlying weaknesses

of character are included and part of a larger problem.  Yet

finding this is not the case, we must realize then that this is

not his way of life, alcohol does not control him as a practice.

He is not one who sits by wine.  Giving the man time, proving the

man, could still lead to him being called to the ministry.

   If he is an ordained minister who gets drunk one day, he has

indeed sinned, just as Peter sinned in his error (Gal.2).  If it

is clearly shown that it is not a life style of sin with wine,

and upon deep repentance as I'm sure Peter exhibited over his

sin, then he should be allowed to function in his office as an

Elder, just as Peter did. If his error was in public, he may need

a public rebuke or at least a rebuke before the Church congregation, 

again as in the example of Peter.

   Does that single sin disqualify him from the ministry? I think

not! Not anymore than Peter's single error disqualified him.

NOT A STRIKER:

 

   Banes: "He must be peaceable, not a quarrelsome man. This is

connected with the caution about the use of wine, probably,

because that is commonly found to produce a spirit of contention

and strife."

   Adam Clarke: "He must be no striker; not QUARRELSOME; not

READY TO STRIKE A PERSON who may displease him; no 

PERSECUTOR of those who may differ from him; not prone, as one 

wittily said, 'To prove his doctrine orthodox by apostolic blows and

knocks.'

   It is said of Bishop BONNER, of infamous memory, that, when

examining the poor Protestants whom he termed heretics, when

worsted by them in argument he was used to SMIGHT THEM WITH 

HIS FISTS, and sometimes SCOURGE and WHIP them......from such a

scripture as this he might have seen the necessity of

surrendering his mitre" (Emphasis his).

   Barclay says: "That this instruction was not unnecessary is

seen in one of the very early regulations of the APOSTOLIC

CANONS: ' A bishop, priest or deacon who smites the faithful when

they err, or the unbelievers when they commit injury, and desires

by such means as to terrify them, we command to be deposed; for

nowhere hath the Lord taught us this. When He was reviled, He

reviled not again, but the contrary. When He was smitten, He

smote not again; when He suffered, He threatened not.'  

   It will not be likely that any Christian leader will nowadays

strike another Christian, but the fact remains that blustering,

bullying, irritable, bad-tempered speech or action is forbidden

to the Christian."

   We have had some religious leaders in the very real present

age lead their followers by words and actions to their very

death, as if they were pleasing to God, and would somehow be

rewarded even more on the other side, for killing themselves

under the order of their physical leader. That of course is the

ultimate in striking someone down.

   

   Far more religious abuse in this area has taken place through

the "mouth" and certain "actions" on the part of Church leaders. 

Members have been raked up one side and down the other, called

out, marked and slandered from the pulpit, given orders to

have certain persons removed literally from the Church service.

Orders have been issued that not even family members in the same

congregation speak to those so cast out. Some ministers have

acted like Hitlers towards their congregations. So great has been

this kind of abuse in the last half of this 20th century that it

prompted an investigation by Ronald Enroth, out of which came his

book called " CHURCHES THAT ABUSE." It is still in print and

obtainable in paperback from your Bible Book store.

        To be continued 

                ............................

First written in 1986, re-written and expanded in January 1998. 

Church Minister Qualifications 

Part 2

An expounding on the teaching of Paul in 

1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1

Part 2

 by

 Keith Hunt

GENTLE (Patient):

   Barclay in his DAILY STUDY BIBLE writes, " The Greek is

'epieikes,' another of these completely untranslatable words. The

noun is 'epieikeia,' and Aristotle describes it as 'that which

corrects justice' and as that which 'is just and better than

justice.' He said that it was that quality which corrects the law

when the law errs because of its generality. What he means is

that sometimes it may be actually unjust to apply the strict

letter of the law. Trench said that 'epieikeia' means 'retreating

from the letter of right better to  preserve the spirit of right'

and is 'the spirit which recognizes the impossibility of cleaving

to all formal law.....that recognizes the danger that ever waits

upon the assertion of legal rights, lest they should be pushed

into moral wrongs.....the spirit which rectifies and redresses

the injustice of justice.'  Aristotle describes in full the

action of 'epieikeia,'  -  'To pardon human failings; to look to

the law-giver, not to the law; to the intention, not to the

action; to the whole, not to the part; to the character of the

actor in the long run and not to the present moment; to remember

good rather than evil, and the good that one has received rather

than the good that one has done; to bear being injured; to wish

to settle a matter by words rather than deeds.'  

