Admonition Podcast

We are in 1 Timothy chapter three and we've just finished up the section on the
qualifications for elders and we'll be headed into the qualifications for deacons this

morning.

But let's begin with a word of prayer.

Our gracious Father in heaven, we bow before your throne grateful for the day that you
have blessed us with, grateful for all that you have given us on a daily basis.

mindful of your blessings and the opportunities that we have to serve you.

We pray that we will be diligent in service, that we will be mindful of our
responsibilities and our duty, that we know that while we must complete the things that

you have told us to do, they do not replace the fact that salvation is a gift from you.

And we're grateful for your grace.

that has been extended to us through the blood of Jesus Christ.

We're mindful of those who may be out on the roads in the rain and uh traveling.

We pray that they reach their destination safely.

We also pray for the evangelism opportunities that are going on in this congregation.

For each individual on a card, on a name, or by name that is being prayed for, we pray
that those opportunities will bear fruit and also that we will

be diligent in sowing the seed.

All this we pray and ask in Jesus' name, amen.

1 Timothy chapter 3

Paul transitions in verse 8 from discussing elders to discussing deacons.

So my first question is, as he begins, likewise, deacons must be reverent.

As he's given these instructions concerning elders, what was the very first thing that had
to be true about someone in order for them to be qualified to be an elder?

They had to desire the work.

when he says likewise, he's carrying over much of the things that are naturally true about
this type of role from elders to deacons.

But there are some specific qualifications for deacons.

Let me ask something else.

Why are they called deacons?

Maybe I should ask it another way.

Is deacon an English word or not?

So elder is, shepherd is, overseer is, those are all English words.

Is deacon an English word?

Correct.

It is a Greek word.

So translators sometimes get on my nerves, okay?

Because historically they're rather spineless, okay?

They will translate the word of God until you get to something that in their minds the
world of Christianity disagrees on and then they just go, well,

Instead of translating the word, we're just gonna opt out and we're going to replace it
letter for letter from the Greek alphabet to the English alphabet and create a word that

doesn't exist in the English language because then we don't have to tell you what it
means.

Okay?

The word baptism is not an English word.

It is the Greek word baptizo.

Transliterated, that means replaced letter for letter because the world of Christianity in
the 1600s when the English King James Version in 1611 was being translated, even before

that, the Bishop's Bible in the 1500s, disagreed on what...

Some said, well, it's immersion.

Some said it was sprinkling.

Some said it was pouring.

And some said, well, that baptism's the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

This baptism's baptism with water.

So instead, and they didn't use the word baptism because that's not the word they would've
used.

They immersion, pouring, sprinkling.

So they said, here's what we do.

ah We're not gonna translate the word.

We're just gonna substitute the letters for the word and leave it up to the theologians to
figure it out.

So instead of having the honesty and the courage to disagree with popular opinion and
translate the word in accordance with the language and the context, they said, yeah, not

touching that.

Here, here's a word where we've transliterated it instead of translating it.

when it comes to deacons, what would have been the controversy that would have caused them
to not translate the word?

Okay?

uh By the way, they do translate the word about half of the time because diakonos, which
is the word, is translated as servant in many places in scripture, till you get to

passages having to do with the role of a position like a deacon.

in all of those places where they determined that it was best to identify the role, they
didn't translate it because some religious groups hold deacons as above elders and elders

are below deacons.

Some religious groups hold deacons are men only and some they're men and women.

And so they just opted out.

They said, here's the word and provided a great deal of confusion because guess what?

That word they translate other places and didn't translate here.

So from this discussion and from this failure to translate, you have discussions as to,
well, can women be deacons?

Can women hold a role?

Because there's the word that is used elsewhere to describe people like Phoebe.

She was a servant, because that's the translation.

That's what the word means.

She was a servant in the church and Paul addresses her by name.

But because the word servant is used one place and the word servant over here is used to
describe a specific role, over here they just didn't translate it.

So of course, what do some other translators do?

Well, they come along and they say, well, you know, if we're not gonna translate it over
there, here's Phoebe.

I'm gonna call her a deaconess.

And more confusion arises because translators don't have a lot of courage to just leave it
what it is.

A deacon is a servant or minister.

That's what the word should be translated as in English.

Now, a minister, we often in our current terminology think minister and we think, okay,
that means a preacher.

Well, that's not necessarily how historically in the English language you would have
understood that.

A minister is someone who is, let's use the verb form, ministering to the needs of others.

They're serving someone else, okay?

