Let us hear God's word from 1 Timothy 3, beginning in verse 8. Likewise, deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. But let these also first be tested, then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. Likewise, their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children in their own house as well. For those who have served well as deacons, obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God endures forever. Amen. Well thus far we have taken three weeks to look at the section on the qualifications for an overseer and now we come tonight to three weeks talking about qualifications for a deacon. And as always there's so much to say about our understanding as well as our application here of God's Word. And so here for the deacons we began with an overview looking at what the term deacon means and what some of the duties are. And then we looked at several of the qualifications in verses 8 through 10, beginning with the requirement to be reverent, and then the three negatives, not double-tongued, not an alcoholic, and not greedy for money. And then, as we saw last time, the deacon must hold sincerely to the truths of the Scriptures, and to determine such, we test them. which likely includes both written exams or oral exams as well as their everyday living, investigating and observing them in those ways. Then we also last time discussed briefly the questions surrounding verse 11. And what does Paul mean here? Does he mean that women should be deacons? and basically the conclusion is I don't think there's really any reason for us here or elsewhere to come to the conclusion that Paul means that we should ordain women. It certainly does not fit with what we see in chapter 2. The most natural idea of the words used and the ideas presented in these two chapters is that Paul is speaking of the wife of a deacon and thus she too must have certain qualifications met. She must be reverent, she must not be a slanderer, she must be temperate, and then faithful in all things. Now, as I mentioned last time, I think the wording of things here prohibits any kind of high form of a woman helping out in this way, but it may allow for some informal ways for women to assist, even maybe beyond the wife of a deacon. And we, I think, may see an example of that in chapter 5 with the widows. So we will discuss that some when we get there. But the basic, straightforward idea is the wife of a deacon. Alright. We come now to the last two verses here for these qualifications. And we begin then with verse 12, which says, Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. Now notice here, first of all, that we begin with a command. Let deacons be the husbands of one wife. This is an imperative, a third-person imperative, and it's rather striking because we've been building everything off of verse two up to this point. Remember, verse two has the statement there that the overseer must be in the list of things. And that idea is continued throughout all the verses, clearly assumed in verse 8 and even in verse 11. And so all of it has been linked syntactically back to verse 2. And now, all of a sudden, we have a new command. It's rather striking, just because we've been so used to the other. So why does Paul do this? Well, maybe it's because he's starting his thought again after verse 11. Maybe it's just to emphasize the point, but whatever the case, just notice the way Paul words things here sets it apart, basically. And just like elders then, deacons ought to be the husband of one wife. If you turn to Titus 1 here just a moment, and I intend to turn back here one other time this evening, In Titus 1 we see this here in verse 6. Titus 1 verse 6, if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife. Same language, same ideas. And then even as you turn back to 1 Timothy chapter 5, if you look at verse 9 here a moment, it says about the widows not being under 60, and then the end of the verse, verse 9 says, and not unless she has been the wife of one man. So you see the opposite here, but it's the same overall idea. All right, well first of all, notice the implication. I don't think this is a direct statement to it, but certainly an implication that the ordination of deacons refers to the ordination of men. It's kind of hard for a woman to be the husband of one wife, though people try to do that today. The implication here is there are to be no women deacons. It's not, of course, because women are incapable of doing so. And it's not because men are inherently superior to women. The point is, same as we saw back in chapter 2, especially verse 13, because God made Adam first. It's really that simple. God made Adam first and then the woman. And so that is why men are to be the ones leading as elders and now here as deacons. All right. So again, the implication is that it upholds the position of no women. as ordained deacons. Now, as for this term itself, you recall what I said in verse 2, and so let me refresh your memory. Some people think, there are different views here, and some people think that this is referring to no polygamy, that Paul is just simply saying that you can't have a deacon or an elder who has more than one wife, including concubines. That seems to be a rather straightforward point, we've seen that since Genesis 2, but of course many of God's people in the Old Testament didn't do that, like Abraham and Jacob and David and Solomon and so forth. But some people think that's what we're talking about. By the first century there weren't nearly as many Israelites