This last Sunday we talked about Satan in Sunday School. Not your typical lesson, I suppose, but I had one quick thought I wanted to share: Satan was responsible for bringing glory to God, however, at some point in time he got bored of God’s glory. He took his mind off of God’s glory and looked at himself. This is so bizaare for me because I’m used to starting out with not looking towards God’s glory and then, through salvation, being able to behold God’s glory (positionally, in the heavenlies). I’m grateful that God gave mankind a second chance through Grace.
Author Archives: Randy Peterman
Why Eldership is for Men
A reader of my I Timothy 1:3-7 post asked:
In reading this I do not see the interpretation that only men may lead the church and hold positions of leadership/elders.
This is a stumbling block in many churches, and in many cases [is] the reason some [choose] to leave the church. Not their faith but the church. How can it be explained that within the word of the Bible the intent of our Lord is as you describe here. I understand you to say that it is actions, faith and purity that makes a leader and gender isnt specific in the teachings of the Holy Spirit. Can you help explain?
Gender is clear for the leadership of the church. However, teaching and growth are not gender specific in certain contexts. There are several parts to your question and I intend to address them seperately so that the issues don’t get blurred together. I would break them up as follows:
- Is this interpretation the only interpretation, and if not, is it the correct interpretation?
- Male only eldership causes people to leave the church [not meaning leaving the faith]. Does this make the doctrine wrong?
- Is this doctrine only derived from this passage or do other passages teach this? [What is the whole teaching of the word of God?]
Is this interpretation the only interpretation? If not, is it the correct interpretation?
No, the interpretation I hold to is not the only interpretation. However, using a consistent hermeneutic (interpretation process) as generally outlined in my article on hermeneutics I believe it is the most scripturally consistent view of the passage. I believe the most common views are
- That there should be plural elders when possible, these elders should be men [the view I hold]
- That there should be one elder, he is to be a man. This man is usually called the pastor or bishop
- That there are to be no elders, this is just something Paul was writing to Timothy about, but is not a doctrine applicable to the church today.
- Men or women can be leaders of the church and it is a good idea if they meet most of the requirements of this passage
- If the men don’t step up the women should step up to lead the church
This is hardly an exhaustive list of the various types of church leadership. Some of these ideas are based on this passage and some of these ideas don’t have any scriptural backing whatsoever. Alister Begg once shared in a message I heard that he visited a Baptist church in the south where the pastor was doing verse by verse exposition and then got to that section and declaired to his congregation that since they didn’t have elders there that this passage was not for them and so they’d skip it. I think that skipping a passage based on the ecclesiology (doctrines of the order of the church) of the church is really problematic because that passage may point out an area where your ecclesiology needs to change!
I am going to use some of the details that will be in the section about the whole teaching of scripture and these two sections will overlap some. I believe that since doctrine should be rooted in the clear teaching of scripture and that doctrines that are presented in multiple places should (generally) take importance to believers in comparison to doctrines that are more vague. This doctrine is clear throughout scripture. Being a dispensationalist, that is a believer who interprets the Bible literally but understanding that the scriptures written to the Jews are for the Jews and do not have a direct baring on Christians in the current time frame of scripture, I am going to quote heavily from the New Testament and only reference the Old Testament where Apostolic precedence does so. To put it simply: I don’t think that I can justify male eldership based primarily on Old Testament passages.
Passages that teach male leadership within the church or give a clear precedence
- Acts Chapters 1 and 2
- These two chapters show the beginning of the church. Prior to this time the Jewish system and Law were in place for all of those portrayed in these passages (estimates are that Gentiles were rather foreign to the church until about 15 yeas into the church age). Christ gathers the men (disciples) together and instructs them in what they should do: wait. Then the Holy Spirit elected a new disciple to take the place of Judas Iscariot. One of the requirements was that it be a man who had been with them the whole time.
I do understand that these are disciples and not elders, so this is taken as a weaker reference. However, it does set a precendence and hold as a principle that leadership for the church was to be male at its inception. - Acts 14:21-34
- This passage shows the apostles at work and before they left they set up elders. It would seem hypocritical for Paul to set up elders that did not meet the requirements of his letters to Timothy. Again, this is not a direct statement that men should be the elders but works in concert with later verses.
- Acts 15:22
- This passage clearly says that from the group of elders (presumably men), men were chosen to go. I recognize that this one is slightly more direct than previous passages, but is still not saying, “Men Only.”
- I Timothy 3:1-7
- This is probably one of the foundational passages that outlines the male requirements for being an elder.
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.
An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.
