Category Archives: Old Facebook Posts

This category includes all posts originally shared on Facebook, prior to the launch of Dwight Gingrich Online in October, 2014.

Old Facebook Posts, Thinking Theology Aloud [Random]

Tools for Reading Old Testament Stories Well

2 Comments

(Old Facebook Post – Lightly Edited)

Old Testament stories can be confusing. What do they mean? What are they intended to teach us? How can we read them in a way that helps us hear the messages that God designed for us to hear?

In this post I’ll share two tools that can help us read OT stories well:

  1. A multi-purpose tool: Read each story on three levels.
  2. A more specialized tool: Distinguish between prophecy and typology.

I’ll illustrate these tools by discussing a couple stories from 2 Samuel—especially 1 Samuel 7, which tells the story of God promising David a “house.” (By the way, this chapter is so important that you should memorize the reference. Use the alliteration to help you: “Second Samuel Seven.”)

READING OLD TESTAMENT STORIES ON 3 LEVELS

feestuartIn Fee and Stuart’s book on biblical interpretation, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, they distinguish three different levels of Old Testament narrative (historical story). When interpreting any one passage, you can (and, if possible, should) consider all three levels at which the narrative functions. What are the three levels?

First, there is Level 1—the over-arching narrative of the Bible’s big story of how God is sending a Redeemer to rescue a people from sin and for himself. Second, there is Level 2—the individual books of Scripture, or perhaps major “cycles” within books. For example, 1 Samuel contains a series of stories (one “cycle”) featuring Samuel, a series of stories featuring Samuel and Saul, and then a series of stories featuring Saul and David. Third, there is Level 3—the individual stories, such as last week’s story about David bringing the ark into Jerusalem. (I’m paraphrasing Fee and Stuart’s terminology. I also would add that one could suggest more than three levels, but let’s keep it simple.)

Fee and Stuart emphasize that each individual story plays a role at all three levels. Not all stories function equally clearly at all levels, but all are connected somehow. We should consider all three levels when trying to interpret Old Testament stories.

For example, when we read the story of David bringing the ark into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6) we often focus on Level 3—on what we can learn from the story itself. So we often discuss what we can learn about how we should act in the presence of a holy God. If we focus on level 2, we might notice how this story is part of a series of stories from 2 Samuel 1-6. This series of stories describes how David’s reign was firmly established, beginning with Saul’s death and ending with David reigning from his newly-conquered city Jerusalem—reigning in the presence of Israel’s true King, God himself. We might also notice how the episode in chapter 6 about Michel serves to eliminate Saul’s line from the throne forever, preventing the mingling of David’s and Saul’s dynasties. And if we focus on Level 1? I would have to think about that for a while. Perhaps on that level chapter 6 says something about how the priestly and kingly roles were starting to be united—a unity that would find its ultimate fulfillment in Christ.

All the above is preamble for my comments about 2 Samuel 7. This chapter, unlike chapter 6, very obviously has great significance at Level 1. God’s promise to David that he (God) would build him a “house” (a dynasty) is interpreted by the rest of Scripture to find its ultimate fulfillment in the Messiah, Jesus. So I’ll limit my comments here to Level 1 interpretation, even though this story also works (and suggests applications for faith and practice) at the other two levels.

PROPHECY AND TYPOLOGY

So here is my question: Is God’s promise to David a prophecy of Jesus? I’m thinking specifically of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 (ESV):

12 “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.”

When you start reading at verse 12, it indeed sounds like a direct prophecy of Jesus. You continue on through verses 13 and into 14, and it still sounds like a direct prophecy of Jesus. Especially when you read this: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” God only has one Son, right?

And then you hit 14b: “When he commits iniquity…” Wait a minute! The Messiah won’t sin! Suddenly we’re faced with the fact that this can’t be a direct prophecy about Jesus, but only a direct prophecy about Solomon.

Indeed, in the ancient world (both pagan and Israelite), it was common to think of the king as being a “son” of the gods/God. Being a son meant that you represented and mediated the authority of your “father.” So we should not be shocked to read that God calls Solomon his “son.”

