Qualifying the Standards For Leadership

Transcript

GR 1263
1/25/2004
Qualifying the Standards for Leadership
1 Timothy 3:2a
Gil Rugh


I want to direct your attention to I Timothy 3. We've been studying this great epistle of the Apostle Paul written to his younger friend, Timothy, a man who became a very intimate part of Paul's life and ministry, a great blessing to Paul and a great asset to Paul and his ministry. It was Paul's practice as he traveled from place to place to have men who were traveling with him. We call these young men--that doesn't mean they were real young--young. The word for youth used in Timothy was used of men up to 40 years of age, but they were young in relation to Paul. Often they were his children in the faith as was true of Timothy. Titus was another one of these young men. And it was Paul's practice when he went to a place to sometimes leave these men there to continue the ministry that he had started and carry it on to the point where that work could go on on its own; and then these men would rejoin Paul, would move to other areas of ministry. Sometimes Paul would send them out to be his representatives to other people and other places. They might carry a letter from Paul.

Now Paul is writing a letter back to Timothy. Timothy evidently had been traveling with Paul, and then when they got to Ephesus and were ministering further there, Paul had to go on over into Greece. Then in chapter 1 verse 3 he says, as I urged you upon my departure from Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus. So Timothy is left behind at Ephesus. Now Ephesus is not a new church. Paul had established that earlier. Years have gone by since the establishing of the church at Ephesus. Paul was arrested at the end of the book of Acts and we noted that between the time he is arrested and the time the book of Acts closes is probably about five years. So a longer time than that has gone on. One commentator estimated it could have been that a dozen years have gone by since Paul established the church. But it has been long enough for trouble to come into the church, difficulty, the leadership has weakened. False teaching and false teachers have been tolerated. So Paul left Timothy there to help set things straight. In fact in the verse we read in chapter 1 verse 3 first thing he reminds Timothy of is that he has to instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, put a stop to the doctrines that are being taught that are not in accord with the truth. And there will be other matters to address.

When we get to chapter 3 Paul is going to address the subject of leadership and the leaders of the church. The church at Ephesus already had leaders. When Paul established the church at Ephesus in Acts 19, he spent three years of ministry there. By the time he left, he had appointed elders to oversee the church. In Acts 20 he called for those elders to come and meet with him at Miletus as he traveled nearby. Now we come to chapter 3 and Paul is going to address the issue of the qualifications of church leaders, including elders. Evidently in the time between when Paul appointed elders for that young church, the years that have gone by and there has been some lessening, loosening of the standards. And the church needs to be reminded of the character qualifications of men who would be installed to lead the people of God.

I mentioned I had the privilege of having lunch this week with a missionary and a pastor friend. The pastor is out of town. I have been friends with these men for a number of years; and this missionary is a solid, godly man who has had a very great ministry over the years in a different part of the world. He was sharing that after an extensive ministry in that part of the world, he said, we have realized there will never be a stable church here until we have stable, godly leaders to oversee it. He said it just goes on a rollercoaster, sometimes it seems up and then it comes down and then it goes up and then it's down.
He says, we really need godly men. He was sharing with me how he has been pouring his life into a group of men that he believes the Lord has raised up to provide leadership for the church there. And that is God's plan—godly leaders to lead His people.

Now there are abuses on both sides. Some people would emphasize that in Christ we are all priests, we are believer/priests, we have direct access to the throne of grace. Therefore, it is not important whether I'm part of an organized fellowship. I just study the Word and let the Lord do in my life what He will. That's one side. The other side is carrying the issue of structure in the church to all kinds of hierarchy as the Roman Catholic Church has done, and some Protestant groups. The fact of the matter is the organization in the New Testament is relatively simple, but it is necessary, it is the plan of God.

Jump back up to Acts 14. This is toward the end of Paul's first missionary journey and Paul traveled through a region, you can see it in your Bible maps, and preached-- people believed, and they were formed into churches. Then he retraced his steps on his return home and revisited the churches that he had so recently established. And we read in verse 23, when they had appointed elders for them in every church. So even in these young churches that had been recently established, Paul and those with him had appointed elders. We are going to be looking at what the qualifications for these men would be in a few minutes. But I would note here that there is room for growth. In other words, what is mature in one church may not be mature in another. A church that has been more recently established and not had a long history of being in the Word and growing will naturally not have men to serve as elders who have the same level of maturity as a longer-existing church does. There cannot be any serious deficiencies in any of the qualifications set down, but we need to be careful--this is the level of maturity that would be expected. Obviously, in our church with a rather long history, there would be a higher expectation in the maturity of men appointed as elders than there would be in one of the churches we planted in another place. That doesn't mean there wouldn't be some men that may be available that are of great maturity. But often in a new work the people are new and we don't have the depth of maturity. But it was Paul's practice to appoint leaders.

