An Exposé of 1 Peter 3:20-21

Posted on October 29, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

1 Peter 3:20-21 reads, “. . . In the days of Noah . . . few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Grammatically, the comparison is not between the ark of old and baptism today. The comparison is between what the waters of old did and what baptism does for man today.

What is the comparison? The comparison is that both save. The same waters that destroyed the wicked of Noah’s day, also carried Noah and his family to safety. Water was the delineating mark between the lost and the saved then, and even so now. “Baptism doth now save.”

The parenthetical words, “(not the putting away of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)” speaks of the dissimilarity between the waters of old, and the waters of the New Testament baptism. The waters of the old immediately removed Noah’s family from all external wickedness and sinful flesh. The term “flesh” is herein being used, just as it was in the historical account of the flood. Look at Genesis 6:11-17: “The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, the end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh. . .” Peter says concerning the flood, “The world that then was . . . perished” (2 Peter 3:6). When Noah and his family set foot off the ark, they entered a new pristine physical world. All persecution and influence of wicked flesh was gone. The waters of the old cleansed the planet of wicked flesh. New Testament baptism will not do this for us. The waters of baptism do not make this world any less harsh. We, following baptism, still have to live, for now, in this physical world. There are still wicked men around us. [Note: Some have the idea that this verse means “baptism is not like taking a bath.” The E.S.V. reads “Not as the removal of dirt from the body”. The N.A.S.B. reads “Not the removal of dirt from the flesh”. The N.I.V. reads “Not the removal of dirt from the body”. This rendering has two problems – (1) it misses the connection with the Genesis flood; (2) it assumes the personal bathing is in view, when such does not fit the context.]

What does baptism, then, do for us? It is (. . . the answer of a good conscience toward God).” The original word rendered “answer,” Thayer defines to mean, “1. An inquiry, a question . . . 2. A demand . . . 3. As the terms of inquiry and demand often include the idea of desire, the word thus gets the idea of earnest seeking, i.e. a craving, an intense desire . . .” Vines: “Note: Eperotema, 1 Peter 3:21 is not, as in the K.J.V., an ‘answer’. It was used by the Greeks in a legal sense, as a ‘demand, or appeal’”. Arndt and Gingrich indicates the word can mean, “request, appeal . . . an appeal to God for a clear conscience, 1 Peter 3:21”.

Here is what some other translations have done with the wording. The A.S.V. translates this, “The interrogation (footnoted ‘or inquiry or appeal’) of a good conscience toward God.” The N.A.S.B. renders this, “. . . an appeal to God for a good conscience”. Charles Estes’ The Better Version of the New Testament words it, “. . . the seeking of a good conscience toward God.” Hugo McCord’s New Testament Translation of The Everlasting Gospel translates it, “. . . the appeal to God of a clear conscience”. The E.S.V. reads “. . . an appeal to God for a good conscience”.

Let’s look at some other occurrences of this original term in the sacred scriptures. The word appears in the LXX (Septuagint – Greek translation of the Old testament) in 2 Samuel 11:7: “And when Uriah came unto him, David demanded of him how Joab did, and how people did, and how war prospered.” The word rendered ‘demanded’ is the same word in the LXX. Related words appear in Acts 5:27 (there rendered ‘asked’): Matthew 12:10 (rendered ‘asked’); Matthew 16:1 (rendered ‘desired’).

The point is this: (1) Both waters of the Old and the waters of New testament baptism save. (2) the waters of Old saved Noah from wicked flesh. It cleansed the physical world. New Testament baptism does not do this. (3) In New Testament baptism, the inner man is cleansed. Our sins are washed away (Acts 22:16; Acts 2:38). The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume) says, “Baptism does not confer physical cleansing but saves us as a request for forgiveness.”

Baptism does not remove this wicked world: But, it does remove our guilt of past sins, so that we may have a good conscience toward God. We can rejoice knowing our sins are completely forgiven (Acts 8:36-39 cf., Hebrews 9:7-9, 13-14, 10:3-4, 22).

Bryan, are you teaching salvation by water? Yes, I am, but not salvation by the power of water itself. Look again at 1 Peter 3:21, “. . . by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”. None of us could be saved without the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. That is the power that saves. But the question is: Has God asked us to do anything before we receive this power? The answer is yes!

Think of Naaman. Did water have something to do with his cleansing? Yes, certainly it did. Was the power in the water itself? No! The power was not in the water itself, but in God. Naaman understood this fact (2 Kings 5:15). But, the cleansing came when he complied with what God made as a condition for healing. Even so, it is here. The power is in God and the blood of Christ. The question is: When does God apply such to our lives? Baptism is inseparably linked with the blood of Christ (1 Peter 3:21; Rev. 7:14; Acts 22:16; Rom. 6:3-4).

Posted in baptism, Plan of salvation, Textual study, Type/Antitype, Word Study | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Selection and Rejection of Elder, Deacons, and Preachers

Posted on October 26, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

Elders

We’ve studied the qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).  Now, we’ll look at how these men are selected.  Paul and Barnabas are said to have “ordained (appointed NASB/NKJV) elders in every church” in the region of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Acts 14:23).  Titus is told by Paul to do the same in Crete (Titus 1:5).  Thus, Preachers had a role in the process.

Does the word “ordain” or “appoint” indicate that the preacher is to select the elders?  No, the word in no way implies this.  The original wording of Titus 1:5, also appears in Acts 6:3.  A reading of Acts 6 reveals: (1) The “multitude of disciples” in the church at Jerusalem did the seeking out from among them and the choosing of qualified men – Acts 6:2, 3, 5; (2) The apostles (preachers) did the appointing – Acts 6:3-6.  The people made the selection and the apostles formally or officially installed them.  A preacher may teach on the subject.  He may move the process along.  He may preside over the installation ceremony.  However, the people do the selecting.

The word ‘ordain’ in Acts 14:23 is different than the word in Acts 6:3 and Titus 1:5.  The word means “primarily to stretch out the hand; secondarily, to appoint by a show of the hand; and thirdly, to appoint or elect without regard to method.  Whether it designates here an act of Paul and Barnabas, or one which they caused the people to do, is not made clear.  The force of the word favors the former view, while the previous act of the twelve in requiring the multitude to choose the deacons (6:1-3) favors the later” (McGarvey: New Commentary on Acts).  Whatever the case, it seems clear the precedent or Acts 6 would indicate that the church members of the local congregation do the choosing [ “A Fortiori principle”  (see article on qualifications of an elder for a fuller discussion of this principle).  The process of the selection of the lesser office of deacon sets the precedent for the selection of the greater office of elder.  This is especially evident when the process is specified for the lesser office but not explicitly stated for the greater, but related office.]

No authority exists for a committee to be set up which by-passes or circumvents this process.

Further, an eldership is not a self-perpetuating organization.  The members of the church choose the elders.  There is no authority for things to be done otherwise.

A man should maintain the qualifications and continue to do the work of an elder.  Curtis Cates has written, “If he becomes disqualified or ceases to carry out the task, he should resign,”  but then he cautions against resigning for the wrong reasons saying, “an elder should not resign in the midst of battle…” (TGJ Vol. 9, No. 2, page 8), to do such would be to abandon one’s duty.