So, if this is not a direct prophecy about Jesus, what is it? I would say, instead, that it is typology. It is prophecy about Solomon, and Solomon was a type of Jesus. Actually, there is some prophecy here that points directly to Christ, but let’s first define our terms.

Prophecy is easy: it is direct prediction. Often this is the only category we think of when we think of how the OT points to Christ. We find individual predictions (a king riding on a donkey, a king born in Bethlehem) and note their explicit fulfillment in the life of Jesus.

franceTypology is a little harder. Here I’ll rely on a favorite author, R.T. France. In his classic book Jesus and the Old Testament he distinguishes typology from both prediction and allegory. I’ll omit the discussion of allegory to keep it simple:

A type… represents a pattern of the dealings of God with men that is followed in the antitype, when, in the coming of Jesus Christ and the setting up of His kingdom, those dealings of God are repeated, though with a fulness and finality that they did not exhibit before… A type is not a prediction; in itself it is simply a person, event, etc. recorded as historical fact, with no intrinsic reference to the future. Nor is the antitype the fulfilment of a prediction; it is rather the re-embodiment of a principle which has been previously exemplified in the type. A prediction looks forward to, and demands, an event which is to be its fulfilment; typology, however, consists essentially in looking back and discerning previous examples of a pattern now reaching its culmination…. The idea of fulfilment inherent in New Testament typology derives not from a belief that the events so understood were explicitly predicted, but from the conviction that in the coming and work of Jesus the principles of God’s working, already imperfectly embodied in the Old Testament, were more perfectly em-bodied, and thus brought to completion. In that sense, the Old Testament history [all of it, not just isolated prophetic predictions!] pointed forward to Jesus.” [emphasis added]

Whew! Are you still with me?

To summarize: Prophecy directly predicts, but typology sets a pattern that only later is seen as being more perfectly fulfilled (or “filled full”) in Christ.

So, which do we have in 2 Samuel 6? Clearly, both. Again, I would say that we have prophecy about Solomon, and, from the perspective of the NT, we can now see that Solomon was a type of Christ. Solomon was a king of peace; Christ is the King of peace. Solomon’s throne was established; Jesus’ throne is established. Most directly for our text: Solomon built a temple; Christ is building the true temple where God will forever dwell—the gathered people of God.

Distinguishing between prophecy and typology helps me to understand how to read this chapter. Clearly, it points to Christ. Equally clearly, it is not all direct prophecy about him. But that doesn’t matter; it still points to him. Solomon was Israel’s grandest king. But he still sinned, as predicted in this chapter. A greater-than-Solomon (sound familiar? see Matt 12:42) was coming in Christ. He fulfilled God’s promise to build David a dynasty better than Solomon ever did. And we can be part of his kingdom!

Finally, I promised I’d explain how this passage does also directly prophecy of Christ. I think it does this when God says “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever… And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.” Solomon did not live “forever.” And, although this prophecy could have initially been understood as referring to David’s later kingly descendants, later history has proven that David’s merely earthly descendants have not always been established on a throne. Only in Christ has David’s throne been established forever.

(It might be observed that the Hebrew word translated “forever” in the OT does not always literally mean “forever.” In some cases it apparently means ” a very long time.” But “forever” might be the best translation here, given what I’m about to observe next.)

Most amazingly, David seemed to understand something of this prophesy about Christ! In Acts 2:31 Peter says that the “prophet” David “foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of Christ” based on the promise given here in 2 Samuel 7! If that intrigues you, here’s some further reading: Ponder Acts 2:25-36, then go back to Psalms 16 (vv. 8-11) and 110. It’s amazing what David understood.

And it’s amazing how the story of 2 Samuel 7 (when interpreted at Level 1) is our story! Truly, “O Lord God, you are God, and your words are true” (2 Sam 7:28).

These tools have helped me to read Old Testament stories more productively. Hopefully they will help you, too. Do you have other tools that help you make proper sense of Old Testament stories? Please share them in the comments below.