Turn over to Titus 1, and the letter to Titus was probably written about the same time as the letter to Timothy; Titus being one of those young men that traveled with Paul, and Paul left him at Crete as they journeyed. Verse 5, for this reason I left you in Crete. Now you see what happens, Paul comes to an area and leaves one young man, Paul goes in, continues a ministry there building on what he had done before. Things still aren't the way he wants them to be; he leaves a young man to do the work. He comes to another area and leaves another young man. They become a key part in establishing and getting the church formed. Why is Titus left in Crete? That you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you. So it was the appointment of elders in every city because in every city where Paul had established a church, that church ought to have elders. And that was Titus' responsibility.

That's what is happening, as we come back to I Timothy 3. Paul doesn't tell Timothy to appoint elders; this church already had elders in existence. They had from the days of Paul's ministry years earlier. What he does do is remind Timothy, and through Timothy remind the church, of what the standards are, what the requirements are for a man to serve as elder. And again from the tenor of the letter and the things addressed, there has been some serious deterioration in the church. You had men teaching false doctrine. We move through the letter and we'll see we have practices going on that are contrary to godliness among God's people. So these matters have to be addressed.

So what he tells Timothy in chapter 3 verse 1, it is a trustworthy statement, if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. Timothy, I'm going to talk to you about men who would want to be elders. Evidently there were men at Ephesus who desired to be elders, and that is a good, noble work that they've set their heart on. But desiring to be an elder is not enough. Here is what is required in the life of a man who would serve as an elder. And he's going to go on and lay out the qualifications.

We noted he uses the word overseer here, the Greek word is episcopos, and it literally means oversight, overseer. We get the word episcopal, episcopal form of government. The English translations translated this word with bishop, so you have the episcopal church with bishops. There is another word that is used of the same position, and that's the word elder. It's the Greek word, presbyteros, we get presbyterian from it, elder kind of government. Now in the New Testament, elders and deacons refer to the same people. And then a third word, pastors or shepherds, refer to these people also, and their responsibility of caring for the people of God. We don't use the Greek word, it's not quite as recognizable to us, pomenaus, for shepherd. But these three words we ought to recognize. We're not talking about a structure or a hierarchy among this group, the overseers are elders, and so when I'm talking you understand when I say he gives the requirements for elders here and you look in your Bible it says overseer. Well, it's the same position—overseer, elder, bishop, presbyter, pastor. We’re talking about the same people.

He doesn't tell him he has to appoint them, but he does tell them here are the requirements of these men. And there may be some replacements, because in chapter 1 verse 3 he has to put an end to false teaching. That means some are going to be removed from their position and others will take their place. Here is what is required.

Verse 2, an overseer then must be above reproach. And the pattern he is going to follow here, the same pattern he follows in Titus 1. He gives a general overarching qualification that encompasses all the rest—be above reproach. And then he's going to follow with some specifics. What does it mean to be above reproach? It means to be the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, and on they go. A similar list is given in Titus 1. There is some overlap, so you end up with 20 or 21 qualifications, depending on how you break it out and if you identify a couple of them together and so on. And so as we would examine men, there are only men as each of these adjectives is masculine and Paul has dealt with the issue of the role of men and women at the end of chapter 2. We look down through these qualifications--what's the first step to finding out is this man qualified to be an elder?

You know there is something about these qualifications we should note, they may not be quite what you would expect. You might have expected a list of the fruit of the Spirit here, as you have in Galatians 5. These qualifications can seem somewhat general. In fact one Greek commentator quoted one of the early Greek writers when he was giving a list of the qualities that you should look for in a man who is going to be a military commander. He listed ten or eleven things, about seven of them are the things that are listed here for leaders in a church. And certain qualities are recognized as respectable and desirable, even in the world. This one, be above reproach.