What if one is concerned that an elder is no longer qualified, or is no longer doing his duties?  The answer is the elder should be confronted with such, if the evidence is adequate (1 Timothy 5:19-20).  Like anyone else he should be given the opportunity to repent.  If repentance is not forth-coming, a congregation should handle the situation as one would other known sinners among them who refuse to repent.

A word of caution: one should not expect an elder to be one who never sins or falls short.  We all do so from time to time.  The real issue is how does the man deal with such?

Another word of caution, to rebel against God’s appointed men is to rebel against God (see Numbers 12, Numbers 16), to murmur against them is to murmur against God (Exodus 16:1-2 cf. 7-8; Numbers 14:1-2 cf. 27; Numbers 16:11).  One should be careful when complaining against elders, deacons, or preachers.

Deacons

Their qualifications were studied (1 Timothy 3:8-13).  Remember that the apostles seem to have functioned as the authority in the local church at Jerusalem, prior to the establishment of the eldership (see Acts 4:35, 37; 5:2 cf. 11:30).  Therefore, following the precedent of Acts 6, the eldership should decide if they need to add deacons, and how many.

The congregation then seeks out and chooses men qualified men.  The congregation, not the elders or the preacher alone, does this. If a deacon is no longer qualified, what was said under the elders above holds true here, as well.  Also, if the deacon has fulfilled his duties and the elders have no more assignments for him.  Then he really is no longer a deacon.  One should not be a deacon in name alone.

Again, I would caution all to remember, there is only one sinless man who ever lived.  Don’t have unrealistic expectations of those who serve.

Preacher

God has not specified which individual is to preach any given Sunday in the pulpit before the assembly.  The elders have authority in unspecified matters [see The Work of Elders].  They decide who preaches and such should be accepted unless one is disqualified by God to preach (e.g. women preachers, non-Christians, etc.).  The elders ordain the preacher not some denominational board.  Note: It is hard to understand how some congregations have an eldership and yet the preacher is selected by a preacher selection committee.  I never understood how an eldership could delegate such an important decision.

A preacher should not be dismissed for preaching the truth (cf. Galatians 4:6).  Moreover, he should not be dismissed for some of the flimsy reasons given today, such as: (1) “He’s too young, or too old” (cf. 1 Timothy 4:12; 1 Corinthians 16:10-11; 11:16); (2) “It’s just time for a change.” Is the man doing his work?  Often, it’s not just the preacher who needs to change.  Congregations who change preachers frequently think that it’ll solve their problems or lack of growth history of the congregation usually shows little was solved by doing so.  (3) Numbers alone (cf. 2 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 3:20).  (4) “We don’t like his personality.”  Folks, if we can’t get along here, what are we going to do in heaven?  Or will we be there?

If, on the other hand: (1) The preacher is no longer doing his work as he should; (2) The preacher is no longer submissive to the elder’s authority as he should be; (3) He has sin in his life for which he refuses to repent; (4) The preacher’s influence and reputation is tarnished or gone in the community – then, it may well be time to move on to another preacher.  The elders make this call and will be, no doubt, accountable before God.

Posted in Church Organization, Elders and Deacons, Preachers | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Qualifications of Preachers

Posted on October 24, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

Like elders, preachers are referred to by different terms in the Bible.  Each of these terms reveal much about their role.  They are called: (1) Ministers or servants – Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 3:5; 4:1; 2 Cor. 3:6; 6:4; Eph. 3:7; 6:21; Col. 1:7; 1:23; 1:25; 4:7; 1 Thes. 3:2; 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 2:24.  The word means “a servant” (Vine’s).  These men are ministers of Christ (Rom. 15:16; 1 Cor. 4:1; Col. 1:7; 1 Tim. 4:6), the Lord (2 Tim. 2:24), God (2 Cor. 6:4; 1 Thes. 3:2).   (2) Evangelist – Acts 21:8; Eph. 4:11; 2 Tim. 4:5.  The word means “a bringer of good tidings” (Thayer), “lit. a messenger of good” (Vine’s).  They proclaim the Gospel. (3) Preacher – Rom. 10:14; 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; 2 Pet. 2:5.

Timothy is called a minister (1 Tim. 4:6 cf. 2 Tim. 4:5), and an evangelist (2 Tim. 4:5).  He is also told to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2).  The three words can be used interchangeably.

Maybe, you haven’t thought about it.  However, there are qualifications (or maybe characteristics is a better term) that should be met and maintained by a preacher.

Positive Qualifications

  1. His is to be “apt to teach” KJV, “able to teach”  NKJV/NASB (2 Tim. 2:24).  The word in the original language means “skilled in teaching” (Vine’s).  The man is to know the book and be able to convey it to others.  This same word is used of elders (1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:9).
  2. He’s to be “gentle unto all men” KJV, “kind to all” NASB (2 Tim. 2:24).  This word means “affable… mild, gentle” (Thayer), “mild, gentle, was frequently used by the Greek writers as characterizing a nurse with trying children or a teacher with refractory scholars, or of a parent toward children” (Vine’s).  Paul employed this term saying, “we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children” (1 Thes. 2:7).
  3. He’s to be “patient” KJV, “patient when wronged” NASB, “forbearing” ASV (2 Tim. 2:24).  The word means “patiently forbearing evil, lit. patient of wrong” (Vine’s), “patient of ills and wrongs, forbearing” (Thayer).  Denny Petrillo has written, “Every preacher is going to be wronged, and it is hard to be patient with those guilty of committing this wrong.  The word for this expression… has to do with bearing evil without resentment” (Commenting on this verse in his commentary on 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, p. 130).  He is to gently correct those in the wrong (2 Tim. 2:25).
  4. He is to be a good representation of Christianity (1 Tim. 4:12).  He’s to be an example in word (speech NASB), in conversation (conduct NASB/NKJV), in charity (love NASB/NKJV), in Spirit (attitude, energy B.H.), in faith (trust, reliance upon God B.H.), in purity (holiness B.H. – sometimes connected with sexual purity cf. 1 Tim. 5:2).  In other words, he’s not just to preach a good message.  He should be striving to live by that same message.  It has been said, “He is a poor preacher who cannot preach a better message than he lives, but he is a poorer preacher who does not strive hard to live up to what he preaches” (read Rom. 2:1-3, 21-24).
  5. He is to “flee” sinful lusts (2 Tim. 2:22).  The word “flee” means “to flee i.e. … to flee away, seek safely by flight… to flee (to shun or avoid by flight” (Thayer).  He needs to be as Joseph (Gen. 39:1-15).  He needs to look for that way of escape (1 Cor. 10:13).  The word “flee” is the root from which the word “fugitive” is derived.  He should have the determination not to be caught by sin, that a fugitive has about the ones pursuing him.
  6. He is to “follow” (pursue NKJV/NASB) the right things (2 Tim. 2:22).  Things like: righteousness, faith, charity (love NKJV/NASB), and peace are to be pursued.  The word “follow” means “to run swiftly in order to catch some person or some thing, to run after… to pursue i.e. to seek after eagerly, earnestly endeavor to acquire” (Thayer).  He should be pursuing these things as a hunter does his or its prey (think of a cheetah after a gazelle).

