Apostles, Elders and Deacons
September 10th, 2006 by Stephen
This is the third and final part of my series on Apostles and Elders.
So now what of the qualifications of an overseer? Much of the passage in 1 Timothy 3 is clear on the qualifications required. For instance an overseer clearly must be above reproach if he is
to be trusted by the congregation, especially as he would have oversight of the finances also.
The point that he must be the husband of one wife is more difficult. The assertion that he must be married would seem to be out of place here, and this is clearly not an admonition against polygamy as it is unlikely such a thought would enter a first century Christian’s mind, so the most likely interpretation is that he must not have re-married after death of his partner or possibly after divorce. Some would even argue that this simply says he must not be divorced, but this is not explicit.
This interpretation seems to fit as re-marriage seems to have been frowned upon within the early church (note that re-marriage also disqualified women from enrolling on the order of widows).
The next quality worthy of note is that the overseer must be an apt teacher which, as was pointed out earlier, would point toward teaching being the specific role of the overseers. If a man cannot teach then surely he is not called to be an overseer.
Note the quality later on – that he is not quarrelsome. One might wonder whether those who would tend to split churches over the issue of church leadership might not take note of that
requirement of an overseer!
It is interesting to see Paul insert this quality as he certainly had his fair share of quarrelsome churches, and remember that Timothy was at Ephesus, the home of Hymaneus and Alexander.
The “no lover of money” qualification could start many a sermon, but Paul probably had in mind the fact that the overseers administered the common purse which paid for the order of widows and other such social concerns. Nevertheless it is hard to understand how someone who does not give happily to church affairs could be considered for a post as an overseer.
There is also the possibility that the overseer will be led astray by bribery, or that they will ignore church concerns for the hope of monetary gain. Paul wanted overseers to be people who would rest within the provision of God.
The church in Ephesus had probably been around for about twelve years, so we can understand a recent convert to be someone converted in te last year or two. There would be (and still is)
a strong temptation to promote some Christians to positions of church leadership very quickly if they are “socially acceptable”, but such temptations must be avoided as it may be detrimental to the Christian and the Church to do this.
The final qualification, the good reputation, stands to reason. All Christians should aspire to a good reputation, but this must be especially true of those who are overseers.
Now the list for qualifications for deacons follows straight after the qualifiations for overseers, but there are some notable differences between the two offices: Firstly there is no reference to teaching and hospitality for the deacon, and secondly it is hinted within this passage that the preliminary scrutiny was more rigorous then the scrutiny given to overseers, which would suggest that overseers would often be taken from those who had already proven themselves, normally in the capacity of a deacon perhaps.
Again the list of qualifications can be understood without to much thought. A deacon needed to be serious in his inward temper and outward bearing, consistent in what they said, not a drunkard or greedy for gain (as for the overseer).
The mystery that Paul speaks of in verse 9 is the divine secret now revealed, and the call for a clear conscience suggests that without such our head knowledge is useless.
Paul then instigates a probationary period for deacons, which presumably was not required for the overseers. This again suggests the greater rigour accorded to this role as discussed above.
Now the next verse is translated in the NIV “in the same way, their wives…”. A footnote admits here the possibility that this could be translated “deaconesses” and that is a view I support.
J N D Kelly[1] suggests the only reason Paul did not write “the deaconesses also…” is because koine greek simply had no such word. The literal translation of the verse is “The women also”,
and if Paul had meant the wives of the deaconesses he would surely have said as much.
The deaconesses have a parallel list to the male deacons list and this, as well as church history, would bear out that Paul is saying here that women can be deacons. The lack of any such comment about women overseers would suggest that this role was seen by Paul as exclusively male, which would be in keeping with the apostles earlier comments about not allowing a woman to teach or have authority in the church.
The True Biblical Church
This then is a reconstruction of the embryonic church structure as best we can understand it, but what light does all this shed upon todays church situation? Are we all wrong, and should we try to re-create this church structure?
Well clearly we can learn from this structure, but in my opinion it was never intended to be the only valid arrangement of church affairs. The church organised itself in this way in order to
safeguard its members and to protect itself from error, but any church structure which glorifies God and safeguards the truth of his gospel is surely equally valid.
Perhaps the first lesson we can learn from this study is rather that no church has managed to truly emulate the early church structure, and all such claims are false. I know of no church
which has a structure exactly as I have described, and because there are areas of doubt in our reconstrution we can never regain with certainty that orginal structure.
We cannot be driven by pride or emotion on this point. We may learn much from Paul’s pastoral epistles, but we will never learn how to build the “one true biblical church”, because that simply does not exist.
We can learn much about the expected attitudes and qualifications of our leaders, and we can perhaps try to model and even enhance the embryonic church, but this model (like all good models) is one which is flexible and adaptable in its application, and if one church separates the ministry of elders and deacons, whilst another starts talking about bishops, then who are we to say that one is better then the other? If both churches glorify God then perhaps we should be content.
Notes
[1] The Pastoral Epistles – J.N.D Kelly