Turn over to Titus. In Timothy he says be above reproach and he uses a word that means that there is nothing they can lay hold of in your life, there is nothing that someone would be able to get hold of in your life that would bring disrepute to your testimony or to the ministry that you are now leading. He says basically the same thing in Titus 1:6, you're going to appoint elders; namely, if any man is above reproach. It is translated the same way, even though it is a different Greek word as we have in Timothy, because they are synonyms. The one in Timothy means nothing can be laid hold of in your life; the one in Titus means there are not charges that can be brought against you. You can see basically the same idea in the word. There is nothing in their life that they could be justly accused of, there is no cloud there—well he embezzled at his job three months ago and had to be fired, the kind of things that could bring a charge that would bring then a cloud over the ministry and the testimony. The leaders’ position is significant because of their role, their visibility; so it's to be expected the devil is going to attack the leaders in a greater way. We all know the tragedy of Christian leaders who have gotten involved in sin. It brings disgrace on the work of the Lord because they become identified with that work, as they should. And it's understandable that the world would launch an assault when they see failure in that area. Now there are going to be slander and attacks, we're talking about things that are accurate cause for attack, censure. When we are interviewing a person for elder here, that man has to be scrutinized. If things do come up, that doesn't disqualify him. First we want to find out if there is anything to the charge. Sometimes you have to contact the people and sort it out, sometimes you hear a rumor and you say we should solve this, resolve this. Don't want to say, that's just a rumor. What if it's not just a rumor and he's appointed as an elder? Then it comes out, and it looks like they didn't care. Maybe they don't see that as a serious sin, maybe they cover up their own sin and so cover up his, and if the world looks at it, they just want to discredit the whole testimony of the gospel because they want to discredit the messenger.

Back in I Timothy 3 you'll note that being above reproach not only has to do with his testimony among believers, but his testimony among the world. Verse 7, he must have a good reputation with those outside the church. We would not want a man coming on as elder and when we checked places he had worked or where he works now and they say, he's a lazy man, he does enough to keep from getting fired, but if I were hiring somebody he wouldn't be on my list. We say, that's not the kind of reputation we want, we don't want men serving as leadership in the church whose testimony before the watching world is he's lazy, he's not trustworthy, he's not reliable. He always stretches the system for selfish ends, nobody wants to work with him, those kind of things. That wouldn't be above reproach, if those are charges that can be brought. But you also have things you sort out and say, there is nothing to it, that's just slander, just rumors that people were floating. So that's above reproach.

There are no perfect men, so we oughtn't to take this above reproach means an elder must be a perfect man. We're all growing, we're all maturing, but there cannot be any serious shortcomings in any of the areas that are set down. There will be degrees of maturity obviously in our lives, and an elder is still growing. Doesn't mean he never stumbles. But it also means if he stumbles in certain ways that he couldn't continue as an elder obviously. Above reproach.

One more thing and then we get into the details. These aren't just qualifications for elders, these aren't given so some people can say, I don't have a desire to be an elder so that's good because I wouldn't want to have to meet those qualifications. The qualifications set down here are required for all believers. These aren't unique, only elders have to meet these qualifications. We'll see as we move through, these are standards that God has set down for His people. The fact is there are people who fail; we all fail at times, and elders have to be men who have demonstrated consistency in these areas.

For example, above reproach, turn back to Philippians 2. He's not writing to just the leaders, he includes the leaders because the letter began, he's writing to the saints who are in Philippi, including the overseers and deacons. So what he says is applicable for the elders and deacons, but it is also for the rest of the saints. And note what he says in verse 14, do all things without grumbling or disputing, so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless. Same idea as we're talking about when we talk about being beyond reproach, blameless, innocent, children of God above reproach. Again, another word with the same idea, not the same word we're talking about exactly in Timothy or Titus, but the same idea—to be above reproach. In the midst of a crooked and perverse generation we talk about how bad the world is getting and how vile the world is. Well, you know, that's the point. We have been redeemed by God's grace. It's not His plan to take us to heaven just yet. But we think the world ought to reform so it's more like us. No, God has placed us as those above reproach is the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world. The contrast should be clear. It's not--I just can't live a Christian life—I work with ungodly people. Well of course you do, you're the light in the midst of darkness. They're not the ones above reproach, you are. But you see the standard here for believers. This is basically the same thing we're talking about with leaders. We oughtn't to think, this is a different standard. God holds leaders to a
different standard. He just requires that leaders have demonstrated that they are meeting, if you will, the standard. They have demonstrated some consistency in their life.