He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity
(but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?),
and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.
And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he will not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.“If a man…” seems like a clear statement of gender in contrast to the roles of deacons (verse 8) and deaconesses (verse 11). The male elders shepherd the church while the deacons (male) and deaconesses (female) serve the church. The requirements for an elder are stringent and are too clear for all of the other details to ignore the masculine gender they start out with.
- Titus 1:5-9
- This passage too clarifies the male nature of the role of elder. The clarity in these verses is hard to ignore. Chapter 2 clarifies that in general older men are to instruct the younger men in godliness and that older women are to instruct younger women in godliness. The leadership of the body as a whole, however, remains to the men as set before in the earlier verses.
Other verses beyond this talk about elders, but like some of the verses in the list above do not specify gender.
I cannot find one instance of a female leader of the church body in all of the New Testament. It seems consistent with the Timothy and Titus passages to have male elders only.
What about culture? If the culture of that time allowed for only men, but todays culture allows for women, shouldn’t we just attribute this male only doctrine to being cultural?
The cultural argument is a toughy because there are things like women wearing make-up that are common in todays churches. Other issues like women wearing head coverings (see I Corinthians 11) and greeting each other with a Holy Kiss (I Peter 5) have gone to the wayside. I Timothy 2:9-15 points out that Paul recognizes an order for things within the genders. This gender order does not mean doormat, second rate citizen or inferiority. A difference here does not have to create bitterness and to that end Paul wrote Colossians 3:18-25. Specifically that women are to submit to their husbands, but that husbands are not to provoke their wives (or children). The order of the church should be already working in their homes: the men should be heads of their households.
Using Romans 6 Unlawfully
Romans Chapter 6 is loaded with really great stuff. It encourages the believer to abide so that they might live righteously while discouraging sin. However, more than once I’ve heard this book hammered on as if righteousness is the line with which we’re measured and that we shouldn’t sin any longer. Sure, there’s grace, but it’s not to be ‘used.’
This whole perspective ignores chapter 7 and completely bypasses chapter 8. Chapter 7 clearly states that we’re going to sin and stumble. Chapter 8 plasters us with grace. There’s no reason why we should ever consider 6 without 1 through 5 and 7 through 16 (I double checked and they haven’t added a chapter 17 to Romans). I had a talk with my step-father-in-law this evening and we marvelled at the gift of grace and how so many times we’ve been taught the law and nailed with condemnation instead of encouraged with the 100% nature of grace and that our sins were nailed to the cross with Christ.
Therefore, chapter 8 starts out, we have no condemnation because we are in Christ Jesus. Chapter 6, verse 7 states this another way: For he who has died is aquitted of sin. And since our old nature was killed on the Christ’s cross with Him, we are aquitted. Furthermore, Christ’s righteousness was given to us instead of neutrality, a blank slate or anything else. We are so completely tied in with Christ that when God the Father looks at us, He sees only His Son in us.
A Letter From Kurt
My Brother-in-Law Kurt Katzorke (married to my sister Becky) is a hungry student of God’s word as well as myself and wrote a letter to his professor which is below, I thought it might be of general use.
— Randy
Recently in my Core Humanities class my professor cover some church history. In particular he focused on Paul and his writing in 1 Corinthians chapter 7. For whatever reason this passage is a favorite of college professors to cover when discussing Christianity. This particular professor tried to demonstrate a Catholic tradition that all sex (even that confined to marriage) is bad and attribute it to Pauline origins. Out of a desire to have the Christian faith and its biblical themes seen correctly, I wrote my professor a letter containing biblical perspective on the matter. I have somewhat edited the letter as some introductory and closing matters were not pertinent the matter at hand.
Not on one occasion in Pauls writings does he say, “All types of sex are bad.” However, there are several instances in which Paul reprimands sexual immorality. In 1 Thessalonians 4:3 Paul states,
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality.” If you are wondering what sexual immorality includes you can look to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which reads, “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Four types of sexual immorality are listed here.
Fornicators- the Greek for this word is por’-nos which is used for a male or female prostitute and is commonly interpreted fornicator, whoremonger.
Adulterers- comes for the Greek moy-khos’ and is commonly translated paramour or adulterer. It is someone who is either in marriage and having sexual relations outside of marriage or the person who is not married and having sexual relations with someone who is married.
Effeminate- The Greek here is mal-ak-os’ which means of uncertain affinity or soft; figuratively, a catamite. It is commonly interpreted effeminate, soft. It is often used as an adjective in describing clothes and also in conjunction with the common Greek practice of an older man having sexual relations with a younger boy.