.......The atmosphere of many a Church would be radically changed

if there was more 'epieikeia' within it."

   Is there anyone - would be Church leader - present overseer -

or any Church member - who can say they are ALWAYS patient and

gentle, that they are never impatient?  What if a would be, could

be, pastor shows on a few occasions impatience, would that

disqualify him from being considered to such a function and

office within the Church?  Now, if it was quite noticeable as a

way of life with him, yes, it would disqualify him, until

overcome.  What if a present pastor or elder should become

impatient at some time, should be less than gentle, would that

error cost him his function as elder?  If it becomes his life

style - his practice - yes, but otherwise, no.  It is rare indeed

for ANYONE never to become impatient with something, somebody,

somewhere along life's road. And again, in dealing with different

people, one person may claim a minister was not gentle with them,

yet another person would consider his manner very gentle.  So to

a point, and only to a point, I say, gentleness is in the eye of

the beholder.  But I think we all understand what I have stated

as compared to a leader who rides rough-shod over people. Those

who are bombastic, cutting, hard of speech, blunt and untactful,

in conversation with people have no place being in the ministry

of Jesus Christ.

   Even with dealing with those who are out of the way, and in

total error, Paul was inspired to say that the true servant of

the Lord had to be gentle, patient, apt to teach, and in meekness

instructing such individuals, if God peradventure would grant

them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth 

(2 Tim.2:24-26).    

NOT GREEDY OF BASE GAIN (filthy lucre):

   Barclay: "He will never do anything simply for profit's sake.

He will know that there are values which are beyond all money

price."

   Albert Barnes: "Greek, Not a lover of silver; that is of

money. A man should not be put into the ministry who is

characteristically a lover of money. Such a one, no matter

what his talents may be, has no proper qualification for the

office, and will do more harm than good."

   Now with that said, there is a contention that the above words

are not a part of the original writing of Paul. I refer you to

Adam Clarke's Bible Commentary for that matter.  We seek just a

few words later where the Greek word for "not loving money" is

used, the KJV has, "not covetous."  

   Would this be saying the same thing twice around?  Maybe it

would, then again, the first(if we conclude it is in the original

Greek) would be a general statement, and including all one could

imagine as "base gain" while the second pin-points a specific -

the love of money.

COVETOUS (not a lover of money):

   See the comments above. 

   Adam Clarke: "......not desiring the office for the sake of

its 'emoluments.' He who loves money will stick at nothing in

order to get it. Fair and foul methods are to him alike,

provided they may be equally productive. For the sake of

reputation he may wish to get all honorably; but if that cannot

be, he will not scruple to adopt other methods.  A brother

heathen gives him this counsel: 'Get money if you can by fair

means, if not, get it by hook and by crook.' "

NOT CONTENTIOUS (not a brawler):

   William Barclay: "The Greek means 'disinclined to fight.' 

There are people who, as we might put it, are 'trigger-happy' in

their relationships with other people. But the real Christian

leader wants nothing so much as he wants peace with his

fellow-men."

   Barnes: "Comp. 2 Tim.2:24. That is, he should not be a man

given to contention, or apt to take up a quarrel."

   The man of God is an individual who is not prone to enter into

quarrels or contentions with people. He is not going about to see

who he can fight with over this matter or that matter.  There is

a difference between having a discussion or even a debate with

someone over a religious matter, and keeping it within the

"spirit" of Christianity, and stepping over the line where it

becomes a "knock down drag out fight" of verbal abuse, where the

evil side of contentions step in.

   And there is also a difference between that unrighteous

adoption of verbal fighting, and the now and again time when

righteous indignation and "righteous judgment" must be employed

with some individual.

   The true minister of the Lord will know the differences and

will know how and when each is occurring, and govern himself

accordingly. Again, let me say, the servant of the Eternal is not

perfect, he is still flesh and blood, he may make an error some

time, but what makes him a true Elder of the Lord is that he will

repent of it, as soon as he sees it, or when it is pointed out to

him.

