Summary
The discussion centers on the two explicit church offices outlined in the New Testament: pastors and deacons. The term "pastor," derived from Latin for shepherd, is synonymous with elders or overseers, while deacons serve a different role. The episode highlights that the concept of bishops as a higher ecclesiastical authority emerged in the second century, overseeing multiple pastors and elders.
Criteria for becoming an overseer, as presented in 1 Timothy 3, are examined. The standards are described as accessible, lacking requirements for elite education or specific personality traits. Instead, they focus on moral character, such as avoiding drunkenness and quarrelsomeness. Most qualifications are applicable to all Christians, suggesting that pastors should exemplify the Christian life. Notably, the ability to teach and the stipulation that pastors should not be recent converts are emphasized as distinctive requirements for the pastoral role.
The relationship between home and church leadership is also discussed, indicating that while not every Christian father qualifies as an elder, they are expected to fulfill elder-like responsibilities within their families. The qualifications reflect the importance of a pastor's character and relational skills, underscoring that theological knowledge alone is insufficient without a genuine love for people.
Show Notes
In the New Testament, there are two explicit church offices. On the one hand, there are pastors (the word comes from the Latin expression for “shepherds”), who are also called elders or overseers (the word rendered “bishops” in older translations). On the other hand, there are deacons. It was not until the second century that bishops became a kind of third rank of ecclesiastical authority, supervising several pastors/elders under them.
So when Paul briefly outlines the criteria for becoming an “overseer” (1 Tim. 3:1–7), he is in fact providing the criteria of the pastoral office. Brief reflection on some of his points may be of help:
(1) At one level, the standards Paul provides are not particularly elevated or difficult. There is nothing about an elite education, a certain kind of personality, belonging to the aristocratic sectors of society, or displaying a certain kind of leadership capability. The list includes things like not getting drunk, not being quarrelsome, and the like.
(2) With the exception of only two qualifications, everything else in this list is elsewhere mandated of all Christians. For instance, if the overseer is to be “hospitable” (1 Tim. 3:2), the same thing is laid on all Christians in Hebrews 13:2. If Christian pastors are not to be “given to drunkenness” (1 Tim. 3:3), neither should any other Christian be. In other words, what must characterize the Christian pastor, in the first instance, is that he display the kinds of graces and signs of maturity that are being imposed on all believers without exception. So the Christian elder is to be a model of what Christian living should look like. In that sense the standards as a whole are high indeed.
(3) The two that are distinctive are as follows: (a) The Christian pastor must be “able to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2). That presupposes both knowledge and the ability to communicate it. That is the distinctive function of this office. (b) Christian pastors must not be recent converts (1 Tim. 3:6). Obviously that excludes some Christians. What “recent convert” means will doubtless vary according to the age and maturity of the church, as the criterion is necessarily relative to how recently others have been converted.
(4) The tight connection between the home and the church (1 Tim. 3:4–5) is quite startling. Not every Christian father is eligible to be an elder in the church; every Christian father is nevertheless presupposed to have elderlike functions to discharge in his own home.
(5) Several of the qualifications are bound up with the distinctive responsibility of this office. If he is to teach, the elder must be hospitable, maintain a good reputation with outsiders, not prove quarrelsome, and be untouched by money’s attractions. A merely bookish theologian with no love for people will not do.
More from Read The Bible
It is worth comparing the anointing of David (1 Sam. 16) with the anointing of Jehu (2 Kings 9)—or, more precisely, it is worth comparing not only the two anointings, but what follows from the two anointings.
Although I did not know it, while I was in my last year of high school my parents made a quiet vow before the Lord. For reasons too complicated to go into here, they decided that unless certain things happened, at the end of the year Dad would resign from the pastoral charge he had maintained for fifteen years.
When I was still a very young man, I became pastor of a smallish church in Canada. The people were very kind toward me, and were far more patient of my faults and errors than I deserved.
Current agendas mean that when 1 Timothy 2 is referred to in contemporary discussions, usually the focus is on 1 Timothy 2:11–15. So we shall reflect on 1 Timothy 2:1–7.
Some years ago I received a letter from someone who told me that he had read one of my books and was upset that I had often referred to the Lord Jesus Christ as “Jesus.” He quoted several passages about confessing Jesus as Lord (e.g., Rom. 10:9), and how such confession is the mark of having the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3). I wrote back, explaining that when I refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as Jesus, I am not thereby denying his lordship. Rather, I am not at that point affirming it. Further, the book he had read dealt with one of the synoptic Gospels. In the Gospels, the Lord Jesus is most commonly referred to simply as “Jesus.” So since I was commenting on one of the Gospels, I tended to refer to Jesus in the same way that Scripture does. When expounding some passage from, say, Paul, I tend to use, predominantly, the forms for addressing or referring to Jesus that the apostle uses.