Homosexual- comes from the Greek ar-sen-ok-oy’-tace and is simply a sodomite. It literally means a homosexual.
These four types of sexual sin are not new in that Paul came up with them. Old Testament (Torah) Law required that anyone committing any of the sins above be taken outside the city and stoned to death. It is a biblical theme that sexual immorality is intolerable in the eyes of God.
As stated earlier Paul does not outright say, “sex is bad and should be confined to procreation.” The fact of the matter is that when it is confined to marriage it is a debt that one spouse owes to the other and is glorifying to God. 1 Cor 7:1-6 outlines several key issues concerning our topic:
7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command.
Verse 1 offers insight into the entire letter Paul wrote to Corinth. He says, “Now concerning the things about which you wrote ” At this point in the letter Paul is answering questions the Corinthians had asked him in form of a letter. We dont have the letter so we dont know exactly what the question is, but Pauls answers are still useful. Issues addressed in verse 2 are concerned with the fact that Paul is writing to the church in Corinth that had tons of sexual immorality. In fact the temple in Corinth was dedicated to the goddess of sex- Aphrodite. Sexual immorality ran ramped in Corinth and that is why Paul addresses it as harshly as he does with the Corinthians. Also, the context of the passage is important here. Later in this chapter (verse 26) Paul makes it evident that there is a “present distress” in Corinth. What that distress was we dont know for sure. It may have been famine, persecution or a number of other possibilities. Whatever it was it caused Paul to speak of marriage in a harsh manner to the Corinthians (Whereas in Ephesians chapter 5 Pauls writing is inspiring to a married Christian). This is also why Paul says that, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” and that, “because of immoralities let each have his own wife.” Verse 3 contains the debt that is owed between a man and a woman. In verse 3 the word duty is used. This same word is used other places in Pauls writings as reward or blessing, it takes on a duel meaning in this case in that a husband or wife owes to their spouse an obligation of good will. In other words God has made the act of sex a blessing that spouses owe to each other- it is their marital duty to pay it. Verses 4-6 go even a step further and say the husband has authority over his wifes body and the wife has authority over her husbands body. Also, that husband and wife should not deprive one another sexually except for a time of prayer in order focus on the Lord and avoid temptation. Paul is not condemning sex inside the marriage; rather, he is imploring sex to be practiced and enjoyed inside marriage. Any idea the God does not want a husband or wife to enjoy sex with one another is not Biblical, Pauline, or even remotely close to Gods will.
The origin of churches teaching that sex is all together bad is a result of Augustine in the 4th century. His own battles with sexual sin and misunderstanding of scripture lead the Roman Church to start the unbiblical doctrine that sex should only be for procreation. I find such ideas appalling. I am a Biblical Christian and am also married. I find the blessing of the unity between my wife and I to be one of the greatest gifts that God has chosen to give me in this life. Furthermore, I am deeply grieved for any follower of Christ would has been taught otherwise. Marriage was the first institution God set up among man. Any teaching that says it is heroic to remain unmarried and simply permissible to marry is foolish. In Ephesians 5:22-33 Paul glorifies the marriage relationship likening it to the relationship between Christ and His Church. Not only this, but also that when Christian husbands and wives serve each other as Christ does for all they glorify God.
If one seeks to understand biblical principle then looking at one verse or passage and taking it out of context will not serve them well. When this done the verse or passage can be made to say almost anything. To understand biblical principle one must observe and interpret. Observe when the passage was written, what was happening at the time, who was writing, who were they writing to, what do we know about them, why was it written, what result did they have in mind, what is the context (historical, biblical, book, and passage-wise), what is the content (words, grammar, and syntax), and how does it compare with other scripture (especially those by the same author). In other words there is more to understanding what Paul wrote than simply reading it. Taking a passage out of context and a lack observing and interpreting has led to several unbiblical church doctrines. The idea that all sex is sinful and displeasing to God is one of such doctrines.
Hebrews 1:1-3
Hebrews 1:1-3 really struck me tonight. I looked at the description there of Christ and found myself thinking how amazing Christ was compared to who I might have, in my puny mind, thought of Him as. Check it out:
God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
The author of Hebrews is not known for certain. Some suggest a Pauline authorship, I have seen Timothy ascribed as well. However, the authorship is surely supernaturally the work of the Holy Spirit. This powerful opening to the book is clearly written to the Hebrews who would be ever-so-familiar with the fathers and the prophets as well as their portions and many ways. However, Christ is a newer and more important subject, one the author of Hebrews powerfully delves into in Chapter one!