   Overall, the man of God is, as a person and as a way of

practical life, NOT A BRAWLER. He is not a hard-nosed street

fighter with words or with actions. Anyone who is, and will not

repent and change,  cannot and should not be in the ministry of

the Church of God. 

ONE THAT RULES WELL HIS OWN HOUSE:

   As Richard Nickels has noted: "This qualifications for an

overseer covers two areas of his personal life: (a) management of

the home and (b) training of children.  Is his home neat, clean,

orderly? Does he manage his finances well? Does he provide well

for his family? Are his children respectful, eager to learn more

of the Eternal's truth?.........

   Here is something that takes time. Obviously, an elder or

overseer is just that, an older man who has had the time to prove

his spiritual maturity........"

   Albert Barnes has a lot to say on this point, and I will take

the time and the space to quote much of what he has written.

   "One that rules well his own house. This implies that the

minister of the gospel would be, and ought to be, a married man.

It is everywhere in the NT supposed that he would be a man who

could be an example in all the relations of life. The positions

which he occupies in the Church has a strong resemblance to the

relationship which a father sustains to his household; and a

qualification to govern a family well, would be an evidence of a

qualification to preside properly in the Church. It is probable

that, in the early Christian Church, ministers were not

infrequently taken from those of mature life, and who were, at

the time, at the head of families; and, of course, such would be

men who had had an opportunity of showing that they had this

qualification for the office.  Though, however this cannot be

insisted upon now.......yet it is still true that, if he has a

family, it is a necessary qualification, and that a man in the

ministry should be one who governs his own house well.......

   (Note: We have covered the fact that some in the ministry of

the NT apostolic Church were not married with families, but that

was the exception and not the rule. Remember these are general

rules of qualifications Paul lays down, without going into the

exceptions. He himself knew the words of Christ that some to whom

it was given and could receive it, would make themselves eunuchs

for the Kingdom of heaven's sake - Keith Hunt).

Continuing with Barnes:

Having his children in subjection with all gravity...........He

should be a grave or serious man in his family; a man free from

levity of character, and from frivolity and fickleness, in his

intercourse with his children. It does not mean he should be

severe, stern, morose - which are traits which are often mistaken

for gravity, and which are as inconsistent with the proper spirit

of a father as frivolity of manner - but that he should be

a serious and sober-minded man. He should maintain proper

dignity, he should maintain self-respect; and his deportment

should be such as to inspire others with respect for him.

For if a man know not how to rule.........A Church resembles a

family. It is, indeed, larger, and there is a greater variety of

dispositions in it than there is in a family. The authority of a

minister of the gospel in a Church is also less absolute than

that of a father. But still there is a striking resemblance. The

Church is made up of an assemblage of brothers and sisters. They

are banded together for the same purpose, and have a common

object to air at. They have common feelings and common wants.

They have sympathy, like a family, with each other in their

distresses and afflictions. The government of the Church also is

designed to be 'paternal.' It should be felt that he who presides

over it, has the feelings of a father; that he loves all the

members of the great family; that he has no prejudices, no

partialities, no selfish aims to gratify. Now, if a man cannot

govern his own family well; if he is severe, partial, neglectful,

or tyrannical at home, how can he be expected to take charge of

the more numerous ' household of faith ' with proper views

and feelings? If, with all the natural and strong ties of

affection, which bind a father to his own children; if, when they

are few comparatively in number, and where his eye is constantly

upon them, he is unable to govern them aright, how can he be

expected to preside in a proper manner over the larger household,

where he will be bound with comparatively feebler ties, and where

he will be exposed to the influence of passion, and where he will

have a much less constant opportunity of supervision?......."

End quotes from Albert Barnes.

   Again, I must emphasis that Paul gives here a "general" rule.

   To insist that a man MUST have children or MUST even be married

to qualify for the ministry, is to lift this instruction completely out of 

the context of the NT.  For what about a man and his wife who were 

unable to have children (I guess some would argue they could 

adopt children)? What about those who lost their children in some 

terrible accident(I guess some would argue they could have more 

or adopt)?  What if a man was on the verge of being ordained to the 

ministry (say in one week) and through a car crash he lost his wife 

and children?  Would that mean his ordination was on an indefinite 

hold?  Oh, no indeed not, for he had already proved himself qualified 

and called to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

   This is an important matter, a man ruling well his own house.