that had multiple wives, and so it seems to be less of a point at this time in history. So other people say that this is referring to a person being married only once. At that time, it was far more common for a man to be remarried because his wife had died. Today, of course, the reason is very different. For a man to be remarried typically in our culture is because there's been a divorce. But whatever the reason, some people say that the man, the elder or now the deacon, cannot be remarried. He can only be married once. And the argument is simply that the leader is to be held to a higher standard. And so even if a person has a biblically justified reason for divorce or remarriage, he shouldn't be a leader in the church. So the third view is that Paul is speaking here on the issue of the seventh commandment, in particular, the issue of fidelity, that the deacon or the man looking to be a deacon or elder cannot be unfaithful with his spouse. And then fourthly, some people think that this is Paul's way of saying that the leader in the church should not be a single man, that he should be married. Well, as I said here in verse two, I think the idea that Paul has here is probably a bit more general. And the point is simply that the elder and now the deacon should be above reproach in regard to sexual things. And so therefore, that includes a variety of things. This man should not be unfaithful to his spouse. He should not have more than one spouse. He should not be addicted to pornography. He should be faithful. He can even be the innocent party in the situation of a biblically justified divorce. Now, of course, these ideas are true for all believers. This is not just unique for the leaders of the church and everybody else can do as they please. But leaders should lead the way on issues of sexuality and so forth. They should not fall into these sins, and if they have, then they should not be leaders. And so I think, again, the preponderance of the evidence and the argumentation leads to a more general idea here for Paul. And so simply, a faithful man, a godly man in these areas. Then, related to that, of course, we see that the rest of the verse, ruling their children and their own houses well. Alright, if you look back at verse 4, we saw the same ideas then for the overseer. Verse 4, one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence. For if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God? And if you turn to Titus here a moment, verse 6 again, in chapter 1. Notice how he words it here in Titus 1, the end of verse 6 says, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. So it's the same basic idea but again we see it worded differently as we go from the elder to the deacon and even then the elder in Titus 1. Now, we've seen this now several times. We've seen a particular word used for the elder and a different word used for the deacon, like the term blameless or above reproach. Those are two different words in the Greek. Or the word greedy for money here for the deacon was a lover of money for the elder. Even the different words of given to alcohol, those are different. We might translate them the same way, but they're actually different words. And we could even point to some other things. Why is this the case? I still don't know. I haven't found a good reason why, but maybe Paul was using some kind of standard list of qualifications for one of these, maybe the elder, and then he makes up a new list for the deacon, or possibly vice versa. And as you talk about Crete, maybe he adapts that list, an existing list, to the situation in Crete. So maybe that's why some of the differences are there. Maybe it's just because he's wanting to use a different term. He's just being creative. But whatever the reason, I don't think we can press the differences very much. Some of them, maybe. But I think the overall ideas are the same, whether we're talking about an Elder, whether we're talking about a Deacon. And so then, in this case, even though it's worded three different ways, between Elder, Deacon, and Titus 1, The point is clear. Along with elders, deacons must govern their homes well. As we've seen in Acts, for example, with the household baptisms, and of course what we've talked about here, a person's house included not just themselves and their spouse and their children, but anybody else or even anything else in the home. So, if they had any servants, this included their property and even extended family and at the time they often included their business and maybe any employees who worked with them even some clients who may be staying with them for a period of time and so the term household had a very broad understanding and so for us of course we might think of our wife and children or something like that and certainly it includes them And so, notice here then a few things. Obviously, the assumption is the normal situation for an elder, and now here for a deacon, is that the man has a family. There are exceptions, obviously of Paul, and there is no indication that Timothy was married, so maybe we should assume him as well. But the norm is that the man is going to have a family. And so, first of all then, the children are to be obedient. Note the term here, children. even what we saw in Titus, and back in the earlier part of the chapter. Children are obedient. They are honoring and respecting their father. The man is also managing his estate, and that estate may be very small. It may be rather large. And so the ideas of financial and social, and even the actual