Church Chat [Ecclesiology], Old Facebook Posts

Which New Testament Church Practices Are Normative for Today?

10 Comments

(Old Facebook post, lightly revised 7/23/2016.)

Facebook reminded me that I wrote this post three years ago. I wish I had more time for such study and writing today. But I am thankful that I am now living what I wrote then more fully than ever before. Prayers are welcome as I prepare to teach tomorrow (the Lord’s Day) at our little church (in a friend’s house).

How do we determine which NT church practices are normative for us today? That is, how do we know, when reading of what the New Testament church did, whether the church today should imitate them? (To be clear, I am not asking about NT commands; that is another valid question for another time.)

Test Cases: When and Where the Church Gathers

For example, when and where should the church today gather to worship? Let’s talk about when first. The NT church commonly met on the Lord’s Day. Yes, early in the book of Acts we read of the church gathering “day by day.” But the history of the early church shows that gathering on the Lord’s Day rapidly became the standard practice of the early church. This practice has remained the norm for most of the world-wide church to this day. Is this simply a matter of tradition or preference? Or does this example carry a stronger force, obliging us to follow the practice of the early church?

Before we answer, let’s consider the second part of our question: Where should the church gather to worship? Again, while early in Acts we read of the church gathering in the temple, the pattern of the rest of the NT becomes clear: the early church normally gathered for worship in private homes (and sometimes also in public spaces). The history of the early church clearly shows that this practice became the near-universal norm for the first several hundred years of the church. In fact, church historians regularly report that Christians built no buildings specifically for worship gatherings during the first several hundred years of the church. Since the time of Constantine, however, the regular practice of most of the church has been to build special “church buildings” for worship. So again we ask, is the NT example simply a matter of tradition or preference, or does it carry a stronger force, obliging us to follow the practice of the early church?

We imitate the NT practice for when the church meets, but not for where it meets. Why? The contrast between these examples gives us an opportunity to evaluate our theological understandings. It should cause us to scratch our heads and sift our assumptions. But first, let’s examine the historical and theological evidence for both NT church practices a little more closely.

Examining Historical Data

Again, let’s address the when question first. By my count, there are two places in the NT where we read of the church gathering on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2). Besides this, we also read of John being “in the Spirit” (though presumably alone in exile) on the Lord’s Day (Rev. 1:10). Judging by later historical evidence, this was likely a reference to the first day of the week. In addition, the disciples were gathered on the first day of the week when Jesus appeared to them. This happened twice, judging by John’s idiomatic expression “eight days later.” But it could be argued that this hardly counts, because during these post-resurrection weeks the disciples were gathered most every day! If I missed one or two references in my summary here, the point remains the same: we have only a handful of NT references to the church meeting on the Lord’s Day.

In contrast, the host of references and allusions to the church gathering in private homes is too long to summarize properly in a paragraph. For a list of only the clearest evidence, see Acts 2:46; 12:12; 20:8; Romans 16:5; 1Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 1:2. For example, four of these references speak of “the church in so-and-so’s house.” In addition, given the clarity of this evidence, a range of other references also appear to fit the house church pattern: Acts 8:3; 20:20; Philippians 4:22; 1Timothy 5:13; 2Timothy 3:6 and 2 John 1:10 (more could be added). For example, Acts 8:3 speaks of Paul “entering house after house” as he searched for Christians. 2 John 1:10 warns not to “receive [a false teacher] into your house.” The internal and external evidence is beyond dispute: the normal practice of the NT church was to gather for worship in private homes. In fact, if we look at the NT historical data alone, the evidence for house churches is much stronger than the evidence for Lord’s Day worship.

So, what should we do? Today the typical American church gathers on the Lord’s Day, but not in homes. In fact, the average American Christian (including the average Mennonite) would be quite uncomfortable if “church” was switched to any day besides Sunday. But many of the same people are rather suspicious of those who gather in homes for worship. Are we inconsistent here? Or is there a theological distinction between the two examples that I am missing?