Negative Qualifications

  1. He “must not strive” KJV, “must not quarrel” NKJV, “must not be quarrelsome NASB (2 Tim. 2:24).  The word means “to fight, to quarrel, dispute” (Vine’s), and can be used of “those who engage in a war of words, to quarrel, wrangle, dispute” (Thayer).  Clearly, he’s to be one who contends for the faith (Jude 3), and defends the Gospel (Phil. 1:17).  However,In context, it is speaking of striving over words to no profit (2 Tim. 2:14).  While a man is to contend, he is not to be contentious.  Some people just love to argue.  Such will not help the church to grow.
  2. He is to avoid “foolish and unlearned questions” KJV, “foolish and ignorant disputes” NKJV, “foolish and ignorant speculations” NASB  (2 Tim. 2:23).  Such hobbies “gender strifes” KJV, “generate strife” NKJV, “produce quarrels” NASB.  The books of 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus speak of “fables” (1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:14), “genealogies” (1 Tim. 1:4; Tit. 3:9), and “questions” (1 Tim. 1:4; 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit. 3:9).  Evidently some were obsessed about Jewish fables, and genealogy and questions which perhaps God hasn’t answered (cf. Deut. 29:29).  Timothy was to avoid such needless controversy.

Family Qualifications

While a preacher need not be married, if he is married the wife is to be “a sister,” that is a Christian (1 Cor. 9:3-6).  I can’t imagine being without the help of a Christian wife, much less preaching with a non-Christian wife.

Implied Qualifications

One thing that is clearly implied is that the man is to be courageous.  He is to “preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2).  He is to preach it when they like it and when they don’t, when it’s in style and when it is out.  He is to hold back nothing that is profitable (Acts 20:20).

Posted in Church Organization, Preachers, Preaching | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Qualifications of Deacons

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

The term “deacon” refers to “one who executes the commands of another… a servant, attendant, minister” (Thayer).  Elders, also called Bishops or overseers, oversee the local church; Deacons are their special helpers to whom they delegate certain tasks.

Let us in this study, divide the qualifications into four groupings: (1) implied qualifications; (2) positive qualifications; (3) negative qualifications; (4) family qualifications.

Implied

  1. A deacon is to be a man and not a woman.   He’s to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy      3:12).
  2. He is to be well-known by the congregation (1     Timothy 3:10).
  3. Age is not as much of a factor as it is with elders.  Yes, he is to be married and have children (1 Timothy 3:12).  This implies a certain amount of age.  However, it is not required that his children be “faithful children” (cf. Titus 1:6).  His children may or may not be old enough to have obeyed the gospel.

Positive

  1. He must be “grave” KJV, “reverent” NKJV, “of     dignity” NASB (1 Timothy 3:8).  This word means “serious… honorable… ‘grave’ and ‘gravity’ fail to cover the full meaning… the word we want is one in which the sense of gravity and dignity is combined… The word points to seriousness of purpose and to self-respect in conduct” (Vine’s).  In other words, he should be one that presents himself in such a way that all can see that he is conscientious, and serious about his duties and responsibilities especially in the   area of Christianity.
  2. He is to be “proved” KJV, “tested” NKJV/NASB and found “blameless” KJV,  “beyond reproach” NASB (1 Timothy 3:10). He should be someone who is well-known and   trusted by the congregation.  He should be known to meet the qualifications.
  3. “Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure   conscience” (1 Timothy 3:9).  He should be a man striving to live by the Book.  He should examine himself and be able to say with a pure conscience that this is the case.

Negative

  1. He is not to be “double-tongued” (1 Timothy 3:8).    What does it mean to be doubled-tongued?  It means to be deceitful, “saying one thing in one place and another in a different context” (J.J. Turner, Deacons Wake Up).  He is to be “truthful, not talking two ways to suit the company he is in” (David Lipscomb, Commentary   on 1 Timothy).
  2. He is not to be “given to much wine” KJV, “addicted to much wine” NASB (1 Timothy 3:8).  Now this shouldn’t be taken to mean that he can be given to wine but not “much wine”, any more than he can be greedy for lucre but not “filthy lucre” (1 Timothy 3:8), or that one can run to riot as long as it is not “excess of riot” (1 Peter 4:4), or that it is okay to be wicked so long as one does not “overflow” with wickedness (James 1:21 NKJV).  Clearly, this is teaching that one is not to be a winebibber.
  3. He is not to be “greedy of filthy lucre” KJV, “greedy for money” NKJV, “fond of sordid gain” NASB (1 Timothy 3:8).  Some will do just about anything for money, even dishonest things.  Such a one should not be considered.

Family

  1. He is to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:12).   This eliminates bachelors, widowers,  polygamists, and those in unbiblical marriages.
  2. He is to have children (1 Timothy 3:12).  I do not believe that this necessitates a plurality of children (see: Genesis 21:7; Leviticus 25:40-41; 1 Timothy 5:4; Luke 14:26).  Each should be convinced in their own mind.
  3. He is to rule his children and his house well (1 Timothy 3:12).  He is one who had demonstrated the     fact that he has Biblically tried to manage his family.  He has instructed his family (Ephesians 6:4) and sought to restrain his children (cf. 1 Sam. 3).
  4. His wife is to be of a certain character (1 Timothy 3:11).  (A) She is to be “grave” KJV, “reverent” NKJV, “dignified” NASB [see: positive point 1].    (B) She is not to be a “slanderer” KJV, “malicious gossip” NASB.  “The reference is to those who find fault with the demeanor and conduct of others and spread their innuendos and criticisms in the church” (Vine’s); “In the LXX it is used of hostile speech, especially slander… In the New Testament the main stress is on the malicious nature of the speech” (Kittle’s).  She is not to be one who stirs up problems and agitates with her speech.  (C) She is to be “sober” KJV, “temperate” NKJV/NASB.  The word literally refers to an abstainer from intoxicants.  Figuratively it is used of one who is clear thinking and possesses self-control.  (D) She is to be “faithful in all things”.  This indicates that she is to be trustworthy.  She is someone who can be depended on, trusted, and even confided.
Posted in Church Organization, Elders and Deacons, Word Study | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A Father’s Expectations

Posted on October 17, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

President Warren G. Harding was dead.  He died at 7:35 p.m. on August 2, 1923.  He was in San Francisco, California, having just completed a visit to the territory of Alaska, the first visit by a president.  The cause of death was probably congestive heart failure, which was aggravated by pneumonia (due to Mrs. Harding’s wishes, no autopsy was performed).

Vice President Calvin Coolidge was in Plymouth Notch, Vermont, visiting his boyhood home.  His father, Calvin Coolidge, Sr., served as a local Justice of the Peace there.  Coolidge was sworn in at 2:45 a.m. on August 3, 1923 as President of the United States of America.  His own father swore him in by the light of a kerosene lamp.