structure of the buildings, this man is going to take care of them. and this is an indication of his worthiness to be a leader in the church. Now if children don't listen, if the home is chaotic, if the home is even literally falling apart, then how can he be a good leader? How can he be a good elder or in this case deacon? Now note this assumption. We have the assumption of no women deacons with the husband of one wife I think we have the same thing here too. Not just because we're talking about the man who is ruling his house, but he's ruling his house, his children. So the idea of rule is inherent here. The idea of authority is implied in these words, and maybe you can say more than implied. And so for those who try to claim that women as deacons are permitted because the office of deacon is an office of service, seem to overlook the implication of this statement right here. How in the world can we say that a deacon is merely an office of service because he serves his family? Now, he's gonna serve his family to some degree, but Paul uses the term rule here. he is ruling his children in his household and since he is ruling at home he is fit to rule in the church as a deacon not just an elder or overseer but as a deacon and so the idea of authority here is definitely present and so therefore how can women be ordained as deacons because they're given authority it may be an authority under the elders and maybe a lesser kind of authority but it's still authority and back in chapter 2, Paul makes it pretty clear, verses 11 and following, that women are not to have authority over men. Some commentators make the point, isn't it interesting that for the women, in verse 11, it doesn't say anything about managing the house. And that's, again, to separate the idea. The woman is not having authority, the man is. Alright, now, you may recall I addressed some of these things a little bit in verses four and five. Let me say it here again. Does this then mean that a man cannot be an elder or a deacon if some of his children are not believers? How do we handle this? How do we handle a situation where a man's family is, can you say, not ideal? Well, I think we have to remember what we see in the scriptures, such as Abraham. He didn't do so well in some ways, especially with Hagar and Ishmael. Just because of that, do we shun him as the father of Israel? Or even Isaac. What about Jacob and Esau? How do we do this? Now Isaac, much more clearly than even Abraham, very deliberately refused God's word when God said that the younger will serve the older, and Isaac said, no, I like the older one anyway. Does that mean we reject Isaac as the father of Israel? The point here is the issue of election is important. And so just because some or one of our children grows up to reject the faith doesn't necessarily mean we are disqualified from being a ruler. The issue of election is important. But I think what is intended here is the term child. Children obey their parents. Older children, adult children honor their parents. There is a difference there. That's why the fifth commandment says, honor your father and your mother, but children obey your parents. We have a change. When does that happen? When they turn 18? You know, whatever it is, I think it changes somewhat in our cultures, different cultures, but certainly while children are at home, the father must have jurisdiction over the children and must discipline them when they don't listen and must ensure justice and order in the home. And if he's not doing that when they are younger children, then that, I would say, would disqualify them from being an elder or deacon. But just because their 30-year-old child has left the faith, I'm not sure that necessarily means that they can no longer be a ruler in the church. Now, if the father has let their children do as they please as they're younger, maybe the fact that the adult children leave the faith is an indication he did not lead very well at home. But I'm not sure that necessarily is the case, again, because of the issue of election. When a child leaves the home, they can't do as much. Think, of course, the parable of the prodigal son. I think we then have, if you will, a high standard, and yet we also have to account for this. And another aspect in all of this is simply God is gracious too. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob really had no right to be the leaders of Israel, the father, the patriarchs. Think of Jacob. I mentioned Abraham and Isaac. Jacob, his favoritism wrought all kinds of problems in the family. Of course, he had four wives. Jacob insisted on Joseph, he insisted on Rachel, and it created massive problems. He had God overruled. And we could continue It isn't just Reuben that is rejected as the firstborn. You also have Simeon and Levi and their sins and even Judah. None of them deserve to be leaders in Israel and yet Levi, after all he did there in Shechem, he still was allowed to be the priesthood and the helpers of the priesthood and of course Judah He became the father of the Messiah. So I do think we need to account for God's grace in all of this. Yet, that doesn't mean we set aside this standard. So look for men who are striving to lead well in their homes. A good father will lead to a good deacon. And as I mentioned before, children are a loud megaphone in regard to how things are going at home. If our children do not do so well, it reflects on things going on in private. If they are doing well, then that's an indication that things are going on well at home, as