We see in verse one a reference to Genesis 1:1 and at the very least the theology of John 1:1. We also see that Christ is to be the heir of all things, the kingship promised to David’s heir (ref) is His.
Verse three just blows me away. Christ is the radience of God’s glory here on earth. Whatever radience Moses may have had after being on Mt. Sanai (Exodus 34:29) was nothing compared to the radience of Christ in his ascended form (Colossians 3:1). Furthermore, Christ is not only God’s glory, but his nature as well! God’s perfect nature is in all three person’s of the Trinity, something that makes me marvel. Uphold comes from the Greek word (transliterated) fero which means to carry or bear. However, instead of this being a physical endurance, it is something that comes about ‘by the word of His power.’ God’s supernatural power sustains us, through Christ. If our sustaining comes from Him, there is no failure for His own!
After having purified His own from their sins through His death, burial, resurrection and ascension he was seated on the throne at the right hand of God. This is similar to the Colossians 3:1 passage which refers to the exact same event. This theanthropism, or attribution to God of human like qualities, is not alone in scripture, but the description of God, who is light having a left or right hand is quite poetic. The right hand is historically a place of favor and blessing. I don’t mean to be disgusting or to offend, but historically, when toilette paper was a future invention, the left hand was dirty due to its use as a cleaner hand. Therefore, being on the right hand was a blessing, and on the left hand,… well, it just wasn’t a blessing.
This picture of Christ, which continues on in the rest of the chapter and on into chapter two is powerful and contrasts that very human picture of Christ given in the Gospels. I imagine that Paul, seeing Christ on the raod to Damascus, saw Him in His glory, which sure enough, would be blinding to say the least. I also imagine that Christ, seated on His throne next to God the Father, looks at us, those who are hidden with Him with pleasure because we are in Him!
1 Timothy 1:3-7
This passage is one that should be a stumbling block to most elders 🙂 OK, not a stumbling block, but instead a focal point for their ministry, a mission statement. Look at Paul’s writing to Timothy and see what is instructed here in contrast to what is so often the roll leadership takes in the church.
1 Timothy 1:3-7 (NASB)
3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines,
4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere rather than the administration of God which is by faith.
5 But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,
7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.
So, you see Paul’s instructions are to Timothy, and you think to yourself, “Randy, this is to Timothy, it this for every church?” Good question. I think that in the greater context of the Timothy’s (first and second) that it is clear that Timothy was in Ephesus to help establish a strong elder based leadership at that church. Therefore, I think that since leadership shouldn’t die off in the church, these principles apply to the leadership of the church today.
Looking at verse three we see that Paul, trusting in the Holy Spirit’s work through Timothy, went on to Macedonia. Timothy’s Ephesian charge was to instruct certain men not to teach ‘strange doctrine.’ I love that phrase, it’s fun. In our post-modern, anything goes, relativistic culture ‘strange doctrine’ doesn’t happen. In fact, if Paul were writing (or righting) today I think he might go so far as to say, “…so that you may instruct certain men not to teach whatever doctrine is blowing through town.” The church has become so doctrinally splintered over the last 2,000 years that I believe few actually believe that there are true doctrines worth holding to. Just in case you’re not familiar with the term ‘doctrine’, it means ‘a teaching.’ In this context we can see in verses six and seven that the strange doctrines involve the mixture of Grace with the Law. And, if you know Galatians at all, you know the Law is not to be mixed with Grace.
Verse four tackles an old Jewish tradition/problem wherein Rabbinic tradition and geneology were counted as important. Using tradition is of some external value for some slight details, but it is certainly not to be incorporated into full fledged teachings. Geneology, as you can see in Matthew 1, was thick and rooted in the Jewish culture. Being able to say you were a son of [insert important name here] apparently meant something to these folks. However, Paul does not want them to focus on these things since they were now sons of God! Having been grafted into salvation through Christ, they were adopted children of God (Ephesians 1:5). Finally in this point we see that those distractions don’t lead to God’s final goal for believers on this earth. We also see that they are not rooted in faith.
Verse five gets into the fun stuff because we see that the goal of the leadership in the church should be instruction that produces the following results in the believers:
- Love from a pure heart
- A good conscience
- A sincere faith
Point one in that list points out that we should let the Lord, who bought our hearts, have control of them, and then love through us with purity. It is so easy to not love people. It is even easier to tolerate, ignore or hate people when we’re in the flesh. Pure love comes from a submitted heart.