Calvin Coolidge, Jr., President Coolidge’s son, was fifteen years old at the time.  He was working a summer job on a western Massachusetts tobacco farm.  “The farmer told him that his father had been inaugurated in the dead of the night.  The boy took the report without comment, then asked, “Which shed do you want me to work today?’  Amazed, the farmer said that if his father had been named President of the United States, he surely wouldn’t be working twelve-hour days in a tobacco field.  ‘You would if your father were my father!’ responded young Calvin” (William J. Bennett, America: The Last Best Hope, vol. 2, p. 69).

Parents, your expectations mean a lot.  What do you expect from your children?

1.  Do you expect them to know the Bible?  I am talking about really knowing it, being able to teach others, being able to defend truth.

2.  Do you expect them to exhibit a Christian character?  Do you demand such?  Would you fellowship them if they ceased such and refused to repent?

3.  Do you expect them to do their best in whatever they do?  This includes: school, work, sports, church responsibilities such as teaching, being prepared for Bible study, etc?

4.  Do you expect them to be faithful in attendance?  Do you let them miss for work, school, friends, etc?  How is your example?

5.  Do you expect them to truly worship?  Merely sitting in the pew, and playing with the babies is not worship.

6.  Do you expect them to work and become taxpayers and not tax-takers?

“Train up a child in the way he should go…” (Prov. 22:6)

Posted in Family, History, Work | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Father’s Advice on Marriage

Posted on October 15, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

Mike Reagan was to be wed on June 13, 1971. Ronald Reagan wrote this letter to him in regards to the wedding:

Dear Mike: …

You’ve heard all the jokes that have been rousted around by all the ‘unhappy marrieds’ and cynics. Now in case no one has suggested it, there is another viewpoint. You have entered into the most meaningful relationship there is in all human life. It can be whatever you decide to make it.

Some men feel their masculinity can only be proven if they play out in their own life all the locker room stories, smugly confident that what a wife doesn’t know won’t hurt her. The truth is, somehow, way down inside, without her ever finding lipstick on the collar or catching a man in the flimsy excuse of where he was till three A.M., a wife does know, and with that knowing some of the magic of their relationship disappears. There are more men griping about marriage who kicked the whole thing away themselves than there can ever be wives deserving of blame. There is an old law of physics that you get out of a thing as much as you put into it. The man who puts into the marriage only half of what he owns will get that out. Sure, there will be moments when you will see someone or think back on an earlier time and you will be challenged to see if you can still make the grade, but let me tell you how really great is the challenge of proving your masculinity and charm with one woman for the rest of your life. Any man can find a twerp here and there who will go along with cheating, and it doesn’t take all that much manhood. It does take quite a man to remain attractive and to be loved by a woman who has heard him snore, seen him unshaven, tended him while he was sick, and washed his dirty underwear. Do that and keep her still feeling a warm glow and you will know some very beautiful music. If you truly love a girl, you shouldn’t ever want her to feel, when she sees you greet a secretary or a girl you both know, that humiliation of wondering if she was someone who caused you to be late coming home, nor should you want any other woman to be able to meet your wife and know she was smiling behind her eyes as she looked at her, the woman you love, remembering this was the woman you rejected even momentarily for her favors.

Mike, you know better than many what an unhappy home is and what it can do to others. Now you have a chance to make it come out the way it should. There is no greater happiness for a man than approaching a door at the end of a day knowing someone on the other side of that door is waiting for the sound of his footsteps.

Love Dad.

P.S. You’ll never get in trouble if you say ‘I love you’ at least once a day” (Michael Reagan, On the Outside Looking In, p. 152-154).

Posted in Family, History, Marriage | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

What Would You Do? (Part 2)

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

The year was 1848. Abraham Lincoln’s stepbrother, John Johnston, who had a history of financial problems, requested Abe’s help in a financial matter.

Abe responded by letter (Dec. 24). Here is an excerpt. “Your request for eighty dollars, I do not think it best to comply with now. At various times when I have helped you a little … in a very short time I find you in the same difficulty again. Now this can only happen by some defect in your character. What the defect is, I think I know … I doubt whether since I saw you, you have done a good whole day’s work … This habit of uselessly wasting time, is the whole difficulty, and it is vastly important to you, and still more to your children, that you break this habit … What I propose is that you should work ‘tooth and nail’ for someone who will give you money for it … I now promise you that for every dollar you will, between this and the first of next May … I will give you one other dollar … But if I should now clear you out, next year you will be just as deep in as ever. You say that you would almost give your place in heaven for $70 or $80. Then you value your place in heaven very cheaply … You have always been kind to me, and I do not now mean to be unkind to you. On the contrary, if you will follow my advice, you will find it worth more than eighty times eighty dollars to you. Affectionately your brother”  (www.quotablelincoln.com/LincolnLetters.html ).

Application

1.  Would you tell the young man to work? “A little sheep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep – so shall your poverty come upon you like a prowler. And your need like an armed man” (Prov. 6:10-11). “Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, which having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest” (Prov. 6:6-8). “Aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands” (1 Thes. 4:11).

2.  Would you give the young man money? “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thes. 3:10).

Posted in History, Work | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

What Would You Do? (Part 1)

Posted on October 10, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

Grover Cleveland holds several firsts in Presidential history. (1) He was the first Democrat elected to the office of President after the Civil War. In fact, he was the only Democrat elected to the Presidency between the years 1860–1912. (2) He was (and is) the first President to serve two non-consecutive terms. His first term was 1885-1889. His second term was 1893-1897. Thus, Cleveland is the only President counted twice in the numbering of the Presidents. (3) He was the first President to be married in the White House. John Tyler was the first to get married while in office (it was a second marriage for this widower). However, Cleveland was the first and only President to be married in the White House. It was a first marriage for this bachelor. His bride Frances Folsom (daughter of his previous law partner)   became the youngest-ever First Lady (She was twenty-one. He was forty-nine). (4) Esther Cleveland, their child, was the first child of a President to be born in the White House (though, not the first child born in the White House. This honor goes to James Madison Randolph, son of Martha Jefferson Randolph, who was the daughter of Thomas Jefferson).

Our lesson concerns Grover Cleveland and his 1884 run for the White House. A scandal threatened his run. Republicans discovered that Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child (Oscar Folsom Cleveland) by Maria Crofts Halpin in 1874, while Cleveland was a lawyer in Buffalo, N.Y. Cleveland did not marry Halpin, but did provide child support. Halpin was soon committed to an asylum for alcoholism. Cleveland paid for the child’s keep in an orphanage. Halpin sobered up and Cleveland gave her money to start a business in Niagara Falls. The child was not restored to her. Instead, the child was adopted by a childless couple. The Republicans now chanted, “Ma! Ma! Where’s my pa?”

When the scandal surfaced, “A local Buffalo editor suggested Cleveland name his late law partner, John Folsom as the child’s real father … ‘is this man crazy,’ asked an exasperated Cleveland, ‘is he fool enough to support for a moment  … that I would permit my dead friend’s memory to suffer for my sake?’ Cleveland refused to any such thing. He immediately admitted to fathering the child. Memorably, he instructed his campaign aids to ‘tell the truth’” (William J. Bennet, America: The Last Best Hope, Vol. 1, p. 442).