a general rule of thumb. So, a few thoughts here in these ways. Again, the basic point is Paul is commanding deacons to have one wife and rule in their homes. So, verse 13. Again, rather striking, verse 12, we have a new command. Now verse 13, we have four, for those who have served well as deacons obtain for themselves a good standing and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. This is quite odd because now all of a sudden we're talking about something in the future. We've had statement after statement and command after command here throughout all these verses saying you need to look for these things before the person becomes a leader. And now all of a sudden he says, okay, for the one who already is a leader, in this case a deacon, these are going to be the rewards. And so a deacon who has served well will receive these two things. First of all, a good standing. Although we could say that the deacon has a lesser office than the elder, when he serves well, it's still one to be respected. Even though he only serves the physical needs, when he does well, it results in standing tall and being respected. Notice how this demonstrates that Paul thinks that God is not merely interested in our souls, but he is also interested in our bodies. He is not only interested in spiritual and eternal matters, but he is interested in temporal and physical issues too. Food for the body is not the same as food for the soul, but it's still part of the Lord's prayer, isn't it? And so this idea of the deacon ministering to the physical needs of the body of Christ is maybe lesser in significance in some ways than what the elder does and yet it's still an important office, an important function and when the deacon serves well they will receive a good standing. Basically they'll be respected. Now some people have tried to take this statement over the years to mean that the deacon is gonna basically work his way up the ecclesiastical ladder. That if the deacon serves well he's gonna have good standing and now he can be qualified to be an elder. And of course if you're in the Catholic Church you can then keep going up and up and up and eventually become a pope maybe. But I don't think that is what Paul is saying here at all. The point simply is this. Elders are respected as they tend to the souls well, so deacons are respected when they tend to the bodies well, and even the physical needs of the church structure. So though they are different in terms of their role and duties and function, there still is respect. They are set apart as God's people. Don't you respect Stephen and Philip? And not just Peter and Paul and so forth. The second blessing here then, the second reward, is that they will receive boldness, a great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus. Now, depending on who you read, and even in your translation, you may have a different word there than boldness. Some will say the term assurance or confidence. And I think we should probably include all these ideas. I'm not sure that we can specifically separate one from the other here. And so with that in mind, it's probably the case that Paul is saying, for the deacon who serves well, it's going to give them boldness to then talk about the things of Jesus. Give him boldness in his faith to tell others about Jesus, maybe you could say. It's going to give him an assurance that God cares for all of our needs, including our physical ones. As he serves well, it's going to deepen his relationship with the Lord and give him that confidence and assurance. Some people will point to this. Let's turn to Ephesians chapter 3 here a moment and note some of the similar language used. Now this is in the context of the gospel, and the mystery, and the inclusion of the Gentiles, and all of that. It's in that context. And in Ephesians 3, you see the end of verse 11, it speaks of Christ Jesus. And so then verse 12 it says, in whom, that is Christ, we have boldness and access with confidence through faith in Him. That includes Gentiles. We have confidence to come before the Lord, to be part of the covenant, part of the eternal church, and so on. And so some people argue then back here in 1st Timothy 3 that what Paul is indicating here is that a deacon who serves well is going to have boldness to enter into the presence of God, along with the elders. They can stand before God. So think then of Revelation 4. Think of that image that we are given about the throne room of God, and of course you have the living creatures and so on, but you also have the 24 thrones with the 24 elders. So the idea then, if this is right, is that the deacons are standing next to those thrones. They're not sitting on the thrones, the elders are, but those who have served well are standing next to those elders. They have boldness to stand in the very presence of God because they have served God's church well. I'm not sure which of these is the right answer and I'm inclined to think that Paul probably has in mind more than one thing. The main point here is a man who serves well as a deacon is going to be honored. He's going to be honored. Faith in Christ calls all believers to godly living. Some will lead as elders and deacons and those who lead well are going to be greatly respected. and be praised. And so, as I've said here in this section, so let me say here at the end, the Apostles and the Prophets have ceased. They no longer serve in God's Church. Miracle workers and healers no longer serve in the same way as in Paul's day. But what is left are the elders