So you could have a minister of the gospel and he would be a preacher or an evangelist.

You can have a minister of earthly needs and that person would be.

maybe helping feed people, maybe doing things on behalf of people.

You could have someone ministering to the widows in Acts chapter six and they would be
serving the widow's daily needs, okay?

So you have the word servant, you have the word minister, and they both derive themselves
in the English Bible from the word deacon, okay?

A diakonos is one who is a servant, okay?

Now, let's see if we can understand where one word is used to be specific and one word is
used to be generic and they're the same words.

Do you know of a scenario where someone can be an elder and not have to meet the
qualifications of being an elder?

Careful, we're looking for times where a word can be used two different ways to talk about
two different people, but it be the same word.

Okay, you can have an elder son.

He's the elder of the three boys.

You could have a man of older age.

He's an elder.

But does that mean that those two people are necessarily qualified to be an elder by way
of role in the church?

No.

Believe it or not, we know how to handle language.

We know how to let the context determine

if a word is being used concerning a specific role or a generic description.

and we allow context to decide that.

So, when Paul tells Timothy to not accept an accusation against an elder unless it is with
two or three witnesses, sorry he's not talking about all older men.

Can't have an accusation brought against them without two or three witnesses.

Rather, he's describing someone in the role

of an elder who has already met all of these qualifications.

Given that he's met all these qualifications, Paul says you don't even accept an
accusation against him unless you've got two or three witnesses.

Because the role and the function of an elder is one of leadership and responsibility and
could easily become someone who comes under attack from others who are jealous of his

authority and his position.

uh So.

Paul uses the term elder and we immediately know in the context what he means because of
the context of the discussion.

We ought to also be able to do the same thing with servant or minister.

We ought to be able to be distinguishing enough without having to create a special word to
understand what is being discussed.

Okay, so I'm on the wrong side of 400 years of history.

I the word deacon shouldn't be in there.

I think the word servant should be in there.

Why?

Because in the Greek it means servant.

When Paul used the word, he wrote the Greek word for servant.

Now, an elder is an overseer, right?

Because that's how Paul describes it right there at the beginning.

Chapter three, verse one, if a man desires the position of a bishop, that word means
overseer.

He desires good work.

In verse eight, he says, likewise, servants.

do you see the relationship between the two?

An overseer is someone who looks

over something.

Servants are those who are being looked over by the elders, by the overseers.

Okay?

So by the very definition of the words, you have a picture here of uh not only an
authority, but a responsibility level.

You have a categorization of these people's roles in which there are some of them who are
servants, who are doing the work, and there are some of them who are observing to make

sure the work is done.

Can you have a servant who is not qualified to be a servant in the description of the role
and qualifications of a servant?

Yes, in the same way you can have an elder who's not qualified to be an elder.

You can have an older man who is elderly who is not qualified to be an elder.

You can have a woman who is diligent in labor in the church at Rome who is a servant of
the church, could even be employed by the church on a full-time basis in her service.

but it doesn't meet the qualifications of the role or position of a servant.

It's really not that hard unless we complicate it, unless we intentionally try and
complicate it.

uh So as we go through the list of qualifications, we find here Paul saying this is their
role, their servants.

But these servants are different than all the other servants in the church because they
have to meet these qualifications.

All right, let's look at those qualifications.

Likewise, deacons must be reverent.

By the way, in that last discussion about deacons, I don't have a problem if somebody
calls them a deacon.

I don't care if we use the word we've been using for 400 years.

But I do hope that we come to an appreciation about

when someone uses it wrong, but they're using the Greek word that's in the text.

They go, oh, that word's deacon.

It's talking about Phoebe, so female deacons are okay.

Hold on.

There's a whole bunch of other times that the word deacon's used.

And it's not talking about the special role under consideration in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus
1.

So we need to be discerning and not let

fallacious arguments crop up because they're saying, well, that's the word deacon.

Okay, now he says, likewise, deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued.

We discussed reverence already somewhat in the discussion of elders, so we're gonna try
and avoid rehashing a lot of what we've already gone through, but he says, of these

servants, they are to be not double-tongued.

What does it mean to be double-tongued?

All right.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth, one to one group and one to another group.

If you are a overseer at work and you have a group of employees and you have one employee
who you observe, they tell one story to the other employees and a different story to the

overseer.

There's a problem, isn't there?

And not only is there a problem, but if they continue to be allowed to do that, there will
be even more problems.

Because they don't speak the truth when their job might be on the line.

And yet, they're trying to impress others.

They're trying to leave an impression that they are one thing when they're something else.

Paul says if these servants are going to fulfill their responsibility, if they are going
to do what the church needs them to do, if they are going to function as good servants,

good stewards for the church, they must not tell different stories to different people.

They must be trustworthy.

They must be able to be counted on to speak

the truth.

Absolutely.

So James, as he's writing in James chapter 3, discusses the tongue, and he discusses how
uh you have an individual who speaks and there's a problem if they speak one way and then

they try and speak another way.

He says you can't have blessings and cursings come out of the same mouth.

Now, as you examine this,

What are some areas in which a double-tongued individual could cause problems for the
church if they're only ministering in physical matters?

You ever observe someone who praises other people when they're in front of them and runs
them down when their back's turned?

These servants are going to be working with others.

these servants, if we were to use the special servants that are described in Acts chapter
6 in the first century church as at least a picture of a type of role that these servants

in the church might have held, you look at that picture and you've got seven men who are
gathered to meet this need of the widows, and as they're meeting that need of the widows,

what if Stephen and Philip have a little disagreement and Philip goes around

telling everybody about something Stephen never did to win his back's turn and then
treating him like one of his best friends when he's together with him.

You think it's gonna come out?

You think it's gonna be readily apparent?

Do you think the hypocrisy is going to be seen within the church?

Here's this special servant working on behalf of the apostles and yet he's over here
causing trouble.

He's sowing discord among brethren.

What is one of the things that the Proverbs writer tells us Jehovah hates?

Those who sow discord among brethren.

That's one of the things that's on the list of things that God despises.

So as you examine these,

individuals.

He says not only must they be reverent, they must be those who fear God and respect
authority, but they also must not be double-tongued.

They must be those who speak the truth.

He says in addition to that, they must be not given to much wine.

Here, again, we discussed this somewhat when we were in the earlier section, but we'll
take just a moment and deal with it.

The term in the English, much wine, has caused a great deal of discussion.

well, how much wine can they have?

First point of discussion, the word wine in this text,

does not necessitate in any way alcoholic wine.

Okay, the word oinos, which is in the text in this part of the text, but was not in the
section for the elders, the word oinos is not a word that defines by the nature of the use

of the word in the Greek whether the wine is in the grape on the vine, in the vat, having
just been stamped out, in the,

a vessel in which it may be sitting for a long extended period of time if someone's trying
to turn it into alcoholic wine or fresh grape juice being drunk.

The word doesn't define it at all.

The word in Scripture is used in every single one of those contexts.

So back in Isaiah, in the Greek translations, the Greek translations will use oinos to
describe the cluster on the vine.

Can you have alcoholic grapes on the vine?

No, you cannot because you cannot get fermentation without decomposition.

You can't get fermentation without a sugar process that occurs.

So as a result of that, you can't have something alcoholic while it's still attached to
the vine.

Yet the word oinos, the word wine, is used to describe the grape in that state.

You also have the word used all the way up to and including the point where the word wine
is discussing an alcoholic fermented beverage.

You also have the word used to discuss a dried version of the wine in which it could be
reconstituted with water.

So what does it mean?

oh

than in this context for Paul to say this individual must not be given to, and the idea
here is given over to wine.

What are we talking about?

Okay, overcome is maybe another way to say it, but what character trait are we discussing?

All right, drunkenness would qualify, obsession would qualify, what else?

All right, contrasting, here's someone who's sober-minded, clear-headed, question.

Which of the two of these things is condemned in Scripture?

Drunkenness and gluttony.

both.

What if someone is so focused on physical pleasures, physical things, that their entire
character is built around making sure they get serviced, they get pleasure, they get the

food, the things, the drink that they desire?

Paul is describing one who is not given over, if we take this in a spiritual, moral sense,
he is not given over to his fleshly desires.

He is not given over to his fleshly appetites.

Those could be for alcohol, but they could also be

for many other things.

Here is someone who has retained self-control.

Now, that's looking at it from a spiritual perspective.

He's using, though, an analogy that is quite obvious because he is saying this person must
not be under the control of wine.

Okay?

That's the idea.

He must not be under control of wine.

Now, when does a person begin to come under the control of alcohol?

first time they start drinking it.

Some have argued, well, the Bible doesn't condemn drinking alcohol, and I know my limit,
and I just don't ever get drunk.

Couple of problems with that line of argumentation.

Number one, it's not quite true to Scripture, but we'll get to that in a moment.

Number two, it necessitates that you've already exceeded your limits and gone into sin.

Because how could you know your limits if you've never exceeded them?

Right?

Oh, well, I know my limits.

How did you find them?

I tested them.

Mm-hmm.

Name one positive picture in all of the Old Testament and New Testament of a person who is
drinking intoxicating wine.

All right, but would that be a positive representation?

No, all right.

So we find Noah having drunk wine, having become drunken with wine, and he is in his tent
in a uh state of being naked, and the whole situation goes awry as a result of his

drunkenness.

There's not a single picture anywhere in scripture that is a positive look on drinking
intoxicating wine.

Now,

Someone uh would argue, those who would argue for this position, will say, I know one,
Jesus made intoxicating wine and he even made it for the entire feast there in John

chapter two.

Okay, so let's take a moment, turn to John chapter two.

Yes, Eddie.

Okay, so there's a...

There's an understanding, and we'll get into that further as we go through this
discussion, there's an understanding of what does it mean to go the other direction of sin

and what does it mean to hug as close as you can to sin so you can fulfill the lusts your
physical desires and pleasures?

Okay.

Now, John chapter two, verse one, on the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee
and the mother of Jesus was there.

Now, both Jesus and his disciples were invited to the wedding.

And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, they have no wine.

Quick question for those who kind of have a historical perspective on Jewish wedding
feasts.

How long did wedding feasts continue on in that day and time, typically speaking?

several days to weeks, okay?

These were not.

small events.

These were not American weddings.

If we're in and out in an hour and a half, we're happy.

And if we're in and out in three and a half to four hours, that wedding was too long.

That was not the culture of the Israelites.

The culture of the Israelites is, number one, many of the weddings occurred after the
harvest, after all of the fields had been taken in, and people had time.

on their hands.

And so, the wedding feast would often be an extended period of time.

You see this in Jesus' parables because you have the virgins who are waiting to escort the
bridegroom into the wedding, how long do they wait?

An hour?

Two hours?

All night long?

Well, if you're waiting for the bridegroom to arrive for an entire night all the way into
the next day, this is not a one-hour event.

Nor is it a three-hour event.

Jesus and his disciples are invited to the wedding.

During the course of the event, the one who is putting on the wedding runs out of wine.

Now, should we assume because of the text, because it is a celebratory feast, that the
wine is necessarily alcoholic?

No.

Furthermore, when you examine the text, you also can consider the fact that the
individuals who will be drinking the wine after Jesus makes the wine are still fully

cognizant to be able to discern good wine from bad wine, which means these people are not
what?

Drunk.

If they were drunk, they would no longer be able to discern good wine from bad wine.

Furthermore, you have a quality description in this text because

As

Six.

How many gallons each?

20 to 30.

How much water?

120 to 180 gallons.

If Jesus created intoxicating wine here, He didn't become someone who created intoxicating
wine.

He went into the wine industry.

And he said to them, Draw some out now and take it to the master of the feast.

And they took it.

When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine and did not know
where it came from, but the servants who had drawn the water knew, the master of the feast

called the bridegroom and he said to him, Every man at the beginning sets out the good
wine.

When the guests have well drunk, then the inferior.

You have kept the good wine until now.

For a Jew in this context in a feast, you could have an understanding of the good versus
the inferior wine.

The best wine was considered the freshest.

It had not been dried out and reconstituted with water.

It had been taken immediately from the vine.

It had been turned into juice and it had been brought to the table.

You don't have time for it to become intoxicating.

But further he points out that they had been drinking this other wine all this time and he
says, you know, the normal practice is this, you serve the best at the beginning and then

the quality goes down as the feast goes down.

Why would you do that if the wine you're serving isn't intoxicating?

If all the wine is not intoxicating, why would it matter if you serve the best first and
the inferior last?

Anybody ever drink a lot of grape juice?

What happens to your mouth when you've drank a lot of grape juice, meal after meal after
meal after meal?

It has an effect on your palate.

You only drink so much before you don't really, can't really tell what it tastes like
anymore.

Yet there was such a noticeable quality difference between what they had been served.

up to this point in the feast and what they were served by Jesus that the master of the
feast says, not only is this the best wine, it's the best wine being served at the end of

the feast, which means I've had this for days and now I can tell, wow, this is of so much
higher quality than what I've already observed, what I've already had.

consider as well that if the argument was that this was intoxicating wine, then these
people were already what according to the text?

Well drunk.

If this was intoxicating wine they had been drinking the entire time, then they're already
drunk and Jesus makes them more drunk.