Many variables come into play, and must be taken into consideration 

by the ministers and Church as this qualification is acted out in a 

man's life. I will give some examples to illustrate.

   (1)  A man has six children. Five are model children, well

behaved, respectful and a pleasure to know, but the sixth one,

that is another story altogether, a long way to go to catch up to

the other five. Does that one out of six children disqualify him

from being ordained to the ministry?  I am not saying that sixth

child has murdered someone or anything of that nature, and we 

are talking about "children" - under the age of 18 in North America. 

The whole situation would have to be looked at I know, but my

general opinion would be that the one unruly child out of six

would not disqualify him from the ministry.

   (2) A man raises his children well (I realize his wife is

probably just as much or even more responsible for this). They

are young teenagers. He is ordained to the ministry. Then a few

of his children some years later as older teens, go wild and

become a disgrace, yet most of his family stay true and strong in

the Christian faith. He and his wife did the very best with all

of them in very way, but a few got in with the wrong company.

Some could contend he did not do enough and he failed. He did not

have 100% complete success. Is he now to resign from the

ministry, or have this function taken away from him?  Again I

realize each situations would need to be looked at within its own

context. But do you see that Paul was giving a general principle

qualification, without going into all the fine points.

   (3) Now here's one for you to think about.  A man raises his

children very well. They are all say under the teenage line, but

the oldest is not far away from 13. The youngest we shall say is

10 years old. And we shall say there are three children. This man

for many years, since the children were babies, has ruled well

his own house in every way. He and his wife have been model

parents, and tried to do things by the book. The husband/father

has proved himself in all the qualifications Paul here lays down.

He is ordained to the ministry.

   Then as the years slowly roll by and the children become

teens, the troubles really start. All three children start to get

into troubles, and troubles, and more troubles. It becomes quite

obvious to all in the Church, these three children from one of

the Elders are way out of control, and they finally do things

that bring open disgrace on the congregation and community. 

Should that Elder step down from the function of the ministry? 

Should other Elders and the congregation ask/demand that he step

down?

   Don't think this never happens, for it indeed does. I have

witnessed it personally with men I knew.

   The above is something like an overseer who, during his ministry 

becomes controlled by wine/alcohol for whatever reasons.

Is such a man to be allowed to continue in the function of a

Church leader while being an alcoholic?  Or should he not step

down until at least the problem is overcome?

   Let's remember, Paul here gives general over all principles of

qualifications without going into all the varying details of

exceptions and individual specific cases that could possible

arise in the life of people and the Church of God.

   It's something like what God established with ancient Israel.

They were given basic laws and regulations to live by, but the

answer to every specific situations that could arise in Israel

was not all written down and answered in hundreds of books 

to be kept in the Tabernacle for reference when needed. God 

set up "judges" in Israel who had the job of deciding all the 

various specifics of the many variants that could arise within 

the lives of people - see Deuteronomy 17:8-13.

   What must govern is that a man shows he has all these points

of qualification under basic control, way more control than not

for sure.  He must have shown he has passed the exam on these

points, scored a very good grade, very close to the top of the

class, along with other men who could qualify with him, if there

are any others of course (remember Jesus said we should pray the

Lord of the harvest to send more laborers into the harvest, for

the harvest is ripe and ready to be gathered in).  This man

is not ruled by covetousness, impatience, wine, money, etc., but

has the mastery over these. And he has shown that he leads his

own home well. He does all these things well, very well in fact,

notwithstanding the errors and slips he may make sometimes on

account that he is still flesh and blood.

NOT A NOVICE:

   Richard Nickels: "A minister cannot be a recent convert, lest

he become proud and conceited at his authority and fall into the

same sin as Satan did. Any organization that send young men fresh

out of school to be 'spiritual leaders' of Churches is heading

the way of satan. A true elder has been trained for years under

another man. He knows life's problems because he has lived many

years, and worked with a great number of people."