“When Democrats brought him evidence that Mrs. Blaine (his opponent’s wife B.H.) had been pregnant before the Blaine’s marriage, Cleveland grabbed the papers, ripped them up, and threw them in the fire. ‘The other site can have the monopoly on all dirt in this campaign’ he told them’” (ibid.).

Application

1.  Do we have the determination to be honest? “Therefore, putting away lying, ‘Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor’” (Eph. 4:25).

2.  Do we abide by “The Golden Rule?” “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do       also to them, for this is the law and the prophets” (Mt. 7:12).

Posted in History, Honesty, Tongue | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

Qualifications of Elders

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

They’re called by three different terms.  These terms are descriptive of the nature and work of those men.  (1) Elders/Presbyters (Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:2; 15:4; 15:6; 15:22; 15:23; 16:4; 20:17; 21:18; 1 Timothy 4:14; 5:17; 5:19; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Peter 5:1; 5:5), these are men of experience.  They are not youngsters in the faith.  They have some years on them.  (2) Bishops/Episkapois/Overseers/ (Acts 20:28 cf. Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1; 3:2; Titus 1:7), this speaks to their work and authority.  They are to oversee the local church.  (3) Shepherds/Pastors (Acts 20:28 NKJV/NASB; Ephesian 4:11; 1 Peter 5:2 NKJV/NASB), this speaks of the care and concern they are to have for the flock, and the involvement they’re to have with the flock (church).

These terms are used to refer to one in the same position.  A Bishop and an Elder are one in the same (Titus 1:5 cf 1:7; Acts 20:17 cf. 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1 cf. 5:2).  A Shepherd and an Elder are one in the same (Acts 20:17 cf. 20:28 NKJV/NASB; 1 Peter 5:1  cf. 5:2 NKJV/NASB).

There is to a plurality of these men serving together in the eldership/presbytery (term used in 1 Tim. 4:14), if there is an eldership in a local congregation – and every congregation that is mature, having qualified men should have such.  The plurality is seen in the following passages: Acts 11:30; 14:23; 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 4:14; Titus 1:5; Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24; 1 Peter 5:1.

Let us, in this study, divide the qualifications into four groupings: (1) implied qualifications; (2) positive qualifications; (3) negative qualifications; (4) family qualifications.

Implied Qualifications

  1. An elder is to be a man and not a woman.  He is to be “the husband of one wife” (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).
  2. He is to be well-known by the congregation.  A congregation must know the man well to be able to say that he meets the required qualifications.
  3. He should desire the work (1 Timothy 3:1; 1 Peter 5:2a).  Caution: He shouldn’t desire the work for the wrong reasons, but noble reasons.
  4. There are some age implications.  His children are to be “faithful children” (Titus 1:6).  This seems to imply some age.  According to my research the term “elder” was never used in the ancient world to refer to one under forty years of age (see Edward C. Wharton, The Church of Christ, page 76).  Though, the term may have nothing to do with longevity of physical age.  It may have to do with the fact that he is of experience in the faith and not a “novice” (1 Timothy 3:6).  Clearly, the one being described is not a 19-year-old (like Mormon elders).

Positive Qualifications

  1. He’s to be “apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:9; cf. Ephesians 4:11 – The terms “pastors” and “teachers” grammatically are referring to the same position).  The NKJV/NASB uses the wording “able to teach”.  This original word means “skilled in teaching” (Vine’s), “skillful in teaching” (Thayer).  He is to “be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9).  This word “apt to teach” is the same word used of preachers (2 Timothy 2:24).  In my estimation this is one of, if not the most overlooked qualifications.  Rex Turner Sr., “He must be qualified to teach – not lacking in natural ability and/or Bible understanding” (Robert R. Taylor, Jr., The Elder and His Work, page 120).  Elders were never intended to be mere board of directors.  They are to be teachers.  We have followed denominations in turning over far too much of the work to the preacher.
  2. He’s to be “of good behavior” KJV, “orderly” ASV, “respectable” NASB (1 Timothy 3:2).  This word is defined to mean “well arranged, a well-ordered life” (Thayer).  L.R. Wilson has said, “A man who is sloven, careless and haphazard in his work has no business trying to direct the work of the Lord we dare say this qualification has been overlooked more than any other.  Some churches have very little system or order in their work.  There is very little planning, coordination or sense of direction in their efforts” (The Elder and His Work, p. 113).  Men should be considered who are wise, well-ordered and disciplined in their lives, prioritizing things properly and planning for the future.
  3. He’s to be “a lover of good men” KJV, “…good things” ASV (Titus 1:8).  The literal reading is “a lover of good”.  The negative form of this word appears in 2 Timothy 3:3.  L.R. Wilson, “An elder should be a lover of good deeds, good things, good people, good in general” (ibid, p. 131).  Rex Turner Sr., “He must be a lover of good men – not an admirer of, nor a participant with, evil men” (ibid).  He should delight in that which is morally good (cf. Phil. 4:8).
  4. He is to be “given to hospitality” (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:8).  This is a qualification it seems difficult to fulfill without having his wife possessing the same quality.  Guy Woods has said, “One given to hospitality enjoys having people in his home and rejoices in the fellowship of kindred souls.  He is pleased to share his good things with others” (ibid, p. 129).  An elder should know the flock.  He should be in their homes and they should be in his.  He should socialize and entertain.  He should show kindness to others and even unto strangers.  Robert Taylor Jr., “Hospitality is love for strangers set to benevolent action” (ibid, p. 127).  Garland Elkins, “This means that an elder must be ready and willing to entertain strangers, care for the homeless and poor, and to enjoy the privilege of assisting others.  This means that he enjoys having people in his home, and he enjoys the fellowship of others” (Gospel Journal, Feb. 2008, p. 6).
  5. He “must have a good report (good reputation NASB/ good testimony NKJV) of them which are without” (1 Timothy 3:7).  Much damage is done when men with poor reputations in the town, men known to be dishonest or unethical are appointed to this position and work.  It is true that the world will not always speak well of the true Christian standing for truth (cf. Luke 6:26; John 15:19; 1 Peter 4:4).  However, if most think the man immoral and/or dishonest how can the church have a positive influence when it chooses such a one to lead?
  6. He’s to be “patient” KJV “gentle” ASV (1 Timothy 3:3).  This word is defined to mean “equitable, fair, mild, gentle” (Thayer). “It expresses that considerateness that looks humanely and reasonably at the facts of a case” (Vine’s).  It is used in contrast with being quarrelsome NKJV, or a brawler KJV (1 Timothy 3:3).  He should be one who can be talked to and reasoned with, one who will listen patiently and fairly.  Rex Turner Sr. said, “He must be patient, not fretful complaining or murmuring even in the face of provocation” (The Elder and His Work, p. 114).  David Lipscomb said, “Not bitter and impatient but kind in manners even to the froward and unpleasant” (ibid).
  7. He’s to be “just” (Titus 1:8).  This word is defined to mean “upright, righteous, virtuous… in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due; and that in a judicial sense passing just judgment on others” (Thayer).  Elders need to be impartial and unprejudiced in handling issues and problems in the church.  L.R. Wilson said, “an elder must deal fairly… with all people.  He cannot be selfish, clannish or bias in his thinking, or in his dealings” (ibid, p. 116).  He shouldn’t have one standard for his family and friends and another for all else.  He shouldn’t mold God’s word to justify those he wants, and to condemn others.
  8. He is to be “holy” KJV, “devout” NASB (Titus 1:8).  There are different original words translated into English by the word “holy.”  This words means, “undefiled by sin, free from wickedness… pure, pious” (Thayer).  We’re not looking for one who has never sinned, nor are we looking for one who will never sin again.  However, he should be one whose pattern of life is to shun sinful things and strive to live righteously.  This is one who walks in the light maintaining fellowship with God.
  9. He’s to be “temperate” KJV, “self-controlled” ASV/NASB/NKJV (Titus 1:8).  Noel Merideth said that an elder is to “control his tongue, his eyes, and his hands.  In self-control he holds his desires and appetites in restraints” (ibid, p. 115).  An elder must first have a good rule over himself before he tries to rule others (cf. Acts 20:28).
  10. He’s to be “vigilant” KJV, “temperate” NASB/NKJV (1 Timothy 3:2).  The source or root word means to be sober, to abstain from intoxicants; metaphorically it is used of being alert and clear thinking, possessing self-control.  He is to be “sober” KJV, “sober-minded” ASV/NKJV, “sensible NASB (Titus 1:8).  The original word means to be “of sound mind” (Vine’s).  Another word also appears in 1 Timothy 3:2 rendered “sober” KJV, “sober-minded” NKJV, “prudent” NASB.  This expresses much the same idea as the aforementioned word.  Senility, irrationality, insanity are clear violations of this qualification.  It is so important to be alert and clear thinking religiously and morally speaking (cf. 1 Peter 5:8).
  11. He is to be “blameless” KJV, “above reproach” NASB (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).  This does not mean that the man has never sinned.  It does mean that he is not of questionable character.  Rex Turner Sr. has said an elder “must be blameless – not one against whom evil reports continue to circulate” (ibid, p. 110).