Examining Theological Purposes

Here is one factor that I have delayed mentioning: the Lord’s Day is called the Lord’s Day because it was on this day that our Lord rose from dead. Church history clearly shows that the reason the church met on the first day of the week was because they wanted to celebrate Christ’s resurrection. In addition, it appears that the Holy Spirit was first poured out on a Sunday (the Pentecost of Acts 2). Indeed, the first day of the week (sometimes called the eighth day) was the beginning of the new creation. No other day of the week has been graced with such a high honor! It can be argued from this theological symbolism that there is great value in meeting on the Lord’s Day. Every time we gather on the Lord’s Day we are (or should be) reaffirming our faith in our risen Lord and celebrating the outpouring of the Spirit.

No such rich theological meaning is tied up with meeting for worship in houses. Right? Not so fast.

First, we should note in passing that the NT nowhere mentions the above theological motivation for gathering on the Lord’s Day; this connection is only found in later historical writings. It is almost certain, however, that the NT church shared this theological understanding. (This is an example of how historical study can help us understand the Bible better.)

Second, neither persecution nor poverty can explain the practice of house churches. Persecution, though severe at times, was sporadic and localized during most of the first three centuries. And while many Christians were poor, others (such as Erastus the city treasurer and members of Caesar’s household) would have possessed the funds to build church buildings, much as the Roman officer who built a synagogue in Jesus’ day (Luke 7:1-5). Yet, for nearly three hundred years Christians were “one of the few religious groups at the time that did not make use of some sort of sacred buildings or structures” (Rad Zdero, author of the helpful brief book The Global House Church Movement).

Third, we should not overlook the ubiquitous NT references to imagery of the church as a household, a family. Here, again, the evidence is too overwhelming to properly demonstrate in a paragraph. As Paul S. Minear writes in his classic work Images of the Church in the New Testament, “the salutation ‘brothers’ was in the New Testament the most natural (and therefore most quickly conventionalized) way to address fellow Christians or a congregation as a whole.” The word “brothers” is found 183 times in the ESV NT, many times used to refer to fellow Christians. In addition, we find a host of other familial terms, such as the family of God, little children, God’s household, children of God, God as our heavenly father, Jesus as our brother, adoption, heirs, fellow heirs, and inheritance. Consider a few typical examples:

  • Jesus to his disciples (Matt 12:50): “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
  • Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 5:1-2): “Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, in all purity.”
  • Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 3:15): “…The household of God, which is the church of the living God…”
  • Paul to the Ephesian church (Eph 2:19): “…You are… members of the household of God…”
  • Peter to some scattered saints (1 Pet 4:17): “It is time for judgment to begin at the household of God…”

See also John 1:12-13; Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5, 30; 6:10; Ephesians 1:5, 11; 1Timothy 3:4-5; Hebrews 1:4; 2:11; 12:7; 1 Peter 1:4; 1John 2:1, 12-14; 3:1; 2John 1:1—varied references that demonstrate that the household imagery was shared widely by many NT authors. In addition, given the nature of the first-century household, which included more than the just the “nuclear family” of parents and children, we should also probably consider the use of terms such as servant/slave, master, manager, and elder.

Thus, both the time and the place that the NT church met are filled with rich theological significance. In both cases, the link between NT church practices and theology is never made explicit in the NT itself. Nowhere do we read that “we meet on the first day of the week because that is the day Christ arose.” No text says “we meet in houses because we are a family, the household of God.” Yet in both cases, the practice was both a natural outflow of their theological understandings and a natural result of imitating the practices of the apostles.

Must We Gather Today on the Lord’s Day and in Homes?

So, are we obliged to meet on the Lord’s Day? Are we obliged to gather in private homes to worship? Here’s the best answer I can give: No, and no; but we should not overlook the possible blessings of doing so.

Regarding the time of meeting: Since this was a major point of conflict in the first century, it is addressed clearly in Scripture. Christians are no longer compelled to observe a weekly sabbath: “Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath” (Colossians 2:16; for a longer answer to this question, see here). Romans 14:5 broadens this freedom to all days, implicitly including the Lord’s Day: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” Therefore, Christians are free. I bless my brothers and sisters in Muslim lands who gather on Friday, the one day of their week when they are not expected to be at work. On the other hand, let us never forget our Lord’s resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit! I bless all who gather on the Lord’s Day with these gifts in mind. I enjoy this practice myself.

Regarding the place of meeting: This also was of major significance in the first century, but in a different manner. The temple, the focal point of Jewish worship, was eclipsed by Christ who freed us to worship anywhere as long as it is in S/spirit and in truth (John 4:19-24). However, the Jews already also worshiped in synagogues, so NT Christians did not argue over the place of meeting as they did over the time of meeting. They were already used to the idea that there was not only one place where worship could happen. Therefore, the NT does not speak prescriptively about where Christians should meet. This, too, is a matter of freedom in Christ. I bless Christians who meet in barns, offices, and caves. I even bless those who meet in “church buildings.” However, let us never forget that the church is a family, a household!

I will add this: Perhaps we need to consider afresh how the architecture of our meeting places sometimes inhibits NT church family life. For example: we often add a concept of “sacred space” that is very foreign to NT Christianity, calling the building “the church” or “God’s house.” On the other hand, we lose the interactive familial exchange of participatory worship when we sit in rows like spectators, staring at the backs of each others’ heads. Our love feasts have shriveled into mere symbols of a symbol. When did we forget that eating a full meal together in communion with Christ can be a central element of our worship services? Paul’s rebuke of the Corinthians suggests that such love feasts may not be essential (1 Cor 11:22, 34). But they are certainly possible and even desirable, if they be true “love feasts” (Jude 1:12). (Paul does not argue against love feasts in 1 Corinthians 11, only against their abuse.)

Too often our church buildings become sterile, safe places where our Sunday best becomes armor that shields us from each other. If you really want someone to get to know you deeply, where do you invite him to meet? In a coffee shop, an office, or a warehouse? At a concert hall—which is the secular venue that our modern church sanctuaries are perhaps most closely patterned after? Or do you invite him into the intimacy of your own home, where he can see your economic status, your hobbies, your family, and all your worst and best up close? And what about when you are someone else’s guest? Which location makes you most feel like you are being included as part of the family?

In sum, just as I have a slight preference to meet on the Lord’s Day, so I also hunger for the kind of NT church family life that often comes most naturally as we gather to worship, eat, and pray within our own homes.

Summary: Guidelines for Imitating NT Church Practices

To return to our initial question: How do we determine which NT church practices are normative for us today? Our dual case studies suggest a few guidelines:

  1. We should not automatically assume that we are obligated to woodenly imitate every physical practice of the NT church. Historical precedent is not necessarily prescriptive.
  2. We should remember that one repeated NT command was to imitate the actions of the apostles and other faithful leaders (1 Cor 4:16-17; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 2Thess 3:7-9; Heb 13:7)—even though no specific list of mandatory actions is ever given.
  3. We should try to be consistent, not turning historical precedent into prescription in one area while feeling smugly superior to those who imitate NT church practices literally in another area.
  4. We should examine closely the possible benefits of freely imitating NT church practices and not simply react against others who have abused them.
  5. We should aim to chose practices that naturally express the rich theological truths of our Christian faith.
  6. We should remember that the same theological truths may be expressed through a variety of practices. Where Scripture does not speak clearly, we should allow much diversity and bless our brothers and sisters who serve their Master in ways different from us.

Each of these, I think, are worth further reflection.

What do you think? Is it helpful to imitate the NT church in their practices of meeting on the Lord’s Day and in houses (and public spaces)? Do you have other biblical observations, or other guidelines for weighing NT church practices? Share your insights in the comments below, and thanks for reading.

Bible Bites [Exegesis], Church Chat [Ecclesiology], Old Facebook Posts

Should You Desire to Be an Elder?

8 Comments

(Old Facebook Post–Slightly edited and shared November 19, 2015.)

When we seek to understand Scripture, we should ask not only what the words say, but what they were intended to do. It is not sufficient to consider the abstract, factual meaning of words and sentences, as if reading from a dictionary or an encyclopedia. We must also consider why they were written. What difference were they intended to make? Or, to phrase it a bit differently, what actions were the words designed to perform?

(In philosophical discussions of hermeneutics, these questions are the focus of an approach called speech-act theory, but I’ll avoid technical terms.)

I’m thinking of this because I was thinking tonight about 1 Timothy 3:1:

This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. (KJV)

I have often heard this verse expounded along these lines: Paul is saying that it is good to desire to be a pastor in a church. Being a pastor is a good work, and it is a worthy goal to pursue; those who desire this work are to be affirmed for their desire. In fact, one of the qualifications for being a pastor is that you really should have a desire to be one; if you don’t have a deep inner desire for this office, then you are probably are not qualified to fill it.

Whether or not the above statements are all true—and I think evangelicals tend to err here on one side while conservative Anabaptists tend to err on the other—I that think such an exposition is missing the point of this verse.

It always makes me nervous, however, when I find myself reading a passage of Scripture in a unique way, without finding confirmation for my reading from any other interpreters. After all, here are a few prominent explanations of this verse:

An obvious but not insignificant qualification is the shepherd’s personal desire to love and care for God’s people. Paul and the first Christians applauded such willingness by creating a popular Christian saying [1 Tim. 3:1]… In brief, this early Christian saying declares the great value of the work of the office of overseer (eldership) while also encouraging those who desire this work… The first matter to consider in appointing elders is the candidate’s personal desire.” —Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership,1 emphasis added.

Before he lists the qualifications for overseers, Paul affirms the importance of their work… Those who desire to serve in this way are to be encouraged, perhaps as those who build the church with valuable materials as in 1 Corinthians 3:12-14, a task that is indeed “noble.” —Walter Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus,2 emphasis added.

Why does this statement warrant the solemn introduction of a faithful saying? Most answer that the church placed its greatest esteem on the more visible, ecstatic gifts, and the Ephesians needed to be reminded that the more practical functions such as overseer were also significant and worthy of honor… It seems, rather, that any hesitancy to accept positions of leadership by members of the Ephesian church was the result of the excess of the opponents. They were bringing reproach not only upon the church itself but also upon anyone in leadership. Perhaps as well people were hesitant to accept positions that would bring them in direct confrontation with the opponents… The church needed leaders who would do their job well, and it was therefore a good thing to aspire to the office of overseer… The word [ὀρέγεται, “desire”] describes an ‘ambitious seeking’...; whether the aspiration is good or bad is determined by the context. In our text it must be good since Paul is recommending it.” —William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles,3 emphasis added.

Notice how all three commentators above make the same exegetical slip (most clearly in the 1st and 3rd example): They slip from the biblical words about a “good work” to talking about a “good desire.”

Read 1 Timothy 3:1 again; it does not actually say that the desire is good. True, presumably the desire is good—or at least it could potentially be, since the object of the desire is explicitly affirmed as being good. But the main point of the verse, even on an abstract, factual meaning, has nothing to do with “good desires,” but with a “good work.”

(My point here is not to belittle these commentators; I have been helped immensely by them, especially by Strauch and Mounce.)

When we consider the question of what this verse is intended to do, then the real message of the verse becomes clearer.

But before we do that, let’s consider another hurdle: A concordance search for the Greek phrase behind “good works” would seem, at first reading, to affirm the commentators I’ve quoted above. This exact phrase is used elsewhere in the Pastoral Epistles to describe:

  • What widows should be doing if they are to be considered eligible for the “widows list” (1 Tim. 5:10).
  • The behavior that potential elders should be demonstrating before they are appointed (1 Tim. 5:25).
  • What rich Christians should be “rich” in (1 Tim 6:18).
  • What Titus should show himself to be a pattern of (Tit. 2:7).
  • What all the Cretans should be eager to do (Tit. 2:14; 3:8, 14).

In all these cases (and elsewhere in the NT, such as in Heb. 10:24), God’s people are urged to be pursuing “good works.” So doesn’t it make sense that here, too, in 1 Timothy 3:1, Paul is urging people to pursue a “good work”—this time the “good work” of an overseer?

I don’t think so. Here context is key, and two aspects of context bear consideration:

(1) First, and most importantly, notice how the following verse begins: “A bishop then must be blameless…” (KJV). Do you notice the word “then”? This word links the first two verses of 1 Timothy 3. Verse one says that the office of overseer involves a good work; verse two says that, because that office involves a good work, the overseer must be blameless. Or, to say it in reverse: Why must an overseer be blameless (v. 2)? Because he is doing a good work (v. 1).

The NASB and NET read much like the KJV. The ESV makes the connection even clearer: “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach…” The NIV hides the connection almost entirely: “Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach…”

This link suggests something of why Paul wrote verse 1; he was not trying to lift up the office of overseer so that everyone would start filling out applications for the pastorate. Rather, he was lifting up the office of overseer in order to demonstrate why such high qualifications were required for those who filled it. Perhaps we could paraphrase: “If anyone is reaching for the chance to be an overseer, he’s reaching very high indeed!”

(2) Second, the context of the entire letter (and of all three Pastorals) is that Paul is writing to churches wracked by false teachers. Both 1 Timothy and Titus begin abruptly; after brief greetings, Paul skips the customary prayer/blessing found in most letters, and jumps right into the topic of the need for proper leadership. Here in 1 Timothy we read of false teachers who were “desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions” (1 Tim. 1:7). Similarly, in Titus 1:16 we read of false teachers who were “unfit for any good work” (“good work” here is a different, but similar Greek phrase).

This context suggests that Paul was facing a situation where unqualified people were serving as leaders in the church. In such a situation, Paul was concerned to elevate the office of the elder/overseer, reminding people of the high qualifications that were required of those who would fill it. The first and overriding qualification in both 1 Timothy and Titus is that leaders must be “above reproach.”

The problem facing Paul was not simply a lack of leaders (“Let’s lift up the office of overseer so we receive more applications!”) but a multiplication of bad leaders (“Let’s lift up the office of overseer so that only qualified persons will be allowed to lead”).

I have read this verse along these lines for quite a while, so I was delighted tonight to find a commentator who affirmed my reading:

Why does Paul cite a trustworthy saying (1)? Since this appears to be a commonly known saying, he was probably here using it to underline the importance of the overseer’s office for the benefit of those who were underestimating it. Paul sees the work as a noble task. Such an office needs the right kind of people to fit it. —Donald Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary,4 emphasis added.

(To be fair, both Strauch and Mounce also say similar things, but only after being temporarily derailed by first emphasizing the points quoted above; Guthrie never gets similarly derailed.)

Does this all matter? Well, suppose I say, “The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the hand of my daughter, he desires a noble lady.” Would I be content if all the young ruffians in town thought I was urging them to aspire to marry my daughter? Or might I be happier if one of them took a good look at how noble my daughter really is, then refocused his gaze inward to become the man truly qualified to win her hand?

May we read God’s Word not only to discover God’s truth, but also to discover God’s desires.

What do you think? Am I reading Paul well here? Do we need a renewed sense of how noble the task of overseeing is? (I sometimes think some conservative Anabaptists are a little too afraid of possessing a desire to shepherd–or at least of anyone saying they possess the desire.) Are there other Scripture passages where we might be understanding the words but missing the point? Share your insights in the comments below.

  1. Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership (Colorado Springs, CO: Lewis and Roth, 1995), 83, 187, 281. ↩
  2. Walter Liefeld, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), Kindle location 2487. ↩
  3. William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2000), 167-68. ↩
  4. Donald Guthrie, The New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), note on 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (Logos Bible Software edition, page unknown). ↩