   I understand fully the comment by Nickels, as I have

first-hand experience in being, at one time, a part of an

organization that did send young men fresh out of Theological

School to be "spiritual leaders" of Churches. Most of them had

never experienced walking as a Christian in the world, with all

its trials, temptations, job problems for those who keep the

Sabbath and Feast days, and all the other things that life in

society can bring. Most were young in marriage with no children

or very young children, having little experience in this aspect

of life.  And indeed, many did become inflated with pride and

vanity, until the whole organization eventually became filled

with the cancerous way of the deceptions of Satan. It was only

the few that remained faithful and had to pull away from the body

of sickness, to learn from the errors committed and move forward

in spirit and in truth. It is a hard way to learn. They say experience 

is the best teacher, but it is often not the most pleasant, as those 

who have gone through the experience I mention above will 

quickly assert.

   It should be obvious to most Christians that a man serving as

a Church overseer should be well grounded in Biblical knowledge,

understanding, and PRACTICE. The average person wanting the best

possible job done on his house plumbing, electrical work,

carpentry, or his children's dental work, eye care etc., is going

to find someone who he knows is WELL QUALIFIED in that area 

of work. with many years of study, knowledge, and PRACTICAL

experience behind them. It should be no different for those

entrusted with the care and guidance of the Church of God. If he

lacks knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and practical experience

in the things of God, and living as a Christian in the world, how

easy it would be for Satan to catch him and reap havoc within

the flock of the Lord. To try to save-guard this happening, Paul

was inspired to lay down a basic qualification for the ministry -

no novice to Christianity was to have the function of overseer

within the Church. This would help to guard against the attack of

Satan, but as we see from Acts 20 it would not guarantee complete

elimination of false seduction from Elders within the Church.

Paul knew well that even Elders who were not novices could go

astray and be caught in the web of Satan.  There is much the NT

has to say about apostasy entering the Church from WITHIN the

Church itself via ministers who would fall away from the truth of

the word of God. That is another subject for another time.

   Here is what Albert Barnes writes:

          ".....The Greek word, which occurs nowhere else in the

NT, means, properly, that which is NEWLY PLANTED. Thus it 

would mean a plant that was not strong, or not fitted to bear the

severity of storms; that had not as yet struck its roots deep,

and could not resist the fierceness of a cold blast. Then the

word comes to mean a new convert; one who has had little

opportunity to test his own faith, or to give evidence to others

that he would be faithful to the trust committed to him. The word

does not refer so much as to one young IN YEARS, as one who is

young IN FAITH.  Still, all the reasons which apply against

introducing a very recent convert into the ministry, will apply

commonly with equal force against introducing one young in years.

   Lest being lifted up with pride. We are not to suppose that

this is the ONLY reason against introducing a recent convert into

the ministry, but it is a SUFFICIENT reason.........He fall into

the condemnation of the devil. That is, the same kind of

condemnation the devil fell into; to wit, the condemnation on

account of pride.......

   The idea of Paul is, that a young convert should not suddenly

be raised to an exalted station in the church. Who can doubt the

wisdom of this direction?  The word rendered LIFTED UP, is from a

verb which means, to smoke, to fume, to surround with smoke; then

to INFLATE - as a bladder is with air; and then to be conceited

or proud; that is, to be LIKE a bladder filled, not with a solid

substance, but with air" (Emphasis his).

A GOOD REPORT OF THEM THAT ARE WITHOUT:

   Richard Nickels has truly written: "Last but certainly not

least, is this important must for a would-be elder or overseer.

Those outside the Church are the best judge of religious

hypocrisy. They are quick to detect the fakes who don't practice

what they preach......"

   Once more we shall hear from Albert Barnes:  "Who are without

the Church; that is, of those who are not Christians......The

idea is he must have a FAIR REPUTATION with them.....He must 

be true, and just, and honest in his dealings with his fellow

men.....He must not give occasion for scandal or reproach

.....with the other sex......The reason for this injunction is

too obvious. It is his business to endeavor to do such men good,

and to persuade them to become Christians. BUT NO MINISTER 

OF THE GOSPEL CAN POSSIBLE DO SUCH MEN GOOD, 

UNLESS THEY REGARD HIM AS AN UPRIGHT AND HONEST 

MAN......Go to a man whom you have defrauded, or who regards you 

as having done or attempted wrong to any other, and talk to him about 

the necessity of religion, and he will instinctively say, that he does not 

WANT a religion which will not make its professor true, honest, and pure.  

It is impossible, therefore, for a minister to over-estimate the

importance of having a FAIR CHARACTER in the view of the world,

and no man should be INTRODUCED INTO the ministry, or 

SUSTAINED IN IT, who has not a fair reputation.......

