Qualifications
3
Of overseers
1 Here is a trustworthy word: if a man aspires to the position of overseer,* The term here is usually rendered ‘bishop’, but today a bishop is one who has authority over a number of other pastors/presbyters/elders, whereas in the New Testament these four terms evidently refer to a single office in the church. he desires a good work. 2 Now then, it is obligatory for the overseer to be above reproach, a one woman man,† That is what the Text says, strictly speaking, emphasizing the quality—a man who has only one wife, but has a wandering eye, would not qualify. However, the term ‘woman’ can also mean ‘wife’, and because of the reference to children in verse four most versions render ‘wife’. The term “man” here refers exclusively to males; there is no room here for a female overseer. temperate, sensible, respectable, hospitable, good at teaching, 3 not a drinker, not a bully, not corrupt [financially],‡ Some 30% of the Greek manuscripts omit “not corrupt [financially]” (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.). Who wants to offend those with the means to make substantial contributions to the church coffers? So why talk about shady dealings? The omission is surely inferior. but gentle, peaceful, not greedy; 4 one who rules his own house well, having children§ Presumably adults who have left the ‘nest’ are not in view here. who obey him with due respect 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how can he take care of God's congregation?); 6 not a recent convert, lest being puffed up he fall into the same judgment that the devil did.* Pride brought about Lucifer's downfall (Isaiah 14:13-14). 7 Also, it is necessary for him to have a good reputation with those who are outside the congregation, so as not to fall into reproach and the devil's snare.† When a pastor is well known and respected in a community, any attempt to discredit him through false accusations will probably fail; the people know it isn't true. On the other hand, a new arrival is an easy target.
Of deacons
8 Similarly, deacons must be respectable, not deceitful, not heavy drinkers,‡ An elder should not ‘drink’ (verse 3), while a deacon may, just not heavily! However, if he hopes to one day be an elder… not corrupt [financially]; 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then, if they are blameless, let them serve as deacons.
Of ‘deaconesses’
11 Similarly, women§ That is what the Text says, just “women”—no article and no possessive pronoun. Because Paul returns to the deacons in verse 12, most versions take the reference here to be to their wives, but the grammatical construction of verse 11 is parallel to that of verse 8, which is parallel to verse 2. I take it that the grammar obliges us to see a third office in the congregation, one filled by women—deaconesses, or something of the sort. Counseling women can be dangerous for a man; certain matters are best handled by a mature, sanctified woman; if she has an official standing in the congregation, so much the better. must be respectable, not slanderers, temperate, trustworthy in everything.
Of deacons, again
12 Let deacons be one woman men, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and considerable confidence in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.* They become natural candidates for the office of elder.
God in flesh
14 Although I hope to come to you shortly, I am writing these things to you 15 in case I am delayed, so that you may know how it is necessary to conduct oneself in God's household, which is the Church of the living God, pillar and foundation of the truth.† My first impression would be that the truth should be sustaining the Church, not vice versa. But it is the Church that has the responsibility to promote and defend the truth in the society at large—in education, health, commerce, government, everywhere. 16 Yes, the mystery of our religion is confessedly great:
God was manifested in flesh,‡ Instead of ‘God’, 1% of the Greek manuscripts (of objectively inferior quality) read ‘who’, and most modern versions follow this 1%. But ‘who’ is nonsensical (in the context), so most of them take evasive action: NEB and NASB have ‘he who’; Phillips has ‘the one’; NRSV, Jerusalem, TEV and NIV render ‘he’. Berkley actually has ‘who’! In the Greek Text the relative pronoun has no antecedent, so it is a grammatical ‘impossibility’, besides being a stupidity—what is so mysterious about someone being manifested in flesh? All human beings have bodies. In the absence of concrete evidence, the claim that this is a note lifted from a known hymn or poem becomes no more than a desperate attempt to ‘save’ a choice that besides being stupid is also perverse (because of the theological consequences). The pronoun can be accounted for as an easy transcriptional error, a simple copying mistake, so why not stay with the 98.5% (there are other variants)? “God was manifested in flesh”—now there you have a mystery! For a more detailed discussion, please see my book, The Identity of the New Testament Text IV, footnote 3, on pages 115-117.
was vindicated in spirit,
was revealed to angels,
was proclaimed among nations,
was believed in the world,
was received up in glory!

*3:1 The term here is usually rendered ‘bishop’, but today a bishop is one who has authority over a number of other pastors/presbyters/elders, whereas in the New Testament these four terms evidently refer to a single office in the church.

†3:2 That is what the Text says, strictly speaking, emphasizing the quality—a man who has only one wife, but has a wandering eye, would not qualify. However, the term ‘woman’ can also mean ‘wife’, and because of the reference to children in verse four most versions render ‘wife’. The term “man” here refers exclusively to males; there is no room here for a female overseer.

‡3:3 Some 30% of the Greek manuscripts omit “not corrupt [financially]” (as in NIV, NASB, LB, TEV, etc.). Who wants to offend those with the means to make substantial contributions to the church coffers? So why talk about shady dealings? The omission is surely inferior.

§3:4 Presumably adults who have left the ‘nest’ are not in view here.

*3:6 Pride brought about Lucifer's downfall (Isaiah 14:13-14).

†3:7 When a pastor is well known and respected in a community, any attempt to discredit him through false accusations will probably fail; the people know it isn't true. On the other hand, a new arrival is an easy target.

‡3:8 An elder should not ‘drink’ (verse 3), while a deacon may, just not heavily! However, if he hopes to one day be an elder…

§3:11 That is what the Text says, just “women”—no article and no possessive pronoun. Because Paul returns to the deacons in verse 12, most versions take the reference here to be to their wives, but the grammatical construction of verse 11 is parallel to that of verse 8, which is parallel to verse 2. I take it that the grammar obliges us to see a third office in the congregation, one filled by women—deaconesses, or something of the sort. Counseling women can be dangerous for a man; certain matters are best handled by a mature, sanctified woman; if she has an official standing in the congregation, so much the better.

*3:13 They become natural candidates for the office of elder.

†3:15 My first impression would be that the truth should be sustaining the Church, not vice versa. But it is the Church that has the responsibility to promote and defend the truth in the society at large—in education, health, commerce, government, everywhere.

‡3:16 Instead of ‘God’, 1% of the Greek manuscripts (of objectively inferior quality) read ‘who’, and most modern versions follow this 1%. But ‘who’ is nonsensical (in the context), so most of them take evasive action: NEB and NASB have ‘he who’; Phillips has ‘the one’; NRSV, Jerusalem, TEV and NIV render ‘he’. Berkley actually has ‘who’! In the Greek Text the relative pronoun has no antecedent, so it is a grammatical ‘impossibility’, besides being a stupidity—what is so mysterious about someone being manifested in flesh? All human beings have bodies. In the absence of concrete evidence, the claim that this is a note lifted from a known hymn or poem becomes no more than a desperate attempt to ‘save’ a choice that besides being stupid is also perverse (because of the theological consequences). The pronoun can be accounted for as an easy transcriptional error, a simple copying mistake, so why not stay with the 98.5% (there are other variants)? “God was manifested in flesh”—now there you have a mystery! For a more detailed discussion, please see my book, The Identity of the New Testament Text IV, footnote 3, on pages 115-117.

© 2016 Wilbur N. Pickering, ThM, PhD