Negative Qualifications

  1. He’s to be “not self-willed” (Titus 1:7).  The original word literally means “self-pleasing”.  Thayer defines this word to mean “self-pleasing, self-willed, arrogant.”  Vines says, “denotes one who dominated by self-interest, and inconsiderate of others, arrogantly assert his own will… one so far over-valuing any determination at which he has himself arrived that he will not be removed from it.”  L.R. Wilson has commented, “Here is another qualification that is often ignored.  Some of the most self-willed men in the world are trying to serve as elders” (Robert Taylor, Jr., The Elder and His Work, p. 98).  Diotrophes comes to mind as an example of what an elder is not to be.  Noel Meredith has written, “The elder is not to be self-willed, that is, he must not always have his way, he is willing to listen to the views of others” (ibid, p.99).  He should be considerate of others (Philippians 2:4).  He should determine not to do his own will but ultimately the Father’s (Matthew 26:39).
  2. He’s to be “not soon angry” KJV, not quick-tempered NKJV/NASB (Titus 1:7).  This word is defined to mean “prone to anger, irascible” (Thayer).  There is a time and place for anger.  It is justified at times.  However, an elder must be reasonable, and long-suffering.  Robert Taylor, Jr. has written, “The eldership is a place for cool and calm minds – not for hot heads who possess a fiery and uncontrollable temper” (ibid, p. 101).  He should be “swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19-20).
  3. He’s not to be “a brawler” KJV, “contentious” ASV, “quarrelsome” NKJV (1 Timothy 3:3).  The original wording means literally “not fighting” (Vine’s).  David Lipscomb well said, “This does not mean that one is not to stand and contend for the truth, (Commentary on 1st & 2nd Timothy, Titus, p. 166).
  4. He’s to be “no striker” KJV, “not violent” NKJV, “not pugnacious” NASB (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7).  Thayer says of this word, “bruiser, ready with a blow, a pugnacious, contentious, quarrelsome person.”  There are those who want to settle differences with their fists, or worse.  I recall a number of years ago a news report out of Ft. Worth.  In a deacons meeting in a certain Baptist church things got heated.  One deacon went to his car and got a gun and shot some of the other deacons.  This isn’t the type of man you want.
    5. He’s “not a novice” KJV/NKJV, “not a new convert” NASB (1 Timothy 3:6).  The literal rendering is “not newly planted.”  One may be highly educated in worldly matters, or a business success, but unless he is a knowledgeable, seasoned Christian he is not prepared to serve as an elder.  Another thing to keep in mind is that what is done in the business world, or political world – is not necessarily what the church is to do.  Many elders and members fail to grasp this point.
    6.  He’s to be “not given to wine” KJV/NKV, “not addicted to wine” NASB (1 Timothy 3:3; Titus 1:7).  “The Greek mee-para-oinon… lit. not at, by, near or with wine.  This looks considerably like total abstinence (William Patton, Bible Wines, p. 92).  W.D. Jeffcoat suggested that the words, “probably carry their literal signification, ’not near wine’ and even forbid the presence of an elder at drinking parties” (W.D. Jeffcoat, The Bible and ’Social’ Drinking, pp. 72-73).   The ASV took the language figurative instead of literal rendering it “no brawler” with the marginal rendering “not quarrelsome over wine”.  Vine’s indicates a possible secondary meaning “of the effects of wine-bibbling viz., abusive brawling.”  Good hermeneutics is to go with the literal meaning unless there is an over-riding reason not to do so.  I see no reason in this context to translate this as the ASV did.
    7. He’s to be “not covetous” KJV,/NKJV,  “free from the love of money” NASB,”not a lover of money” ESV (1 Timothy 3:3).The original word, philarguros, means “loving money.” He is to be “”not given to filthy lucre” KJV, “not greedy of filthy lucre” ASV, “not greedy for money” NKJV, “not found of sordid gain” NASB, not “greedy for gain” ESV (Titus 1:7). There is divided opinons as to whether “filthy” refers to baseness or dishonest. Some people have a weakness for money. Judas betrayed Jesus for silver. Wayne Jackson commented “An elder cannot have a ‘money’ weakness that might cause him to be easily bribed in church conflicts. He must not be someone who could be tempted to dip his hand into the church treasury” (Jackson, Before I Die, p. 89). Denny Petrillo commented “Since elders oversee the spending of the church treasury, they must not love money to the extent that it cannot be spent..” (Petrillo, Commentary on 1,2 Timothy and Titus, p.38).

Family Qualifications

1.  He’s to be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus 1:6).  This obviously eliminates bachelors.  It also eliminates unmarried widowers (cf. 1 Timothy 5:9).  It eliminates polygamists.  It eliminates those in unbiblical marriages.

2.  He’s to have children (1 Timothy 3:4; Titus 1:6).  I do not believe that this necessitates a plurality of children (see: Genesis 21:7; Leviticus 25:40-41; 1 Timothy 5:4; Luke 14:26).  Each should be convinced in his own mind.