Turn to I Thessalonians 5:23, now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely. That work that's going on, Paul wants it to be continued to completion. And the One who has begun a good work in us will continue to bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus as Paul wrote to the Philippians in chapter 1 verse 6. And your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let me tell you, if I am living my life so that I am without blame when Christ comes and before Him there is nothing for censure, I will be beyond reproach in my life before the world, before others. So you see the standard here for us as believers. One writer put it this way, a good reputation both inside and outside the church is required, and one's behavior forms the basis upon which the reputation is evaluated. Needless to say there is a difference between living a life which should not lead to accusations and facing unfounded accusations. The devil is the slanderer, so that will happen. We need to be careful that we don't put stock in the slander. He is the relentless slanderer; he is the accuser of the brethren; he is the destroyer. But there ought not to be anything in the life that can genuinely be laid hold of, be a cause of censure in the life of one who would be appointed as an elder.

All right, I Timothy 3. Someone commented last week that they had been discussing that we only covered one verse last week. And if you thought that was slow, we're not even going to get through one verse this week. But we're not going to take this long on every qualification; they'll move more rapidly as we move along. But as we move through now we're going to see, what does it mean to be above reproach. We're going to talk about first the elders and then the deacons.

Well the first requirement after the general one is, he is to be the husband of one wife. Same requirement is given to Titus for the elders in Titus 1:6. The same requirement is given for deacons in I Timothy 3:12. You just note there, deacons must be husbands of only one wife. You'll note the word only, if you're using the same translation I am, is in italics. Means the word only isn't there, it's the exact same phrase as you have in verse 2, the husband of one wife. For some reason the translators thought they ought to put only in verse 12. I don't know why they didn't put it in verse 2, but it's the same phrase. The husband of one wife. The phrase is literally, a one-woman man. And it has occasioned much discussion. In fact of all the qualifications, this is probably the one that has caused the most confusion and the greatest difference among evangelical churches. When I have contact with other churches or get a call from the pastor and they're talking about appointing elders, their question always revolves around, what do you do with the husband of one wife qualification? How do you interpret that?

I want to walk you through some possibilities and give you some reasons why I think these possibilities are not the best way of interpreting this passage, and then focus on what I think is the best interpretation of the passage. This is review for a number of you. But there was a time when it was new to us and we had to work it through. I went to a seminary who took a different view than we hold here now. It was an evangelical school, but they hold a different view. We've had speakers here who have held to different views. We'll note some of this as we go along.

The first view mentioned, the first interpretation of the husband of one wife, a one-woman man, is a view that says an elder must be married. And some carry this another step and say the elder not only must be married, but he must have at least two children, because down in verse 4, he has to keep his children, plural, under control. So he has to have at least two children. Now at first we say, I want to know who holds that. Well I had a professor at seminary, and that was his view, that he was knowledgeable in the Greek language and so on. His view was that this passage requires that an elder be a married man with at least two children. That's not a very widely held view; I don't think you'll find if you look through the commentaries, I haven't been able to find many who hold to that. They all refer to it, but to find one who does espouse it, it's always referenced, but my commentaries don't promote this view. I don't think it gives the proper force here, I think it does raise questions. There is discussion over whether Paul was an elder. You'll note Peter was an apostle and he also served as an elder. Now Peter was a married man, we learn of that with his mother-in-law in the Gospels. Paul was an apostle; he may also have been an elder.

Look in chapter 4 verse14. Paul tells Timothy, do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery, by the elders. Timothy received his gift when the elders laid hands on him. II Timothy 1:6, for this reason I remind you to kindle afresh the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. Well in I Timothy 4:14 he says, you received your gift through the laying on of the hands of the elders. In his second letter he says, you received the gift through the laying on of my hands, which causes some commentators to say, Paul properly identified himself as an elder with these elders. If Paul was an elder, he was not a married man, so that would fit.

Perhaps most to the point, back in I Corinthians 7, on this view, must an elder be married, Paul says the single life is a special gift and blessing from God to enable a person to devote more of his life to the service of the Lord. It's difficult to understand why a man who is gifted of God to devote himself to more fully serve the Lord should be disqualified from this key area of service. In I Corinthians 7:7 Paul says, I wish that all men were even as myself am, a single man, living without the responsibility of a wife and children. However, each man has his own gift from God, the gift of God's grace. Verse 8, but I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. Verse 17, only as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, so let him walk. That's a sovereign choice of God. The world exalts the single life because of the freedom it gives you and the fun you can have and the playtime you now have. That's not the reason God gifts a person for the single life as His child; it's for service. Verse 32, I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. The one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, the Apostle Paul being an example of that. He was free to travel, free to do whatever he believed the Lord had for him next.
He didn't have to check with his wife, he didn't have to make arrangements for the kids.
That's obvious.