A good conscience is one that is not distracted by sin, one that is not hounded by guilt, and one that understands the awesomeness of grace. If you know grace, what it means, then your conscience will be clear, past sins will be a forgotten thing because you look for a hopeful future with your bridegroom, Christ.
A sincere faith is one that genuinely believes and knows the truth of Christ and the doctrines upon which the Christian life rests. We all have doubts at times, points in our lives where we question God’s work, our salvation or various other parts of our faith. If we are well equipped with spiritual truth many of the doubts we face (if not all) will be eraced by the confidence in our relationship with our savior.
So you see that a pastor/elder is to be teaching, discipling, and re-enforcing these things in the flock that God has bestowed to them. If you are spiritually mature, you might consider heavily investing these things into others lives. Sure, it will require time, possibly money, and surely a lot of emotional commitment, but it is the call of a spiritually mature believer to do this. I’m blogging about my Bible study time to help teach others what has been invested in me. While this small blog can’t reach all believers, or even a small fraction of believers, I do hope to help encourage those who read to study and know God’s word, which is Christ!
Verse six shows the fruitless discussion that is a result of straying from the fundamental and important things of the believer. Trust me that in seminary I more than once saw people discussing fruitless things that did not edify them, or anyone listening. Sometimes big words, new ideas or any of the other fruitless practices like geneologies and traditions can be distracting. They make us feel like we may have a corner on truth, a new, better solution or any number of fleshly things, however, if we’re rooted in the core of Christianity (Christ) then we’ll be set for growth and maturity.
Lastly, verse seven makes it clear that the Law is not for the believer. Often teachers mix the Law in with their teaching because they feel it instills a moral rightness, a better, more clear instruction for their parishioners. Frankly, it can’t be too much worse than just outright telling them to sin! Why? Because it does not encourage the believer unto Holy Spirit led righteousness. Instead it calls believers to keep accounts of their sins (or not sinning) rather than counting their righteousness in Christ. If the fruit of the Spirit is a long list of good, God rewarding things why not encourage spiritual growth and spiritual thinking (Romans 12:2, Colossians 3:1-3)?
OK, have a good weekend, I’ll be travelling so Saturday or Sunday may not be blogged, but I’ll do my best to post next week!
Resting in Him,
Randy Peterman
Salvation Throughout the Scripture
It can be confusing when we first study God’s word trying to understand the requirements of salvation in each time period of scripture. I picked up a handy acronym in an intensive that should be useful. The acronym is COMB came from Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum and it stands for Content, Object, Means and Basis. It is important to understand that salvation was always by faith [and not by works], but the elements of faith varied throughout the dispensations (or time periods associated with covenants in scripture).
- Content
- This element of faith changes, this involves what you have to believe to be saved.
- Object
- Always God.
- Means
- Always by grace through faith.
- Basis
- Basis of salvation was always the substitutionary work of Christ.
Position Verses Condition
When we are redeemed by the blood of Christ at the moment of salvation lots of things happen. Part of what happens is that we are then unified in Christ in His crucifixion, death, burial, resurrection, ascention and then hidden with Him. Our position is in and with Christ. Immediately. However, while our position is sealed with Christ, our righteousness set to 100% (called ‘imputed’ in theological circles) our condition is altered but is not completed like our position. Our condition is subject to the flesh (Romans 7:15) which tries to gain back the hold that it once had. We are given a new nature that is alive and not separated from God (Genesis 3).
Continue reading
3 John 1:4
3 John 1:4 (NASB)
I have no greater joy than this, to hear of my children walking in the truth.
I am constantly reminded that this world is full of almost-truth, no truth and farthest from the truth. I am a strong proponent of ‘absolute truth.’ Absolute truth is the idea that truth is not just personal opinion, but exists outside of mankind [and as a Christian it resides in God]. A popular philosophy some time ago was called ‘modernism.’ Modernism said that man could figure out truth through science. That fell short since you can’t scientifically prove a lot of things. So then the philosophy of ‘post-modernism’ developed. Post-modernism involves the idea that there is no absolute truth at all. In short, everything is an opinion and everything is relativistic. Relativism clings to the self-cancelling statement: There is no absolute truth.
Continue reading
Colossians 2:16-17
Today in church we went over Colossians 2:16-17. One of the key parts of this passage is that we need to not focus on the shadows, which have no substance, but instead focus on the substance of what is to come: Christ. Sometimes I get caught up in trappings like computers, programming, my car and my music. The truth is that Christ gives any meaning to those things that exist. If I look at them as His tools, then they have value, if I look at them as my posessions, or results of me and my genius then they are just shadows and they have no eternal value.