3.  He is to be one who “ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity” KJV, “rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence” NKJV, “Manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity” (1 Timothy 3:4).  One can tell much about a man and his management abilities, and spiritual guidance by looking at his family.  If he can’t manage his home, how is he going to manage the church (1 Timothy 3:5)?

4.  His children are to be of a certain character (A) They are to be “not accused of riot or unruly” KJV, “not accused of dissipation or insubordination” NKJV, “not accused of dissipation or rebellion” NASB (Titus 1:6).  The word “riot” is related to the word  “riotous living” mentioned in connection with the prodigal son (Luke 15:13).  The word refers to “prodigality, a wastefulness” (Vine’s).  The word “unruly” means “disobedient, unruly” (Thayer).  In other words, an elder’s children should not be “wild”.   They should not bring reproach on the church.  (B) They are to be “faithful children” KJV/NKJV, “children who believe” NASB (Titus 1:6).  There is much dispute over the meaning of the term “faithful”.  Perhaps, most believe that the term means that they are believers, Christians, faithful Christians (See usage: John 20:27; 20:31 cf. Romans 6:1-4 notice when newness of life begins; Acts 2:41-44; 10:45; 16:1; 16:15; 16:30-34; Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:2; 1 Timothy 4:10; 4:12; 5:16 6:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Revelation 2:13; 17:14).  Others believe that the term refers to being dependable or trustworthy (Matthew 25:21; Luke 16:10-11; Titus 3:8; Hebrews 2:17; 3:2; 3:5; 1 John 1:9; Revelation 21:5).  Those who hold this position usually consider the statement parallel with the words “not accused of riot or unruly” (Titus 1:6) and the words “having his children in subjection” (1 Timothy 3:4).  It seems to me the far safer course is to understand this to be saying that the man is to have children who are not just dependable children, but faithful Christians.  Denny Petrillo remarked, “How could a man, who is not even able to convert his own children, be one who leads the church to godliness?”

The question is sometimes asked, “Does this include grown children?” or “Does this include after the children leave home?”  My personal view is that it does.  Consider the following points: (1) Eli was responsible for his children even after they were grown (1 Samuel 2-4).  (2) It is true that a child is not forever under the household of their parents (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:7).  However, does all responsibility of a parent totally cease?  (3) It is sometimes argued, “You can’t make them be faithful after they leave the home.”  True, but you can’t make them be faithful before they leave the home either, unless you reduce faithfulness to mere attendance.  (4) An emotional argument is sometimes raised “God had children that went astray (Amos 1:2)” Such is true, but I don’t know what this proves.  Jesus didn’t have an earthly wife; Could He be an Elder on earth?  Remember also He was of the wrong tribe to meet the qualifications to be an earthly priest. (5) The present tense “must be”(1 Timothy 3:2) seems to suggest a continuous state just as “blameless” and “apt to teach” are also so jointed with the words “must be”.

A thing to keep in mind is that even though a man may not be qualified due to his wife or children`s choices, does not necessarily mean that he is not a faithful Christian. His wife may die and thereby make him unqualified to serve, and yet he may still be a faithful member.

It is beyond dispute that the domestic qualifications are the most heatedly argued over, and the most controversial.  Let each be persuaded in his mind.

5.  His wife is to be of a certain character (1 Timothy 3:11).  Note: These characteristics will be covered in the “Qualifications of Deacons.”  Marion Fox has set forth a principle worth considering.  He has written, “The Lord set forth certain qualifications for the wives of deacons (1 Timothy 3:11).  Since the work of Elders is greater than the work of deacons, the qualifications of the wives of Elders must be at least equal to the qualifications of the wives of deacons.  In addition, if the wife of a preacher must be a believer (1 Corinthians 9:5) and the work of an Elder is greater than the work of the preacher, it is evident that an elder’s wife must be a believer.  If the lesser is required to have these qualifications, then the greater is also required to have these qualifications” (The Work of the Holy Spirit, Vol. 1 – 2003 edition, p. 596).  It is true that this lesser to greater argument is made time and again in the Scriptures.  The technical term for this is “A fortiori principle.”

Relative v. Absolute

Robert Taylor Jr. has written, “Students of sacred scriptures have divided them into various categories.  There are ‘relative qualifications’ i.e., areas in which there is current possession but even greater growth CAN and SHOULD occur and ‘absolute requirements,’ i.e., a man who is married, is a father and is not a novice.  A man is either married or he is not married at the time of tentative appointment; he is either a father or not a father at the time he is considered for the eldership; he is either a novice or not a novice at the time he may be considered for the Eldership” (The Elder and His Work, p. 87). There needs to be great care and much wisdom in accessing ‘relative qualifications’. These are not as black and white as the ‘absolute qualifications’.

Most of the qualifications are simply characteristics all Christians should possess; while others are unique (eg. A man does not have to be married to go to heaven, nor does he have to have children.  A man’s family may not meet the desired qualification, and it is possible that such is no fault of his own). Those qualifications which are not unique, but characteristics that all Christians should possess, we each should be working to develop and even improve in these things.

Posted in Church Organization, Elders and Deacons, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Role of Women (part 2)

Posted on October 5, 2012 by Bryan Hodge

The role of women has greatly increased over the years in the western world.  In the year 1900, only the country of New Zealand granted suffrage to women.  By 1914, seven countries were on board (New Zealand, Australia, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark).  In 1918,  Great Britain could be included in the list.  In the USA, the territory of Wyoming granted the vote to women in 1869.  Utah soon after followed in 1870.  The Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920.  We should have no problem with this.

World War II took women out of the house and into the factories and business world in record numbers.  Women are now police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, politicians, physicians, lawyers, executives, accountants, etc…  They are in nearly any and every field of work one wishes to look.  Again, we should have no problem with the concept of a woman working outside of the home (Proverbs 31:13-14, 16, 18-19, 24; Acts 16:14-ff; Acts 18:1-3).  However, a woman still has a duty to be a “homemaker” (Tit. 2:5 NKJV) and a helper of her husband (Genesis 2:18; Proverbs 31:11-12, 15, 21, 23, 27; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9).

The religious landscape in America is changing.  (1) In 1972 (Cincinnati, OH) Sally Preisand was made the first female Rabbi.  (2) In 1974 (Philadelphia, PA) eleven women received their ‘holy orders’ in the Episcopal church.  (3) In 1987 (Memphis, TN) Nancy Sehested was named ‘Pastor’ of the Prescott Memorial Baptist church.  (4) The 1990’s saw the Bering Drive church of Christ in Houston, TX and the Cahaba Valley church of Christ in Birmingham, AL using women to wait on the Lord’s table, leading prayers, publicly reading scriptures and the like during the Sunday morning worship assembly.  (5) I remember, as a college student, visiting the college class at Oak Hills (San Antonio, TX) in the mid ‘80’s.  A woman was leading the class back then!

There are a number of ways in which some attempt to justify such increase of women’s role in the church.

1.  Deborah

What do we know about Deborah?  We know that she was a married woman (Judges 4:4).  We know that she was a judge in Israel (Judges 4:4).  We know that God raised her up to this position (Judges 2:16, 18; Acts 13:20).