It would seem to me that there is no moral requirement here that an elder would have to be married. Now unmarried men would have to have pure lives; that would be included here. We'll have something to say about that in a moment.

A second view, again one I don't believe is widely held; it was held among some of the church fathers, I believe. An elder cannot practice polygamy. I Corinthians 7:2 would forbid polygamy for all believers. Secondly, polygamy was forbidden at this time it seems, in the Roman Empire. Sort of like we have in this country, there may be some pockets and some places where polygamy is being practiced. But the law of the land is that it's not lawful; and that was true in the Roman Empire at this time. The biggest problem in this view is I Timothy 5:9, a widow is to be put on the list; now we're not talking about widows being elders, but a widow being eligible for support by the church. A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than 60 years old, having been the wife of one man. And that is basically the same expression as we are dealing with in I Timothy 3. There it is a one-woman man; here it is a one-man woman. Well if I Timothy 3:2 means a man cannot have more than one wife, I Timothy 5:9 means that a woman could not have had multiple husbands. And there is no evidence that that was a practice in biblical times when Paul would have written this. There would have been no reason to address that; you'd have to have some consistency in interpretation. If you're going to say a one-man woman means she can't have multiple husbands, that wouldn't apply to anyone because no one did it. Just like today in our country that's not basically an issue. We hear some discussion about men having multiple wives, but it's not really an issue because it's against the law. Women aren't having multiple husbands; they have their hands full with one.

A third view, and a man who has preached here on occasion holds this view. In fact, he resigned his eldership in the church where he was and he hasn't been here for a number of years. A man I greatly respect. I was listening to some of his tapes this past week. This view says a man could not be a remarried widower. When his wife died and he later remarried he resigned his eldership because he felt in light of I Timothy 3 he was no longer qualified to be an elder. I mention that just to say there are good men who hold different views here. I don't understand the logic of this view, that a man cannot be remarried if he is a widower. Now I understand there is some background for it because in the Old Testament the priest was not allowed to marry a widow. So no matter what her character, no matter how godly her husband had been or how godly she may have been, the priest was not allowed to marry a widow. There is some precedent for it as we look back into the Old Testament. However, Paul argues strongly in Romans 7 that death ends the marriage relationship, and that the person is now free. So that would seem that argument would indicate that you are totally free. The comparison is with the law. I think we're totally free from the law, and that would mean we are totally free from any obligations, responsibilities or ties to that former spouse.

Paul does say in I Corinthians 7 where we just were that the widow has a right to remarry. His recommendation is that they stay single, but he says they have a right to remarry. In I Timothy 5:14 he thinks the younger widows ought to get remarried. Now if remarriage means they are disqualified from being enrolled, if that's what I Timothy 5:9 means, it would seem to put some obstacles in their way. He does recommend they get remarried. I don't see a conflict; there is nothing that I can see. I can see--we're not going back into the Old Testament--what are some reasons why the priests may not have been able to marry a widow. There were things involved in Israel's setup that may influence that. But in the New Testament I see nothing that would limit someone from being an elder for remarrying after the death of their wife or marrying a woman who had been widowed.

An elder cannot be divorced is another view. This is one that had great popularity among evangelicals. Some would say it is the most common view. It holds that an elder cannot be a divorced man for any reason at any time. Where I went to seminary, they held this view. They believed it was a lifetime disqualification from being an elder.
Again I mention that, mention that there are strong evangelicals who have held or do hold to the view. I don't hold to that view; the board here does not hold to that view. There would have been simpler ways to say an elder cannot have been married more than once, or an elder cannot have been divorced. I mean there are words for divorce; he could have said an elder cannot be divorced. One-woman man is not quite as clear on that subject. The Bible does recognize divorce and remarriage. It doesn't say it is desirable, but it does recognize it. When a man has been divorced and is remarried, that second marriage is a valid marriage--that is his wife; that is his only wife. And he is the husband of one wife in that sense.

