Admonition Podcast

Good morning.

Good to see everyone out this morning.

Take your Bibles, if you will, and open them to 1 Timothy chapter 3.

Ahem.

We're on pace to be able to get to chapter four around January, so.

uh All uh right, let's begin with a word of prayer.

Our gracious Father in heaven, we bow before your throne, grateful for the day that you've
blessed us with, grateful for the opportunity that we have to.

serve you, to worship you, to glorify your name, and to praise you for all of the many
majestic and glorious things that you've done on our behalf.

Lord, we know that the world around us, the universe around us glorifies you, and we pray
that we also might do so.

Lord, we pray that you be with us as we go throughout this period of study and this time
of worship.

We pray that the things we do and say might be in accordance with your will.

and right in your sight.

Lord, we pray that we might be open and

willing to hear the words that uh Paul wrote to Timothy that we might be exhorted and
encouraged by them, that we might be approved by them, that we might strive diligently to

set our lives on the path of obedience to you and be faithful to you, that we might become
approved in your sight by fulfilling the commandments that you've given to us.

Lord, we're grateful for Your grace and Your mercy, which allows us to stand before You,
covered not in our sins and our iniquities, but in the blood of Jesus Christ.

All this we pray and ask in Jesus' amen.

uh

Paul writes, likewise, deacons, verse eight, must be reverent, not double-tongued, not
given to much wine, not greedy for money.

He says they must be those who hold the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience.

What does it mean to hold the mystery of the faith?

keep a secret you don't tell anybody about?

No.

First, let's maybe ask before we ask what it means to hold it, what is, as you examine
Paul's writing, uh Paul uses this idea of the mystery of the faith regularly in his

writings.

What does Paul mean by that?

Okay?

So one of the things to think about as you're considering this word is the word itself
means something that is revealed.

Okay?

So think in your mind of

a scenario where someone is going to do something on stage, but before they come on stage,
they're backstage.

Okay, so uh all week this last week at the conference, there were people who were getting
ready to come out and speak, but before they came out to speak, they didn't come out of

the crowd, they came from backstage.

They were preparing to come out, but they were hidden from view in preparation of coming
out on stage.

Okay, that thing which is not yet revealed but was coming and Paul uses this idea of a
mystery, something that is in Paul's context is now revealed but was previously unseen.

Okay, always when Paul uses this term.

without any exception that I'm aware of, Paul's context has always focused on that which
the Old Testament prophets prophesied about, that which God was doing in history that was

culminated in Christ and the Church.

Paul emphasizes that all of the history leading up to that point, everything that the
prophets said about the Messiah was fulfilled in Christ coming in the flesh and bringing

about salvation for the Jews and the Gentiles.

So the mystery in Paul's context as Paul uses the term,

always has in view the salvation of the Jews and the Gentiles alike.

Right.

Right?

So, as you're considering the term mystery, what he is not meaning is something that is
still a mystery at the time of writing it.

Because if it's still a mystery, how can you hold something you don't know?

A mystery is something you don't know.

It's something that you're not aware of.

It's something that you don't have the answer to.

Paul says, no, no, no, we have the answer.

And you must hold that answer.

You must hold that revelation, the revealing of that mystery which was given before time
by the prophets, by the fathers, by those who spoke in the Old Testament looking forward.

to Christ and the church and the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike.

He says, you must hold that in good conscience.

So now let's go to the application.

If the mystery is the salvation of the Jews and the Gentiles in Christ, then what does it
mean for a deacon that they must hold the mystery

of the faith with a pure conscience.

All right, they would have to firmly believe that Christ came in the flesh, that He died
for the sins of all mankind.

What if there was an individual who said, I believe in the Messiah, I believe He was the
Messiah and the Savior of the Jews.

Would that person be qualified to be a deacon?

No.

What if someone said, I believe that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and that he was the
Messiah.

I just don't really think that the church is really all that important.

Qualified to be a deacon?

What if someone came along and said, well, I understand that we are all uh Christians,
Jews, and Gentiles alike, but I'm not going to eat with the Gentiles.

Qualified to be a Deacon?

Was that a real problem in the church in the first century?

Who do we see as an example of that problem in the church in the first century?

Peter and Barnabas, Galatians chapter one, Galatians chapter two.

You have Paul rehearsing there in that context an example of a time where Peter came down
and he was associating with the Gentiles.

those Christians that were Gentiles, he was eating with them, he was participating with
them, he was fellowshipping with them, until there were Jews who arrived from Jerusalem

and then he separated himself from them.

And Barnabas, seeing Peter's example, also separated himself from them.

And Paul says that he withstood Peter to the face.

because he was to be blamed.

Now, imagine someone who's a member of the body of Christ, who's in the first century
church, who's a Jew, who is practicing that.

uh I'll come over to your house and I'll sit with you and I'll talk with you and I'll tell
you about Jesus.

But I won't eat with you.

I won't fellowship with you.

And if somebody is watching, I'm not going to even act like I know you.

and yet this person is supposed to be a servant of the Church.

How can they serve those who they will not even fellowship?

Paul says, you must hold the mystery of the faith.

Now, when he says that, does he mean that in order to be a deacon, you must understand
everything about all that God talked about and said in prophecy and how it was fulfilled?

No, his discussion is not about the knowledge.

level of the person in regards to the Old Testament prophets and their fulfillment of
their prophecy, but the conscience of the one who holds the mystery.

He's not saying you have to have perfect knowledge about these things.

He is saying that you must hold the knowledge that you have in a pure conscience.

Which means you cannot use the knowledge that you have to harm others.

You can't use the knowledge that you have to make it more difficult for others to be
obedient to the gospel.

And every individual who drove a wedge between the Jews and the Gentiles in the first
century church was making it harder for people to be obedient to the gospel.

Turn over to Galatians chapter 1.

In Galatians chapter 1 and verse 6, Paul writes, uh

As we have said before, now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than
what you have received, let him be accursed.

For do I now persuade men or God?

Or do I seek to please men?

For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bond servant of Christ." Paul, as he opens
this letter to the Galatians and will rehearse the events that we just discussed with

Peter and Barnabas, says, I am

astounded that you are so quickly removed from the message that you received to something
else delivered to you by somebody else.

And the warning for deacons is you can't have someone who takes the message of God and the
revelation of God and manipulates it for their own ends.

that will allow their traditions, that will allow their way that they were brought up to
corrupt the message.

They are to be stewards of the message that originated with God, and they cannot allow
themselves to manipulate it or change it to justify their own actions.

Notice, he says, but let these also, verse 10, let these also first be tested.

uh then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless.

When individuals are installed in this role, Paul says you don't accept

whatever they say about themselves.

It is not sufficient to go, do you hold the faith of the mystery of God in good
conscience?

Yes, I do.

All right, good enough for me.

Paul says that's not how we're doing this.

uh We are not accepting without evidence, without testing the facts and the statements.

of others.

I think it would be important to realize that while he specifically says that they must be
tested about deacons, it's clearly implied that the elders and those who would be

considered to be elders must be tested also.

What are some of the statements concerning elders that imply that we obviously would have
to test them to see whether or not they meet these qualifications?

What are some of those statements about elders?

Say again.

that they be blameless, okay?

So to evaluate whether or not someone's blameless, there's some testing that involves in
that.

You've got to talk to some people as to see whether or not they are blameless, right?

What about those, what would their reputation needed to be from those who are outside the
church?

All right, they had to have a good reputation from those who are outside.

Well, do you find out their reputation amongst those who are outside the church by talking
to them or by talking to people who are outside the church?

You got to talk to the people who are outside the church.

What's that?

That's testing.

It's you think they are one type of person.

You're now talking to those who are in their day-to-day lives, who are outside the body of
Christ to find out if they think they're that kind of person.

What else?

Not a novice.

How could you test whether or not they're a novice?

Okay, listen to them talk about Scripture.

Evaluate their knowledge of Scripture by not just having, you know, there are people, let
me say this a certain way, I have observed individuals, especially those who are very

young preachers.

or are in school training to become a preacher who they don't know anything about what
they're talking about, but they're able to say what they're talking about really well.

They're able to rehearse things that they've learned, but the moment you ask them an
intelligent question, reasoning about the thing that they just said, they don't have any

depth of knowledge.

Now, we all have that about some topics, right?

I mean, I can tell you that there's a vehicle sitting out in the driveway that's got a
four cylinder or a four liter engine with a six cylinder and you're now pretty much at the

extent of my knowledge about engines.

I know what's written on the sticker on the outside.

I can look up the specifications.

Do I have a clue how that engine runs?

No.

But I can talk really nice about how.

what type of engine it is.

Sounds impressive, right?

Not to anybody who knows anything about engines.

So how do you get past the point of evaluating whether a person is a novice or not?

Well, you have to have someone who knows more than they do.

You have to have someone who can ask them questions and force them to be able to actually
demonstrate knowledge.

But you also have to observe them utilizing that knowledge.

It's one thing for someone to know something.

It's another thing for them to use what they know and be able to turn it into practical
application in the lives of people.

So.

He says, not only must we be those who are these type of qualifications, and must be those
who hold the mystery of the faith with pure conscience, but he says, you test them first.

If congregation has elders, who would be the most appropriate people to test the deacons?

The elders, because they've already met the qualification of not being a novice.

They've already met the qualifications for these matters.

So this partly would fall upon the elders.

But who is Paul writing to?

Timothy.

Timothy's role was a preacher.

If there's someone who is a teacher of others, a preacher, a herald of the good news, he
also would be qualified to test these deacons to see whether or not they meet these

qualifications.

Okay?

Consider something else.

He says, let them first be tempted, then let them serve.

As Paul looks at this, he gives a specific warning in the form of a process.

You don't install them first and put them to work and test them afterwards.

You know, sometimes in a lot of industries, companies will hire a bunch of people and
they'll just hire them rapidly.

They'll hire, hire, hire, hire, hire because they know in 30 to 90 days, they're letting
about 60 % of them go.

because their evaluation process isn't before the hiring, it's after the hiring in the
first period, kind of the grace period after they're hired.

Walmart would do that.

90-day probation period.

They could let you go for any reason, first 90 days.

After the first 90 days, they were pretty well locked in.

But the other thing that I remember from my days working at Sam's Club, the other thing
they did is they gave you a performance-based raise after your first 90 days.

So you would get hired on, and based upon how you did, your hourly rate would go up if you
did well enough to not only be kept.

And so you look at that, what are they doing?

They're testing you, but they're testing you once you're inside the organization.

Now, Paul is saying, you test these people before you give them the role, before you give
them the responsibility, before you give them the authority, you test them first.

It's not enough to say, you know what,

I think if we just made Brother so-and-so a deacon that he'd be a lot more faithful.

Oh No oh no, exactly wrong order.

uh I've seen this done in congregations and it's incredibly unwise, not in regards to
deacons or elders, but in regards to Bible class teachers.

You'll see elders or you'll see a congregation say, hey, we need more teachers.

We don't have enough teachers.

I tell you what, sister so and so, she only comes on Sunday morning and she only comes
about three times a month.

But you know what?

I think we could get her to four times a month if we put her as the teacher of the young
kids class.

Brethren, you do not give people authority who are already demonstrating a lack of
faithfulness.

Jesus's statement was, he who is faithful in little will what?

will be ruler over much, he who is not faithful in little.

even that which he has will be taken away.

Jesus makes it clear you don't give more authority to someone who is already demonstrating
a lack of faithfulness.

You take those who are demonstrating faithfulness and you give them more authority.

Now, Paul is pointing out concerning deacons, you demonstrate faithfulness first.

You test them first, then you give them this position.

He says, first let them be tested, then let them serve as deacons being found blameless.

Now, does blameless mean perfect?

We've been down this road before, but we'll just rehash it just for a moment.

Does blameless mean sinlessly perfect?

No, does not mean that.

It means blameless.

It means when they make errors and mistakes, they do what?

They correct them, they admit it, they repent, they correct their path.

It does not mean that they are flawless, that they are sinless individuals.

It means that their actions and their life is headed

toward God.

And along the way, excuse me, when they make mistakes, they correct them.

If sinlessness was a qualification for being a deacon, would Peter have been qualified to
be a deacon?

How about Paul?

How about Timothy?

How about any of the deacons that were alive in the first century?

No, because none of us are perfect.

But.

is a lack of perfection an excuse for ignoring the qualifications?

No.

Paul says you test against the standard and after they've met the standard, then you give
them the position in the role.

If they don't meet the standard, you don't give them the position in the role because the
standard must be

or the standard is there for a reason.

When we look at what Paul is giving in all these qualifications for elders and deacons, do
you think maybe God in all of his wisdom knew that when you ignored these qualifications,

you were going to have consequences?

When you install someone who, well, they meet most of the qualifications.

Got a little problem on the greedy for money thing, but by and large they're real.

You think you're gonna have some consequences for ignoring the standard?

Absolutely.

But then you find verse 11, likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers,
temperate, or faithful, not fearful, faithful in all things.

Now, question, their wives.

Does this mean that there are qualifications for deacons' but no qualifications for
elders' wives?

So which one are these qualifications for?

Both.

Having discussed elders, having discussed deacons, both of which you consider this, that
these individuals are those who have been found faithful, Paul says their wives must also

meet a standard, a qualification.

They must be reverent.

What does that mean?

All right, sincerity comes in part of it.

Respectful.

The reverence in regards to God is another word we could supply for that that's a very
biblical term, is they fear the Lord.

The book of Proverbs says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of what?

Wisdom, knowledge, understanding, all of those things.

He says these must be women who are reverent, who have reverence, who fear and acknowledge
authority specifically originating with God.

He says they must be those who are reverent, not slanderers.

What does it mean to be a slanderer?

Alright, someone who gossips, but slander actually involves something in addition to just
telling things that you aren't supposed to tell.

Gossip is talking about things that you shouldn't be talking about.

Slander is what?

All right, maligning someone's good character with false accusations.

This is an individual who cannot be described as one who goes about destroying others with
their words.

Sometimes people destroy other people with their words not by what they say, but the
implications they leave.

They won't ever come out and say that the person's guilty of something, but all the things
that they say leave an implication about somebody.

well, I didn't say that so-and-so did that.

No, you said three things that all implied that.

You just didn't say it out loud.

person who is now a faithful Christian or whatever.

So it's not always that it was a false statement.

It could be a true statement, but it still is slanderous because it's not helpful and
beneficial and things like that.

Alright, so sometimes you find the individuals will use the past of a person to slander
the present person.

Raise your hand if you've known people who lived an ungodly life in the past and now live
a godly life.

All right?

Should we judge them based upon their prior life or their current one?

Current one.

And yet, some individuals say, oh, you know him.

He was always a liar growing up.

I knew him.

So how dare we?

I'm going through something that is being said and people at the congregation are hearing
that.

So how do you deal with um when slander is occurring?

uh There's a number of approaches and probably they come in stages.

One of the things that you should do is reevaluate your character.

evaluate your own actions and say, there any possibility that what is being said could be
understood to be true based upon what I'm doing, right?

It is always important if people view someone a certain way that that person first examine
themselves.

Because having examined oneself,

Having made sure that there's not a beam in their eye before they're worried about a speck
in somebody else's, they can make all of the statements like David did and the psalmist

writer did that I have been righteous before you.

Second thing.

Having examined themselves, it is important in this life to remember that the opinion
about us that matters is God's.

Now, not saying there's not consequences to other people having other opinions about us,
there certainly are, and there's things that we need to do, but at the end of the day,

what really matters is what does God think about us?

Again, you go back to the psalmist writer, you go back to all of those psalms where the
psalmist writer says, God, you test me, you try me, and as long as I'm faithful in your

sight, that's enough for me.

Paul, as he's sitting in a Roman prison.

will write there in the book of Philippians about the fact that there were those who were
preaching the gospel so that his burdens and his chains would be increased because they

had a belief that Paul, this individual who God chose to write half of the New Testament
through,

was a poor example of a Christian because he was in prison.

Now, was he a poor example of a Christian because he was in prison?

Or was he in prison because he was a good example of a Christian?

So here you have Christians saying something negative about a person who's literally
suffering because of the good that they've done.

You go back over to our discussion in 1 Peter on Wednesday nights and you see that again
and again and again where Peter writes, don't be ashamed, don't be afraid, don't turn

around or change direction because people say evil of you when you do good.

rather expect it.

When you do good, expect people to say evil concerning you.

So we understand from Peter that slander coming towards Christians who are living
righteous is an expectation.

It's something we should consider to be normal because the world will not like it when we
do what is right.

Yes, Abe.

Alright, so stage one is self-examination.

Stage two is being satisfied with God's evaluation of us.

Stage three is, okay, I've examined myself and what is being stated is false.

I understand that I'm going to be satisfied and content with the Lord's evaluation.

Now I have to deal with the situation.

And the question is how do you resolve or respond or deal with slander?

There are a couple of different ways you can do it.

And there's not necessarily one of them that's better than the other.

Sometimes you have to have wisdom to go which one's appropriate right now.

First one is say nothing.

don't even bring it up.

Because sometimes by the actions and character of life and the demonstration of time, the
slander is proved false.

When you find someone who is being spoken evil of, and yet their consistent good character
demonstrates that the statements about them are are false?

then you have demonstrated and defeated the statement simply by doing nothing in regards
to the person saying it and everything in regards to your life and your character.

That's Peter's statement.

They'll see your good works and their lies will be defeated by your good life.

So one option is you do nothing.

Not always the right option, but certainly a good option.

Another option is when someone has been

sinned against, Matthew 18, what are they to do?

Go to the person who has transgressed against them privately.

We often do this in the wrong order.

You hear that so-and-so is saying something about you.

And so you talk to this person and this person and this person, did you hear what
so-and-so said about me?

Did you hear what so-and-so said about me?

You heard what so-and-so said and you've never yet validated that so-and-so did actually
say that about you.

Sometimes, the slanderer who is believed to have been committing an offense against
someone else ends up being the one slandered because they never actually said it.

I have unfortunately watched preachers do that, where they will claim that one preacher
has preached something in opposition to what another preacher preaches.

The preacher who was supposedly opposed by what that preacher said starts blasting that
preacher only to find out that that preacher never actually said it.

And the slanderer was the one in the middle.

causing strife between brethren.

It is important in understanding Matthew chapter 18 that the very first thing that is
observed is that the person who is been sinned against actually knows for sure and is a

witness that they've actually been sinned against.

Quite often we think the first thing is that they go privately.

No, the first thing is they know they've actually been sinned against.

and it's not just hearsay.

Do not take an accusation to someone, against someone, that you don't know they actually
did!

and you've only heard it from others.

Second thing is, having been a clear witness to what they did, go to them privately.

Do not go to anyone else.

Do not talk about it with others.

Do not, now, you, it's a different thing to seek wisdom, all right?

If you were saying, I don't know how to handle this situation, I need wisdom about how to
handle this situation, that's one thing.

But if you're having conversations going, this person did this, this person did this, this
person said this, you know, wait a minute, have you talked to that person?

because you may find that your information is inaccurate.

Having known that the sin has been committed and you've been transgressed against, and
having talked to them privately, the next step is if they still won't repent of it.

You take two or three witnesses and these people are witnesses of the sin having actually
occurred.

These are not witnesses who believe your story and think that they agree with you.

That's not a witness.

That's someone who has hearsay.

It's not a witness.

This person must have actually seen or observed the actual transgression occurring.

And when the individual will not hear you privately, and when the individual will not hear
from the mouth of two or three witnesses, then it goes to the church.

It goes to the assembly, and the assembly must now act having understood that this
individual will not repent of the sin that they are continuing to do.

Okay?

Well, that's all we've got time for, so thank you for your attention.