   Lest he fall into reproach......His life will be such as to give men 

occasion to reproach the cause of religion.

   And the snare of the devil.......The snare to which reference

is here made, is that of BLASTING THE CHARACTER AND 

INFLUENCE OF THE MINISTRY OF THE GOSPEL......

If there is anything of this kind in the life of a minister which 

they can make use of, they will be ready to do it......Satan is 

constantly aiming at this thing; the world is watching for it; 

and if the minister has any PROPENSITY which is not in entire 

accordance with honesty, Satan will take advantage of it, and l

ead him into the snare" (Emphasis his and mine).

   Paul is saying that generally, overall, a man chosen for the

ministry must be well liked and respected by the overall

neighbors, business associates, etc.  To be sure, given enough

time, and enough people, someone you rub shoulders with in the

world is not going to get along with you for one reason or

another(sometimes it's just personality clashes), and would be

happy to blackball you if asked about you.  Often such may be

due to misunderstanding, or not getting what they wanted from

you, disagreeing with you over some issue, maybe it is pure

jealousy.  Whatever, there is probably someone, somewhere, that

you have crossed paths with, that has it in for you and will be

glad to speak evil of you if given the chance.  This Paul I'm

sure knew very well, from his own personal ministry and the

enemies he had.  This is not the point Paul was addressing.

What he was stating is the overall points that Albert Barnes

talked about in his comments.

   We must also remember this report comes from "those without"

the Church, not from those within on this particular qualification.  

The general opinion must come from the world, without any influence 

from the Church. The world must speak for itself fair and square.  

   This point of qualification also shows forth the truth that in

the mind of the apostle Paul, a man fit for the ministry was a

man who had working experience within the daily life of the

working world. He was not a man straight from High School 

into Theological School and out  to pastor a Church or serve as

assistant pastor for a year or two before moving on to full

pastorship. He was a man who had served in the working world 

for quite some time, because he was able to have built up a

reputation among the people of those without the Church.

   Again, what better way to serve those in the Church who have

to deal with and live as a Christian  on a daily shoulder rubbing

basis, with the world, than having the personal experience of

"being there."  They will truly know what it is like and can be 

a faithful helper, guide, comforter, and server of their needs,

because they have walked the same road at one time.

   Jesus, it is written, is a faithful High Priest for us, because 

He became flesh and blood. He was tempted in all points as we 

are, yet was without sin. He knows exactly our needs, our pains, 

our trials, our fight against Satan and his world, as well as the pull 

of human nature. He has been there, experienced it all in an overall 

way, and so it fitted Him to be a better High Priest in heaven above.

                   QUALIFICATIONS IN TITUS

   Paul was inspired to tell Titus the qualifications needed for

a man to attain the function of Elder or Overseer in the Church. 

Below I give the list of comparisons between Timothy and Titus,

as drawn up by Richard Nickels in his study paper on this

subject.

1 Timothy 3   Titus 1

                    

(1) Blameless.                           (1) Blameless as the steward of God.    

                                       

(2) Husband of one wife.           (2) Husband of one wife.

(3) Vigilant, sober, good   (3) Sober, just, holy, temperate

behavior.                                 

                                     

(4) Given to hospitality.            (4) Lover of hospitality, lover of good men.

                                     

(5) Apt to teach.                          (5) Holding fast the faithful word as he has been                      

                                                                     

                                          able by sound  doctrine both to exhort   

                                      

                                         and convince (convict) the gainsayers

                                 

(6) Not given to wine, no striker, (6) Not self-willed, not soon angry, not given to wine,

patient, not a brawler.               no strike

                                      

(7) Not greedy of filthy lucre...     (7) Not given to filthy lucre.

not covetous.

(8) Ruling well his own house,     (8) Having faithful children  

having his children in              not accused of riot or unruly

subjection with all gravity.                                          

(9) Not a novice.                        (9) Holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught

                                    

(10) A good report of them which  (10) .....(absent).

are without.

We can see from the above that in nine of ten qualifications, Titus 1 agrees with Timothy 3.

                         CONCLUSION

   As we evaluate the guidelines for those called to the ministry

of the overseership in the Church, as given by Paul to Timothy

and Titus, we must be very careful to always put those basic

qualifications within the context of the whole NT. This can be

the only correct way if we are to avoid a distorted view of those

qualifications.