and the deacons And they minister through the proclamation of God's word and for the physical care of the daily needs of the flock. This is what continues. And this is how we should serve the church. And so then, choose carefully men who are like this. And those of us who have already been chosen, let's live up to these standards. Let's not grow complacent. Let us seek to live in these ways. Now let me conclude by reading two things here and first of all this is Dr. Towner and his commentary and he has a few final summarizing paragraphs and here's part of one. He says this, The minimal attention given to ministerial abilities and gifts for the deacons and elders does not mean that these things are unimportant, as much as that they were most likely assumed. But the extensive emphasis on character Spanning the scale from fidelity in marriage to fiscal integrity, from wise household management to public reputation, requires maturity and virtue from the perspective leader that touches all parts of life. The qualities explored above in reference to overseers and deacons are those that outfit them to project the image of responsible leadership both inside and outside the church. They enable the leader to deal patiently and constructively with people in conflict in such a way that relationships are preserved and strengthened instead of further threatened and destroyed." Now, let me pause and remind you, remember, Paul is very likely giving us these lists because of the false teachers in Ephesus. And he is saying, basically, don't be like them, be like this. And so there's going to be some conflict, and we'll see more of that here in the letter. And then he says, in this profile, selfish attainment and advancement have no place. Sacrificial service, a style of leading that benefits the whole group at considerable cost to the leader, is brought to the fore. The leader is not denied pleasurable activities, but they are to be pursued in moderation and not addictively. And virtues such as the practice of hospitality are emblematic of a charge being executed for the sake of others. Now let me also then read from John Stott and again some of his concluding words here for this whole section. And he says this, looking back it is clear that the qualifications for the presbyter and the deaconate are very similar. There is a core of Christian qualities which all Christian leaders should exhibit. Putting the two lists together, we note that there are five main areas to be investigated. In regard to himself, the candidate must first be self-controlled and mature, including the areas of drink, money, temper, and tongue. In regard to his family, both faithful to his wife and able to discipline his children. In regard to his relationships, hospitable and gentle. In regard to outsiders, highly esteemed. And in regard to the faith, strong in his hold on the truth and gifted in teaching it. The whole of this chapter as a good example of the balance of scripture. For there is material here both to encourage the right people to offer for pastoral ministry and to discourage the wrong ones from doing so. The discouragement is that the required standards are high and the task can be arduous. The responsibility for caring for God's church is calculated to daunt the best and the most gifted Christians. But The corresponding encouragement is that the pastorate is a noble task. And here he means pastorate in the elder and deacon sense. It is a beautiful undertaking, a laudable ambition. It involves giving oneself to the service of others. Besides, the words overseer and deacon are both applied to the Lord Jesus in the New Testament. Peter calls him the shepherd and overseer of your souls and he applied to himself the verb to serve. Could there be any greater honor than to follow in his footsteps and share in some of his overseeing and serving which he is willing to delegate to us?" As we reflect on these things, and as we consider new officers in our church, and as existing officers we reflect on these things, we should at the same time be shaking in our boots. This is an incredibly daunting task. But at the same time be encouraged. because Christ has given us an amazing opportunity to follow in His footsteps and to serve alongside of Him, and to serve as He served us. And so I say again, consider men like this to serve in our church, and for those of us who have already chosen, let us seek to live up to these requirements. for God's glory and by God's strength and grace. We will turn, Lord willing, next time to what many consider the theme of the whole book, verses 14 to 16. Let's pray together. Our Father and our God, again, we thank you for your word. We thank you for what you reveal to us here. Lord, we are thankful that you are our Lord and our master. You are the one who is the head of the church. And Lord, we are thankful that we can put all of our faith and trust in you. We are also thankful, Lord, that you have given us people that we can see and touch and hear to serve under you as leaders in your church. We pray, Lord, for your blessings on our church in this way. Faithful and godly men to lead. and for those who are already leading, that you would give us the strength to follow in your footsteps, and that you would give us grace, that you would give us the power of your spirit, that we might be honorable men, that we might oversee well and serve well for the sake of your church and for the honor of your name and the extension of your kingdom. And so we pray these things then in Jesus' name, Amen.