Can the Son of God, who handed down scripture that said drunkenness was a sin, contribute
to serving people who are already drunk more wine so they can be more drunk?

No.

When people come to this text and argue for intoxicating wine in this text, it's quite
obvious they've never considered the reality of the situation in the text.

There's no way possible to argue for intoxicating wine from this text because you either
have Jesus going into the brewing business,

or you have Jesus intoxicating to a further degree those who are already drunk.

Furthermore, you have Mary, the mother of Jesus, asking Jesus, who she knows is the Son of
God, to contribute to these people's drunkenness.

All of these things are out of character, unless you're just trying to argue for drinking.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

You also have the word used to describe everything from vinegar to fresh grape juice in a
non-alcoholic context.

Okay, so the word in First Timothy 3, number one, does or does not require

So go back to review.

Does it require that the word is used in an alcoholic context purely by the use of the
word?

Yes or no?

No.

Does the context give us a clear connotation of the idea of alcoholic use?

Yes.

because of the way it's described being given over to something.

But could there be a non-alcoholic sense in which someone is given over to wine in a
spiritual sense and that they are gluttonous in their appetites?

Yes.

Let me provide one example that's useful in this.

Turn back to 1 Samuel.

As you think concerning the priesthood of Eli, you find one of the things that Eli is
accused of.

And this is instructive in this context.

Remember that these servants are primarily functioning in physical matters.

Their role and responsibility is not necessarily the spiritual role and responsibility and
authority of elders, it is on matters of service.

Now let's look at 1 Samuel chapter 2 and verse 22.

Now Eli was very old and he heard everything that his sons did to all Israel, how they lay
with the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of meeting.

So he said to them, do you do such things?

For I hear of your evil dealings from all the people.

Know, my sons, for it is not a good report that I hear.

You make the Lord's people transgress.

If one man sins against another, God will judge him.

But if a man sins against the Lord, who will intercede for him?

Nevertheless, they did not heed the voice of their father, because the Lord desired to
kill them.

And the child Samuel grew in stature and in favor both with the Lord and man.

And a man of God came to Eli and said to him, Thus says the Lord, Did I not clearly reveal
myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh's house?

Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon my
altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod before me?

And did I not give to the house of your father all the offerings of the children of Israel
made by fire?

Why do you then kick at my sacrifice and my offerings, which I have commanded in my
dwelling place, and honor your sons more than me, to make yourselves fat with the best of

all the offerings of Israel my people?"

What was the one of the accusations that Eli was guilty of?

When the offerings came in, what portion belonged to the Lord?

The first and the best.

What portion were Eli and his sons taking?

They were taking the best.

And they were taking exceedingly more than they actually needed.

They were...

uh

gluttonous.

And it even leads, if you remember, to Eli's death, for when he falls over having heard
that the tabernacle has been taken captive by the Philistines, he falls over and dies

because his neck breaks because he is an exceedingly fat man, the text says.

The text makes it clear here is a steward of God's people's sacrifices, yet part of the
accusation against him is he was a glutton.

He did not control his desires for self-satisfaction, so he took even that which belonged
to the Lord.

Now here you have servants serving in physical matters, and you have one who goes, you
know what, we gotta prepare for the widows, we gotta take care of the widows.

Oh look, some of the members brought some really good stuff.

ah You know what, that over there, set that aside.

We'll keep that for us.

Let's go take the rest of this to the widows.

Here is an individual who is unqualified to be a deacon serving in physical matters
because their self-interest would put themselves over others because they are under the

control of their fleshly desires.

So I just want us to see it in the literal sense.

I also wanna see it.

in the implication of someone who gives themselves over to their fleshly desires.

Now, one last passage, I'm gonna leave you with this because we don't have time to go into
it.

Paul would state that all things were lawful for him, but that he refused to become under
the control of any.

Now he's not arguing for everything that is sinful I'm allowed to do.

That's not the argument.

He's not arguing for everything that others say is wrong to do, I think is right to do.

Not his argument.

His argument is everything that is good and allowed in his lawful is fine.

But if I give myself over to those things to become under their control,

Now I have a problem.

So when a person allows their fleshly desires, their fleshly lusts, even the ones that are
natural and not inherently evil, like we all gotta eat, right?

If you don't eat, you will die, okay?

We all have to eat, but we don't have to be gluttonous.

So if we allow even our normal fleshly desires that are

must be fulfilled to a degree to control us, then that individual is unqualified to be a
deacon.

Okay, thank you for your attention.

We'll put a peg in it right there.