   We must keep firmly in our mind that Paul is giving GENERAL

statements only, without going into all the various variables on

each, that could arise within the context of any particular

Church, as it moves through time.

   There is of course little problem in applying these

qualifications to a specific man if he refuses to accept the call

to the ministry, or if he himself wilfully resigns from the

Eldership. The difficulty for the individual member of the Church

arises when a minister has sinned and continues to sin, but will

not step down from the function of overseer/elder.  I hope this

study and my paper on "When Does a Minister Disqualify Himself

from the Ministry?" will help the inquiring mind regarding this

important doctrinal topic.

   The overall determining factors I believe can be broken down

into THREE basic areas or points:

      1. Repentance       2. Practice      3. Doctrine

   I have covered these points in some detail in my article on

"Disqualification" mentioned above.  But I think it is

appropriate to briefly summarize them again here.

Repentance:

   A minister does sin. Sometimes his sin may be open before

others and correction may need to be given before others (the

example of Paul with Peter - Gal.2). A true servant of the Lord

will repent with real repentance as exhibited by people like Job

and David.

Practice:

   This covers an undetermined amount of time. What must be

watched for and noted is a wrong attitude towards the weaknesses

a man possesses (ignoring them, denial of them,

self-justification, lying about them etc.) and repeating or

practicing of them, as a way of life.

Doctrine:

   A man who has or is presented with the facts of truth and

given time to digest them, who is confronted and debated with,

but refuses to repent of teaching clear and obvious error, 

as established on the plain word of the Lord, is a man who

is no longer being led by the Holy Spirit. For the simple

teaching of Jesus was that, ".....when he, the Spirit of truth is 

come, he will guide you into all truth....."  (John 16:13).

   

    Jesus said He would build His church, and He also said the

gates of hell would not prevail against it, meaning death would

not overcome it. His NT Church would never die out. Then Christ

inspired Paul to say that God had put certain functions within

the Church. The ministry would have men working within it that

would have different gifts and responsibilities, some would be

apostles, some would be evangelists, some prophets, and

some pastors and teachers (Ephesians 4:11,12).  

   Jesus also told his followers to pray to the Father to send

more laborers into the harvest to reap because the harvest is

great. certainly every Christian can be a harvester for the Lord,

but the flocks gathered in from the harvest do need to be guided,

led, pastored. All flocks must have a least one shepherd to

oversee them, to help them, to serve them.

   True Godly men who can be called to the Eldership in the

Church is needed in a HUGE way.  It is a vital part of the health

of the Church of God.  A calling to the ministry of Jesus Christ

is a tremendous responsibility.  When that calling is accepted it

should be a life time commitment.  I was just reading in one of

the Sabbath keeping Church of God publications, that a certain

Elder just died last September 1997. He was 95 years old, and

upon his death he was still an active overseer/elder in his local

Church.  If health of body and mind holds to the end, then this

is how it should be in the ministry. This does not mean a man is

an Elder till death regardless of how he lives etc.  We have seen

that a man can disqualify himself from the ministry(certainly my

study paper on that side of the topic shows it).

   

   We need as individuals to pray that more men will become

qualified to enter the calling of the overseership in the Church.

We need to pray once they are functioning in that capacity, that

they will remain true and faithful to the end.  For out of all of

them who start out correctly with the Lord on this road of

service, some will go astray, fall into apostasy, be caught in

the snare of Satan (Paul knew it would be so - see Acts 20).  

   All individual Christians have a personal responsibility. 

They are never to give their mind over to any man, or any

organization of men. They are to have a personal relationship

with the Lord, which means in part, that they search the

scriptures daily, prove all things, and personally keep their

nose in the Bible, so they will always know who speaks the truth

of the word of God.

   

   The Eternal DOES have and WILL have, His true faithful

ministers on this earth. Hopefully this study article will help

you determine who they ARE, and who they possibly CAN be.

         ..........................................

Written first in 1986. Re-written and enlarged in January 1998.

Permission is granted to photo copy, print, publish, distribute

all studies by Keith Hunt, as the Spirit of the Lord leads. Mr.

Hunt trusts nothing will be changed without his consent.