This is not a religious role.  Many women have served as national leaders (Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Queen Elizabeth, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, and others).  This has no bearing on the subject of New Testament roles in the church.

She was a prophetess (Judges 4:4).  This places her in the company of Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Anna (Luke 2:36) and others.  This in no way justifies increased women’s roles in the church.  This is an Old Testament passage.  Moreover, being a prophetess does not indicate how this gift was utilized.

2.  Huldah

She is a prophetess who spoke before five men (2 Kings 22:13-15; 2 Chronicles 34:20-23).  But notice, this is a private setting, not a public assembly.  Moreover, this is an Old Testament passage and therefore has no bearing on the role of women in the New Testament church.

3.  New Testament Prophetesses

Clearly there were inspired women in the first century church of Christ (Acts 2:18; 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5).  It is clear that women taught (Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3-4).

Three questions are in order: (1) When did they do so?  (2) Where did they do so?  (3) To whom did they do so?  The previous bulletin might be helpful in answering these points.  There is no evidence that they stood in the church worship assembly and used their gifts with God’s approval.  There is much to indicate that God does not want this occurring (1 Timothy 2; 1 Corinthians 14).

4.  Galatians 3:28

Things must be kept in context.  The book of Galatians is largely a defense of Paul’s apostleship and teaching (Galatians 1:1, 6-9, 11-12; 3:1-5).  This may have been needed due to the fact that he wasn’t one of the twelve.  However, the real controversy concerned his work among the gentiles (Galatians 2 cf. Acts 15).  In chapter 2, Paul addresses two questions: (1) Was it necessary for the gentiles to be circumcised, and keep the Old Testament law (Galatians 2:7-9 cf. Acts 15:23-24)?  (2) Should full fellowship be extended to gentile Christians (Galatians 2:11-14)?  Galatians 3:28 fits within this context.

Galatians 3:28 does not teach: (1) The slave-master relationship had ended.  It was in fact still recognized by God (1 Corinthians 7:20-24; Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:22-4:1).  (2) The husband-wife relationship had ceased.  It was still in place (Ephesians 5:23-33; Colossians 3:18-19; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7).  (3) Nationalistic distinctions no longer existed (Acts 18:6; 21:11; 21:39).  (4) There was no religious difference in the roles of men and women in the church (1 Corinthians 14; 1 Timothy 2).

Instead, Galatians 3:28 is teaching that all can equally stand as children of God.  This is taught elsewhere as well (Acts 10:34-35; Romans 1:16; 1 Peter 3:7).

5.  Philippians 4:2-3

The argument is made that since these women are said to labor with Paul in the Gospel such means that they were preachers; Moreover, not only preachers but preachers like Paul, over men.

In response: (1) One does not have to be personally preaching to be a fellow-laborer (3 John 5-8 cf. 2 John 9-11).  (2) One can be a fellow-laborer and still not equal in authority (1 Corinthians 3:9).  (3) Assuming they did preach, there still are the restrictions of 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2.  However, nothing indicates they were preachers.

6.  Romans 16:7

It is argued that ‘Junia’ is a female apostle.  This is said because she was of note among the apostles.

In response: (1) No one can prove that this is a woman.  The Greek name is not ‘Junia’  (feminine) or ‘Junius’ (masculine), but ‘Junian’ which could be masculine or feminine.  (2) It does not say that this one is an apostle.  It says “of note among the apostles”.  The meaning may be that this one was well-known among the apostles.  Modern example – “he is well-known among preachers.”

7.  Romans 16:1-2

This question comes up as to whether Phebe was a deaconess in an official sense.   Some insist that she was.

Let’s remember: (1) The word servant (deacon) can be used generically or technically.  It is used of Jesus (Romans 15:8).  It is used of civil government (Romans 13:4-6).  Neither of these passages are using the term in a technical sense, that is for the office of deacon.  Paul is sometimes called a minister, a deacon (1 Corinthians 3:5; 2 Corinthians 3:6; 6:4; Colossians 1:23).  Yet, Paul wasn’t even married (1 Corinthians 7:1-9; 9:1-6; cf. 1 Timothy 3:12).  (2) We read of bishops and deacons (Philippians 1:1).  Where does one read of bishops, and deacons, and deaconesses?  Or bishops and deaconesses?  (3) While it is true they were to ‘assist’ her, the word does not necessitate that she had positional authority over them.  A form of that word is used in 2 Timothy 4:17. It is translated ‘stood’.  This is what the Lord did for Paul!

Bill Jackson wrote, “If Phoebe was given some particular function or task, as is the case with many men and women in the congregations, then she was most certainly a ‘servant’ as pertains to the assigned task.  This, however, is a far cry from assuming that she was in a particular office…” (The Current Digression II, The Second Annual Shenandoah Lectures, p, 282).  It seems to me that Phebe went to Rome on some businesses (perhaps church related).  She evidently transported this epistle.  They were to receive her.  They were to help her if she had some need while there.

What does history say?  In one sense it doesn’t really matter.  We get our authority from the Bible not from historical precedence.  However, I will summarize: (1) Early writings from ‘Christian writers’ mention bishops and deacons.  They do not mention deaconesses.  (2) Pliny the Younger, Governor of Bithynia wrote to the Emperor Trajan in about 110 A.D.  He said, “I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses…”  Whether he was using the term in a technical or generic sense is a point of dispute.  Tim Nichols writes, “The word that Pliny used in Latin for ‘deaconesses’ could just as well be translated ‘servants.’  He simply reported that he had tortured two slaves who were called ‘servants’ by themselves or someone else.  Any faithful Christian could have rightly been called a ‘servant’ (Studies in Romans, The 15th Annual Denton Lectures, p. 486).  (3) “Not until the late third century in the Syria Didascalia do we find any reference to deaconesses (in ‘Christian writings’ B.H.).  Their work consists of assisting at the baptism of women, going into the homes where believing women lived, and visiting the sick (ministering to them and bathing them).  A full-blown order of deaconesses does not appear until the fourth and fifth centuries.  Again, their responsibilities consisted of keeping the doors.” (Piloting the Strait).

8.  Culture

It is true that in many places in the Roman Empire, women had a lowly position.  This was not true everywhere.  Luke mentions, “prominent women” in Antioch Pisidia (Acts 13:50 NKJV).  Strabo (63 B.C. – 22 A.D.), the Greek geographer indicates that the women of that region were “the leaders of [religious] superstition’ being influential over their husbands” (Wayne Jackson, The Acts of the Apostles, p.162). [for additional info. on women’s role in pagan religions see “Who Said So?“ in our bulletin from Aug. 2, 2008, by Tommy J. Hicks].

Some say Paul was simply a male chauvinist.  However, the same Paul who wrote 1 Timothy 2 and 1 Corinthians 14, also wrote Galatians 3:28.

The truth of the matter is that the role of women in the church is not cultural.  It is grounded in creation (1 Timothy 2:8-13).

Summary

We’ve looked at the key passages.  I find no passage which supports the idea of women having the same roles as men in the church.  I do find however, many things that a woman can and even should do to the glory of God.

Posted in Textual study, Women's roles | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment