The Temple of God

Was reading in 1 Corinthians 3 this week and this passage was before me:

1 Corinthians 3:16-17: Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.

This should resonate for the Christian, though we are far removed from the heavily Jewish flavor of the 1st century in Palestine. Jewish Christians hearing this from Paul would likely have connected what he said here with cherished promises they had heard all their lives. But the apostle reveals that the true fulfillment of all of God’s promises are found in Christ, not in a parcel of dirt in the middle east.

Here’s what the 1st century Jews were holding onto:

Abram. Genesis 12:2 & 3: I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.

Jacob. Genesis 27:29: Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you. Be lord over your brothers, and may your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!

Israel. Numbers 24:8 & 9: God brings him out of Egypt and is for him like the horns of the wild ox; he shall eat up the nations, his adversaries, and shall break their bones in pieces and pierce them through with his arrows. He crouched, he lay down like a lion and like a lioness; who will rouse him up? Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you.

Blessing and curses. God loves His people! Yes, He does. And note: not only does Paul apply this same blessing curse to the body of Christ, he also told us that all who believe on Jesus are true children of Abraham according to the promise. And Matthew told us that when Israel was called out of Egypt (as we see in Num 24, above and in Hosea 11), that this was a shadow of Jesus coming out of Egypt (Matt 2:15).

1 Corinthians 3:11 (HCSB) For no one can lay any other foundation than what has been laid down. That foundation is Jesus Christ.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 (HCSB) 16 Don’t you yourselves know that you are God’s sanctuary and that the Spirit of God lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God’s sanctuary, God will destroy him; for God’s sanctuary is holy, and that is what you are.

Yes, God loves His people. He sent His Son to redeem us from sin and hell and death. He did this so that we would shine like lights in a dark place, heralding the gospel to a world that consuming itself. Fear not, God is giving His kingdom to His children. Go forth, now and tell people that Jesus saves sinners from a certain doom that is far worse than any “hell” they imagine.

Colquhoun's The Law and the Gospel, part 1

Years ago I read John Colquhoun's book, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel, written in the early 1800s and recently published (2009) by Soli Deo Gloria Publications.

I decided to re-read this book, having studied many aspects of theology in the past 8 years. Below are my observations of the first half of chapter one. Lord willing, I will write up notes on the balance of the book over the coming weeks.

In the Publisher' Introduction to the 2009 edition published by Soli Deo Gloria Publications, Joel Beeke said "Colquhoun was a Reformed experiential preacher. His sermons and writings reflect those of the Marrow brethren".

In chapter 1, Colquhoun recognizes that "law" has diverse meanings in Scripture. He says law "is used to signify the declared will of God, directing and obliging mankind to do that which please Him, and to abstain from that which displeases Him. This, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is that law of God; and it is divided into the natural law and the positive law."  (page 1) He uses the classic papists and Reformed terms of moral, ceremonial, and civil law but does not divide them in the usual way; this makes following his arguments somewhat difficult.

He says the Old Testament Sabbath, which took place on the 7th day of the week, was altered to the first day under the New Testament (page 2) - but this is a passing comment with no reference to Scripture. There is no Scripture which supports this idea. He repeats this assertion on page 3, saying "It was upon moral ground that Christ the Mediator proceeded when He changed the seals of the covenant of grace, altered the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and instituted new ordinances of worship and government for His Church." Note this "standard Reformed fare" as Joel Beeke calls it: the covenant of grace encompasses everything and is only modified by the advent and sacrifice of Christ; whereas the Scripture tells us the Old Covenant was ended as the New Covenant pushed it aside (Hebrews 8:7 & 13). Why Reformed paedobaptists do this becomes clear as one reads more of their material: they must draw equivalence between the ekklesia of the New Covenant and that of the Old in order to establish a connection between circumcision of the flesh and water baptism. They ignore that the ekklesia of the New Covenant is all and only the believing while the ekklesia of the Old Covenant included all who underwent that religious rite of fleshly circumcision. And entrance into the New Covenant comes by circumcision of the heart, not water baptism. There are similarities but there are differences; this is the case in comparing shadow and substance.

Colquhoun goes on to say Adam was as the redeemed are, using Col 3:10 and Eph 4:24 to claim "God, then, created man in His own moral image by inscribing His law, the transcript of His own righteousness and holiness, on man's mind and heart." (page 3). Note how he inserts "moral" to modify image to make a connection to his "moral law." I find nothing in the Bible that hints at any law being inscribed on Adam's heart; we have Reformed presupposition so they can build their case to strap the Law of Moses on the backs of the saints.

On page 8 our author that the law transcribed on Adam's heart was "much obliterated" and "continues still to be, in a great degree, defaced and even obliterated in the mind of all His unregenerate offspring." Hence, when Jesus said (Hebrews 8:10) that He would write His laws on the hearts of His people, Colquhoun claims this means the law given to all men is merely inscribed "anew on the hearts of the elect." If this were true, would not we read that Jesus would re-new the law on our hearts? The author tells us "The law of creation, or the Ten Commandments, was, in the form of a covenant of works, given to the first Adam after he had been put into the garden of Eden. ... An express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, annexed to the law of creation, made it to Adam a covenant of works proposed; and his consent, which he as a sinless creature could not refuse, made it a covenant of works accepted." (pages 10 & 11) Pay attention to the theology of the white space: nowhere do we read that Adam was promised life if he obeyed the ONE COMMAND (not ten) given to him; nowhere do we read that Adam was given the opportunity to accept (or reject) the one command. "And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”" (Genesis 2:16-17). No promise of eternal life upon obedience, but a sober warning that death would come if he disobeyed that one command which is NOT written on the tablets of stone. Yet Colquhoun asserts that this passage "was, in effect, a summary of all the commands of the natural or moral law; obedience to it included obedience to them all, and disobedience to it was a transgression of them all at once." (page 12) This shows up on pages 18 and 22 as well. When you derive your theology from your system, rather than from the Bible, you will make bold, unsupportable claims that must be blindly accepted or taken in merely by human wisdom; those "good and necessary inferences" which are used to paper over the white spaces upon which the system rests.

Further, if Adam had been given the Decalogue, he would have known good and evil before the Fall for the law brings knowledge of sin. He did not know both good and evil until after he ate the forbidden fruit. After the Fall, after the curses spoken by God, we read, "The LORD God said, “Since man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil, he must not reach out, take from the tree of life, eat, and live forever.”" (Genesis 3:22) Adam was in a state of innocence before the Fall, not knowing good and evil. He knew the goodness of God and when he sinned, he knew good and evil, for evil was in his being.

Colquhoun's covenant of grace, being "standard Reformed fare," includes the Old Covenant, as he references obligations therein, found in Romans 9:31-32. He claims that every man is in this covenant and subject to its curses for disobedience! He continues with his alleged promise of life to Adam, saying, "That a promise of life was made to the first Adam, and to all his natural descendants in him, on condition of his perfect obedience during the time of his probation." (pages 14 & 15).  This latter statement is "supported" by a citation of Matthew 19:17 and Luke 10:28 wherein Jesus told Jews they would have life if they obeyed the law of Moses perfectly (page 16). He ignores the context of these passages and asserts they describe Adam's situation, as if redemptive history was an all-in-one bucket that applies to everyone at all times.

Our author is not bereft of solid teaching; we read this on page 19 speaking of those trusting in their own works for justification: "they perverted both the law and the gospel, and formed them for themselves into a motley covenant of works."

Again he asserts that the "law of nature" given to all men is the Decalogue (page 25), contradicting the biblical witness that the tablets of stone were given to national Israel and not to any other people. It IS true that the "law of nature" (which I term God's universal law) is from God and reflects the same character, but the law is not the same as that given to national Israel. Why is it inconceivable for some to see that God DOES give different laws to different people? There's no record of the Mosaic Law, in part or whole, being given to the Syrians or any other pagan nation. Why insist the Decalogue is anything more than what the Bible clearly teaches it to be - the testimony of the covenant with national Israel (Exodus 31:18, 32:15, 34:27 - 29). Consider this one aspect: the Bible tells us the weekly Sabbath was a sign between God and national Israel of the covenant He had made with them (Exodus 31:12-18; Ezekiel 20:11-13; 18-21). With this being a biblical fact, how could the Sabbath be a sign to national Israel if it was given to all mankind?

Colquhoun digs this hole deeper by claiming (page 27) that "The Apostle Paul accordingly call it (the Decalogue) "the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2)." Consider the nature of the law written on the stone tablets: 8 prohibitions; one command to rest; one command to honor one's parents. This law was written on stone, given to people with stone hearts, who ended up worshiping God in a stone temple.

When the New Covenant came, the stone temple was destroyed, the stone tablets had been lost in anticipation of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 3:14-17), and all the members of this New Covenant have new hearts of flesh (the heart is not renewed, a new one is implanted - Ezekiel 36:24-32) with the new law written thereupon. And these people are the temple of the living God! Do you see the change from shadow to substance? The priesthood was also changed and with that change, a change of law was required: Hebrews 7:12 (HCSB) "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well." Jesus became the guarantee of a better covenant (Hebrews 7:22). Jesus obtained a superior ministry and to that degree (superior) He has become the mediator of a better covenant which has been legally enacted on better promises (Hebrews 8:6). For if that first ⌊covenant⌋ had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second one. By saying, a new ⌊covenant⌋, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear." (Hebrews 8:7 & 13) To say that the New Covenant is merely another part of the mythical "covenant of grace" which includes the Old Covenant is to ignore the explicit Biblical witness in favor of "good and necessary inferences." This is very bad theology and cannot be accepted.

Why, then, the Law?

I’m sure you have run across those who claim Paul was speaking to us in the present tense in  Galatians 3:24 when he wrote that the law was our nanny until we came to faith in Christ. There is a two-fold problem with this understanding: First, the context from the middle of chapter 2 through chapter 5 aligns with the passage in chapter 3 which provides explicit language to clarify Paul’s rhetorical question in verse 19 of chapter 3: why, then, the law? Second, a misunderstanding of the answer to this question can lead to believing just what Paul argued against in this letter.

First, does verse 24 in chapter 3 tell us the law was our nanny until we came to faith in Christ? Here’s how the KJV reads: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” In case the formatting doesn’t show up, the phrase “to bring us” is in italics, meaning it was added in by the translation team. Read the verse without that phrase: “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” The law did not, does not, bring anyone to Christ – the Spirit does that through the proclamation of the gospel! But that phrase was added to make it appear the law carried people to the Lord.

It is clear from the context that Paul is speaking of the Mosaic Law here. As is the case in all the New Covenant passages, the Mosaic Law is spoken of as a unit. We don’t read about this part or that division of the law. Simply the law. We read in Exodus that before Moses went up Mt Sinai to get the second set of tablets, he “came and told the people all the commands of the Lord and all the ordinances. … He then took the covenant scroll and read it aloud to the people.” (Ex 24:3 & 7) And in verse 12 we see YHWH telling Moses “Come up to Me on the mountain and stay there so that I may give you the stone tablets with the law and commandments I have written for their instruction.” All the law and commandments, not just the Decalogue nor everything other than the Decalogue; all the law and commandments. This is what Paul was referring to.

The word interpreted “schoolmaster” is the Greek word from which we get our word “pedagogue.” While modern definitions, such as used by the KJV, claim that word means tutor, the ancient definition referred to one who was a slave guardian of his master’s child, to make sure the child was where he needed to be, when he was supposed to be there. He was NOT a tutor or schoolmaster, but one charged with the safety of his charge.

Here’s how several other translations render that verse: “The law, then, was our guardian until Christ, so that we could be justified by faith.” (HCSB) The law of Moses was “our guardian” – whose guardian? Go back to chapter 2 and verse 15: “We who are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners”” The law of Moses was a guardian for the Jews by birth – national, ethnic Israel, and not to “Gentile sinners.” Some of the folk in the assembly of saints at Galatia wanted to retreat from the milk of the gospel and embrace the heavy yoke that the council in Acts 15 would overthrow. These were called “foolish Galatians” (3:1), followed up by “Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now going to be made complete by the flesh?” (vs 3) If the law brings people to Christ, why would Paul call people foolish who wanted to live under it?

This brings us to verse 19 and the question – Why, then the law? And the answer: “It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise was made would come.” Even the KJV agrees with this. The law of Moses was given because of transgressions and only until the promised Seed came. Jesus came and did His work of redemption and is with the Father on high. The law as it was given to national Israel, as a binding legal code with sanctions for violations, was only until Christ came. Paul sums up the condition of his kinsmen of the flesh in verse 23: “Before this faith came, we were confined under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith was revealed.” Some translations do not have “this” before “faith.” No matter – the apostle is restating his message from verse 19, explaining why and when the law was given.

The law was added – had not been given before this, not to Adam, not to Abraham – to remain in place until the promised Seed came. And until faith came, for the law granted faith to nobody, Jews were in chains under the law. But when faith came, when the Messiah was glorified, verse 25 tells the good news to those who were in bondage – “we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.” (verse 26)

Now back to verse 22: “But the Scripture has imprisoned everything under sin’s power, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” This verse does not say “the law has imprisoned everything under/in sin’s power” – it says Scripture has. Scripture tells us the entire creation was cursed when Adam fell. Scripture tells us there is no salvation except in Christ. Scripture tells us creation groans in anticipation of its new birth, when Christ returns to gather His saints on the new earth. We know that everything IS under sin’s power because of sin. Sickness and death stalk each of us. But the promise given to Abraham, that he would be the father of many nations, is incrementally consummated every time one of God’s elect is raised up to new life in Christ Jesus.

This message is given different views in chapters 4 & 5 but the message is the same: present day (in Paul’s day) Jerusalem represented the slavery of the Mosaic Law; freedom from sin comes only in Christ, the heavenly Jerusalem. The law was added until the promised Seed came. Hebrews tells us the religious rites given through Moses served as a copy and shadow of the heavenly things (Heb 8:5). When the fullness of time came, the promised Seed came and conquered sin and death and the shadows, those types found in the law, came to their end.

Why, then, the law? To show the nation of stiff-necked, loop-hole finding, law-loving Jews how wicked they were; to keep them as a nation to display God’s holiness to them and the pagan nations; to make sure they were around when the fullness of time came and the promised Seed arrived. The law was Israel’s guardian until faith came, because Israel could not keep itself. Their history shows that, if left themselves, they were every bit as wicked as the Syrians, or you and me before we were redeemed.

Once the promised Seed came, the guardian is no longer needed. Faith and the promise do not depend on fleshly procreation. By faith we become children of Abraham. Now that Christ has come, the Spirit keeps His people. The law fulfilled its role, its time is past. The covenant based on shadows and types, with fire and threats of punishment for violations of its law has ended. Faith has come in the person of the promised Seed. The law and all the other shadows of the Old Covenant no longer bind anyone with chains but, as the Spirit gives the light of understanding, serve to instruct us about our innate weakness and need for humility before God and fellow man. Just as we read with New Covenant clarity from Jesus, Paul, Peter, and John.

No need to “un-hitch” the Old Testament from our faith – all of it is from God for us. We belong to heavenly country which has different laws; given by the same God but intended for a people with hearts of flesh, not stone; people who, having been loved by God can and will love Him and one another. No need to tell one another, “know the Lord” for we all know Him. The Mosaic Law was chains for a people who needed to be told “know the Lord.” We in the New Covenant are not that people. We can see the law did not restrain national Israel from doing evil. So God gave His Spirit to will and equip us to do what is pleasing to Him.

Not under the yoke of law, which could not save nor can it lead us to Christ; it can only condemn. Therein is the danger of wrongly interpreting this passage.

New heart, new mediator, new priesthood, new covenant, new law from the new Lawgiver.  That’s the difference being in the New Covenant makes.

Sanctification by the law - where is that found?

I've looked and looked and don't find any New Covenant context teaching telling us to go back to Moses. Everything I have found shows me otherwise.

Take Romans 12, for example. First chapter after a bunch of theology, including a bunch of "law" talk. Much encouragement for the saints to walk a certain way and not a hint of law-keeping, other than the exhortation to not take vengeance but leave that to God.

What we see is a continual teaching to live by the grace of God, be transformed by renewing your mind, be humble. In the section on body-life Paul tells us how to love one another with specific teachings - but no law-keeping.

Here's the bottom line: The Mosaic Law and other laws like it (found in many Fundamental fellowships) are intended for those who are unregenerate. What we are taught in Romans 12 is fit only for those indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who wills and equips us to do what pleases the Father.

While all Scripture is for our edification and benefit, the law of the Old Covenant was for those in that covenant. The Law of Moses does not and never has bound people outside that covenant community.

If you are in Christ, there is a better law, fit for a spiritual people. We have a covenant built on better promises, mediated by a better priest, with a new law meant only for the saints.

Rejoice! God's grace was sufficient to save you and by it He is sufficient to renew your mind and sanctify your soul until Christ returns or He takes you home

Does Acts 2:39 teach inclusion of children?

When Peter was preaching during Pentecost, he told the Jewish audience that Jesus was the promised son of David, yet David’s Lord. He summed up with this “altar call”:

Acts 2:36-37 (HCSB) “Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah!” When they heard this, they came under deep conviction and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles: “Brothers, what must we do?”

His answer to their anguish was not “ask Jesus into your heart.” Acts 2:38 (HCSB) “Repent,” Peter said to them, “and be baptized, each of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Natural man cannot do this. MUST have the Holy Spirit indwelling a regenerated soul.

And note: repent and be baptized. Not, be sprinkled as a babe and later, if it be you are a true covenant child, repent. Repent then be baptized; this is the biblical practice.

Acts 2:39 (HCSB) “For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call.”

No matter how you interpret “the promise,” there are several views, there is no way to think the promise is to the children of Christian parents. Peter was speaking to unconverted Jews, not redeemed saints. The promise was to them – they were the ones who asked “what must we do?”

The term “brothers” in verse 37 clearly is not used in the New Covenant context, as they were at that time unconverted. Brothers in the same sense as Paul expressed agony over his “kinsmen of the flesh” – his fellow Jews. In this culture, the Jews saw themselves as the brotherhood of God against the world.

The promise to all – Jews, their children, and ALL WHO ARE FAR OFF (the Gentiles – those who, “at that time you were without the Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.” – Eph 2:12). The promise is to the whole world, not somebody’s children – AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD WILL CALL.

The promise is to people in every group of people – as many as the Lord calls.

This passage no more gives support to family status in the New Covenant than it gives support to an Arminian view of salvation.

Elders and Deacons

You Can Listen to This Sermon Here

1 Timothy 3:1-13 This saying is trustworthy: “If anyone aspires to be an overseer, he desires a noble work.” An overseer, therefore, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, self-controlled, sensible, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not addicted to wine, not a bully but gentle, not quarrelsome, not greedy - one who manages his own household competently, having his children under control with all dignity. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a new convert, or he might become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the Devil. Furthermore, he must have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he does not fall into disgrace and the Devil’s trap.

Deacons, likewise, should be worthy of respect, not hypocritical, not drinking a lot of wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And they must also be tested first; if they prove blameless, then they can serve as deacons. Wives, too, must be worthy of respect, not slanderers, self-controlled, faithful in everything. Deacons must be husbands of one wife, managing their children and their own households competently. For those who have served well as deacons acquire a good standing for themselves, and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.

Paul begins and ends this passage with commendations for those who aspire to serve as elders or has served well as deacons; it is a privilege to serve in either role. He describes these two roles within the local fellowship of saints, both having very similar qualifications, but very different roles (which are explained elsewhere in Scripture). Both are described as servants with responsibility, not rulers with authority. The Bible has authority in the church; the men do not.

The Apostles, forerunner of church elders, were to devote themselves to prayer and the preaching of the Word; deacons are to tend to the physical needs of the dynamic and diverse body of Christ. In Acts 6 the people did not vote for who would serve as deacons; they nominated seven godly men to the Apostles, who appointed the men to serve. This passage does not show a democracy in action as many Baptists falsely believe. It shows the active participation of the members, recognizing the role of those God had appointed to lead them. As the church matured, the Scripture shows us that elders had oversight on all the church did and deacons provided much more service than “waiting tables.” As there are spiritual issues behind every temporal matter a deacon might be called upon to help with, these men must be qualified and there must be a good rapport between the deacons and elders, so the body of Christ gets the best care possible.

Deacon. The Greek (diaconos) and English words refer both to one who serves the local church in this capacity as well as those who are simply known for being servants to the body of Christ. Deacons are not required to be spiritual guides, feeders of the flock, or teachers; they are required to be trustworthy and of moral character as they deal with matters of temporal importance and the related spiritual foundations. The health of the church depends on deacons functioning well, which requires the cooperation of the elders and the people. It is painfully apparent that many of us have lost sight of the completeness of the wisdom our Lord has provided us and the reason for it. How we serve Him and one another is be to the glory of His name and the good of His people.

Robert Boyt C. Howell laments “much confusion and division of sentiment regarding the nature of the office”; and he points out how so many miss the Scriptural teachings that describe the role of those who hold the office of deacon.

Nearly all the churches have made them ministers of the gospel. In the Roman Catholic church he is an inferior ecclesiastic, the second in the sacred order, who, with the permission of the bishop, has authority to preach and baptize. In the English church the Deacons are clergymen, but of the lowest grade; who can perform all the offices of priests, except the consecration of the sacred elements and the pronouncing of the absolution. In the German Protestant churches, when more ministers than one in the same congregation are necessary, the second, or assistant minister, is called the Deacon; and if there are two assistants the first is called the Arch-Deacon. In the Presbyterian church, the office is commonly merged with that of ruling elder, and, therefore, mostly disused. Where it is still retained, it embraces, as among Congregationalists and others, merely the distribution of alms. The Methodist and Episcopal churches in this country adopt, substantially, the practice of the English church, of which they are descendants. In the Baptist churches, the Deacons are not ministers who preach, on the one hand, nor mere distributors of alms on the other, but serve in a different capacity. They are a board of directors, and have charge of all the secular affairs in the kingdom of Christ

It is not unusual for Baptist deacons to have hire & fire authority over elders (a corollary error in this circumstance is the absence of a plurality of elders). In the end, nobody escapes unscathed! This all-too-common Baptist practice is blatantly taken from the modern business world, and puts the lower office of deacon as overseers of those called of God to be overseers, turning Scripture on its head.

We need to ask, is the Bible so unclear on the nature and duties of the office of deacon? Brothers, this is not the case! It is sin that keeps God's people from seeing clearly, not a lack of clarity in God's Holy Word. We must abide by what the Book reveals, and guard against traditions not found therein. If Scripture is not our guide, we are adrift on the sea of man's wisdom; and that is dangerous.

The qualifications of deacons differ from those of elders on the single requirement of elders, but not deacons, being able to teach the Word of God. Deacons are to be men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit, holding the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. These bedrock character traits often neglected when selecting deacons, as people focus on the man's record of financial giving, business acumen, and abstinence from alcohol. While those traits can be easily measured, they cannot be found in the Bible as qualification for this office. The traits found in Scripture are not so easily quantified. It takes serious thought and hard work to determine if a man has a good reputation among his neighbors and work colleagues. It takes time and discernment to see if there be evidence of the Holy Spirit in a man. Who wants to put a man on the spot and see if he holds the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience? Can you even explain this requirement, much less investigate it? Installing men to serve the local church as deacons is sober work, not to be taken lightly or without serious prayer and reflection.

A deacon must be the husband of one wife. The literal meaning of the text is "a one woman man" - which means that if there was a biblical divorce and subsequent marriage, the man is not disqualified. If one holds that no divorce is biblical, the on-going sin in a second marriage becomes an on-going problem within the body. I see 2 reasons in Scripture wherein YHWH permits divorce, for unrepentant adultery or for abandonment by an unbelieving spouse. The goal of marriage is for each to last until death parts the couple. But even redeemed saints can fall into sin and be stiff-necked for a season; and the One Who knows our frailty has provided a narrow window - much narrower than in the Mosaic Covenant.

The requirement that deacons be tested first gives us a hint that we should invest the time and energy in examining would-be deacons; and not merely assuming these traits be theirs. This testing also provides the opportunity to see if his wife is sober minded and faithful, if his children are “managed well”. We must exercise the full measure of the biblical text to prove the men who would serve as deacons; they are care-takers of God's sheep and co-laborers with His under-shepherds. This is a high calling (those who serve well gain a good standing) and we cannot allow our lazy human minds to rest on our own wisdom, or the taking of shortcuts or reliance on the traditions handed to us by other men. Finding men who tithe and do not frequent bars is wrong-headed and too low a bar for the office our Lord established for the temporal care of His redeemed.

As we desire our men to provide for their families, spiritually as well as physically, our deacons are to help families in each arena, with boundaries in both. Neither the church nor either office therein can unreasonably meddle with a family. God has established three spheres in this age, with specific roles and limits. It's been said that to the state God gave the sword, to the church He gave the keys to the kingdom, and to the family He gave the rod of correction. We should not cross these boundaries without a clear biblical basis. Wisdom and care is needed if we are to tend to God's people without ruling over them as "Gentiles" tend to do.

Healthy church members let their deacons know ahead of time when they will miss, and explain why. They will be more inclined to assemble with another local body while away if they properly understand church membership. This exercise of membership responsibilities is representative of any number of other earthly matters that deacons are likely to get involved with, each of which most often reflects the spiritual condition of the person. Lack of attendance and interest in church life, neglecting to worship in giving money, and many other concerns can be prompted by earthly things: illness, loss of work, death in the family, etc. In order to be wise stewards of the office, deacons must not presume to know the cause without investigating it, learning from Job who investigated the cause of what he did not know (Job 29:16). This keeps us from the sin of presumption and all that tends to follow closely behind.

As we examine men who would and do serve in our churches as deacons; as we consider how we determine the role of the office and how we select these men, let us humbly petition our God for wisdom and grace to do what is right in His sight - aligned with His scriptures and not resting on our own wisdom.

Elder. This role can only be fulfilled by a qualified man who is called and equipped by God for this service. There is no possible interpretation that allows self-identified or unconverted men, or women to serve in this capacity; and yet many churches do just this. This latter error is always the first big step to total apostasy for a church, preferring fallen man's view of order over creator God's declared view.

As mentioned earlier, the only different qualification for this role is that an elder must be able to teach. In our English Bibles we see the words Elder/Presbyter, Overseer/Bishop, Shepherd/Pastor. Each pair of these words comes from one Greek word; Elder/Presbyter is from presbyteros; Overseer/Bishop from episkope; and Shepherd/Pastor from poimen. They are used interchangeably and they all refer to a single office in the church which has several important functions, each of which is designed by the Lord to insure the health of each local church. The terms elder and presbyter refer to a man’s experience; in the Word and in the church. Overseer and bishop convey the act of being a spiritual guardian or protector, while pastor and shepherd refer to the spiritual care and feeding of God’s flock. We see overlap among these three functions in 1 Peter 5:1-5, where elders are exhorted by the Apostle Peter to shepherd God's people with the right motive and attitude, serving as examples for the less mature Christians. In Acts 20:28, elders are instructed by the Apostle Paul to pay careful attention to themselves and the flock of God, in which the Holy Spirit made you overseers, to care for the church. One aspect of being a faithful elder that is implicit in these passages is that of being among the saints, knowing them as a shepherd knows his flock and being known as the shepherd is by the sheep. A man who does not live among his church members, who lives at a higher station of life, who spends all his time with other preachers is not faithful to his call. The elder must be an able teacher of the Word (1 Timothy 3:2, Titus 3:1-8) and a diligent servant of God's people (1 Timothy 5:17 & 18).  He must also be able and willing to rebuke those who contradict the Word of God within the local church (Titus 1:7-9), and he must be about training others to work alongside him as under-shepherds of Christ (2 Timothy 2:1-3). One who would hold this office must lead the church, serving as a proper example (2 Thessalonians 2:11 & 12; 2 Timothy 2:15), and the saints are commanded to submit to them, not being burdensome for them (Hebrews 13:17). Elders were given to the church, by God, to equip the saints for the work of the church, bringing them to maturity and the fullness of Christ so they would not be vulnerable to the deceptive schemes of the enemy (Ephesians 4:11-14). This means the biblical elder must feed God's sheep the whole counsel of His Word, not trusting his opinion or theirs as to what is true nor picking some Scriptures from which to teach and ignoring others. His teaching is to be tested in light of Scripture; not accepted nor rejected by personal whimsy or blind friendship. All of these responsibilities of elders are beyond any man's abilities, so the Bible reminds us that elders, like the Apostles who preceded them, must be men of prayer (Acts 6:4).

There is another requirement of the man who would serve as an elder. While some read 1 Timothy 3:2 to mean a single man cannot serve as an elder, the view most compatible with Scripture is that an elder who is married must be in a biblical marriage and work at keeping it. Elders must be one-woman men, and they must lead their churches to defend marriage in the face of reprobates. 1 Timothy 3 goes on to say the elder must be sober minded and not quarrelsome; all the more so in defending God's people from unrighteous men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth (Romans 1:18).

Being God's spokesman is no job for a new convert, one who is unsure of God's Word, unwilling to proclaim God's Word, unable to rebuke those who contradict God's Word, or unworthy of being followed as God's servant. The times in which we live are treacherous, with many professing Christians embracing abominable sin in order to be well thought of by those outside the camp of Christ. Christians are never to compromise God's truth for the applause of men (Galatians 1:10) and elders must be held to a high standard so that the Lord's name not be disgraced among the pagans and the local church not be led astray.

Ezekiel 33 & 34 describes watchman appointed by God with responsibilities to warn, guard, and care for the people of God. In these two chapters we see a contrast of the watchman with the shepherd: the watchman warns, the shepherd tends. In each passage, unfaithful watchmen and shepherds are contrasted with those who are faithful. Ezekiel 34:1-10 describes the failures of the leaders of Israel, showing what shepherds are supposed to fulfill. Shepherds are supposed to care for the flock. These men were feeding on the sheep; fleecing the sheep. These men had all the appearance of shepherds, but they were wolves. Pastoral ministry is hard work, not glamorous. Those who pose as celebrities, living the high life, are not pastors. Pastors should smell like sheep, walking in the mud and mess, scarred by the teeth of biting sheep. This is difficult but rewarding work. Every man should aspire to be a commendable man who leads his family as a shepherd leads the flock. He must diagnose and treat appropriately – you don't strengthen the stray, you strengthen the weak; you don't bind up the lost – you search for the lost. Each spiritual condition requires the correct spiritual remedy. The pastor must know illnesses and the people, else he cannot properly treat the sheep. Verse 10 in Ezekiel 34 shows the omnipotent hand of God rescuing His sheep from the teeth of the wolves. A true pastor will watch the flock like a man who must give an account to the God who has purchased the sheep with the blood of His own son. Because that is what God's Word tells us the truth about those who would call themselves “pastor”.

Even with the best of intentions, we can go astray from the narrow path of biblical truth. Over time, man has developed unbiblical structures, imagining that Bishop is more honorific and must carry more responsibility (by which they mean fame). Most men who preach call themselves “pastor” regardless of whether they shepherd the flock God has gathered there or not. One who preaches but does not work to know and care for the saints the Lord has put under his watch cannot rightly call himself pastor; he is merely a preacher. These words are not titles by which the men who serve are to be called, but descriptions of service they provide within the local church. Because God has given these terms to describe the roles of men He calls to the office, we must be careful to use them correctly.

Plurality of elders. Most churches in every denomination and across the spectrum of Baptists miss the point of Scripture on this point. The Bible repeatedly shows us that even the early churches that met in houses had two or more men serving as elders, a plurality of elders.

Acts 14:22&23 – Paul and Barnabas had traveled to Antioch, Derbe, Iconium, & Lystra, where they strengthened the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying that through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God. And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Acts 20:17 – Paul passed by Ephesus to Miletus. Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him.

James – Was written to the churches resulting from Saul’s scattering of the saints (1:1), this letter shows elders in the local church (5:14).

Philippians is addressed (1:1) to overseers (elders) and deacons in that church, in addition to the entire congregation.

Hebrews recognizes leaders (elders) in that congregation (13:7, 17, 24).

1 Tim – Timothy was recognized by the elders of his church for his calling as an elder (1 Tim 4:14) and a plurality of elders is seen again in 5:17.

In large and small fellowships, having only one elder can lead to a kind of “cult of personality” as a solitary man is seen as the public face and voice of that church. One man alone, coping with a job, his family, and the ministry is vulnerable to being drawn aside by pragmatism in what may start as an innocent desire to do all things well and unto the Lord but which soon go astray. If the saints YHWH has gathered and gifted in the local church (1 Corinthians 12:4-11) are encouraged to serve the body, those serving as elders and deacons will have a much lighter load and the local church will marvel to see the Lord working in their midst!

Having two or more men who preach and teach provides several benefits, in addition to aligning with the examples and teachings from Scripture (Acts 11:27-30; 14:21-23; 20:7; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; et. al.). Two or more men can sharpen one another and hold each other accountable, while the church sees the true Shepherd more clearly when they see Him work through more than one man. The church will see strengths and weaknesses in each man and those men will have the opportunity to be examples of how to serve in unity without letting egos derail the ministry. As they seek to identify others and train them for this service, more men will have opportunity to serve the saints in myriad ways. This is part of life in the body of Christ that is vital and often undervalued. It is not, as one man said to me, a matter of money. It's a matter of caring for the people of God as He has shown us.

Baptists used to be known as "people of the Book." This topic of deacons and elders is one where many Baptists discard the Book and cling to traditions handed down by men. Brothers, this should not be so! We are servants with responsibility. The Bible is our only authority for life and godliness. We are to seek His will, revealed in Scripture, and not rely on our own wisdom or traditions.

What is Your Standard of Righteousness?

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary: Righteousness, as used in Scripture and theology, in which it is chiefly used, is nearly equivalent to holiness, comprehending holy principles.

Is the Decalogue a standard of righteousness?

1. Do not make other gods.

2. Do not make idols.

3. Do not profane the name of YHWH.

4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.

5. Honor your parents.

6. Do not murder.

7. Do not commit adultery.

8. Do not steal.

9. Do not lie.

10. Do not covet.

Of the ten commandments, 8 are prohibitions against sin and 2 are commands to do something. The 4th command, as spoken by Moses in Exodus 20:8-11, provides instructions on how to keep it (rest from all work). The 5th command does not, merely giving a reason to obey.

Only God can know if a man worships idols or covets, though man may discern evidence of these sins.

How do these instructions establish righteousness?

Contrast the teachings of Moses found in the Decalogue with those of Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 and consider: which truly describes righteousness? Perfect love, described in 1 Cor 13, is an attribute of Christ Jesus, alone among men. And He is our righteousness.

Consider what Jesus revealed as the greatest commandments: Matthew 22:37-39 (HCSB) He said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important command. The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." These two commands reflect a high standard of righteousness, one no mortal man can attain. Might these two words, which are NOT a summation of the Decalogue (see verse 40), be the highest standard given to us?