My understanding of these qualifications is they are dealing with present qualifications. There are no lifetime qualifications here. I think we err to take one of the qualifications out and say this is a lifetime qualification. Now I understand the importance of marriage, I understand the sanctity of marriage and so on, but the fact is none of the other of these qualifications do we make lifetime, because no one would ever by qualified as elder. Because we were all dead in our trespasses and sins until God's grace brought redemption. So I want to be careful about saying, we're going to take this qualification and make a lifetime qualification. Some would limit it and say, well if he has been divorced since he became a believer. And we're not going to go on a sidetrack of biblical divorce; there is a booklet available if you want to work through the details on that. But if a person has followed the biblical pattern and has biblical grounds as we would understand for divorce, then I understand they have a biblical right to remarry. Well isn't there a cloud that hangs over? Well in any of these qualifications, a person may be meeting them now but there may be extenuating circumstances that would keep them from being above reproach. I mean a man may have embezzled money from his business and gone to prison, but that was several years ago. But in the community, that is still a cloud over him, and for him to be appointed as an elder, that might not be the right thing to do at that time. So above reproach has to be considered in this. But the action itself I don't think is at issue here. I think it's dealing with his present condition.

Quite frankly, being a believer or not a believer doesn't change God's attitude toward divorce. Divorce is sin. God's standard is the same for unbelievers and believers in this. What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Jesus didn't say, if you are a believer. So the standard on marriage and divorce is the same for unbeliever and believer alike. Now obviously unbelievers don't pay attention to what God says and what His standards of requirements are, and they will be judged for it. Adulterers and fornicators God will judge, we read in Hebrews 13:4. But believers are to live their lives pleasing to God. A believer can err and sin and be divorced, maybe even for unbiblical reasons. That's a sad marring of his testimony that would have impact on his being an elder. I don't know that I would say, though, that that it is a lifetime disqualification. I think each of these qualifications means within a reasonable period of time who has demonstrated the proper character, that he meets the qualifications. Now again, there are other ramifications that have to be taken into account obviously. To be above reproach and there is nothing to be gotten hold of. And divorce, the entanglement that that brings and the involvement with families and so on, obviously that can have an ongoing impact on a man's being above reproach and so on. And so that's taken into consideration.

I think we need to be careful about making divorce the unpardonable sin. And I bite my tongue when I say that, because I also realize that the move in the world and the church is to minimize the seriousness of divorce. I wouldn't do that; and anyone who is a believer and thinks God will forgive me, I'm going to go ahead and do it--he's in a frightening position. As it is with any sin. When I think I'll go ahead and sin and I'll be forgiven in Christ, it's to challenge God to discipline me, and to discipline me severely enough that I'll feel the pain of it.

Look at I Corinthians 6. If you've been at Indian Hills for very long, you know I am conservative in my theology; and I always feel like I'm walking on thin ice when I'm in the liberal position on an area; but I do want to be in the biblical position, as I know you do. Look at verse 9, do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Sinners are not going into the kingdom as they are. Such were some of you. You were washed; you were sanctified; you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the spirit of our God. I just want you to note there, whatever the sin, no matter how serious, no matter how vile, it's forgiven in Christ. That's a glorious thing. Some of you have divorce in your background, and that doesn't mean you were a more vile sinner than I was; I may have something else in my background. Sometimes divorce is more evident because we have to go through legal procedures and it becomes perhaps more openly known than another activity. But everybody is washed.

What we have here are two kinds of people—those who have been washed and those who have not been washed. Among the washed, they have been washed; they have been sanctified; they have been justified. And there are no exceptions on that. Except for these three sins that are too serious to get the complete cleansing. Aren't you glad that's not the way it is? I mean, we'd be like the self-righteous Pharisees; we might say, thank you Lord that I am not as other men. The Lord has forgiven me but my sins were never as bad as their sin. I'm not like the publican. I was a terrible sinner, but thank the Lord,
I've never been divorced. Oh spare me. You were probably a lot worse than the divorced sinner, with false pride like that. We come back to I Corinthians 6, and I love verse 11, such were some of you. You were that. Because the saved were the unsaved.

Okay the one last view, and we're going to conclude with this. An elder must be faithful to his wife; he must be a one-woman man. In other words, a man may only have one wife, may not have committed sexual immorality and failed to meet the qualification here. I don't know that he's ever been immoral, but you know he has a roving eye. You ask his wife, yes, I think my husband has always been faithful but anytime we go out to eat he's always eyeing the other women. Well is that the kind of man you want as an elder? No, he doesn't meet this qualification; he's not a one-woman man. You know this covers not just your physical activity, but the activity of your heart. Remember what Jesus said in Matthew 5? When a man looks on a woman to lust after her, he has committed adultery with her in his heart, and God is looking at the heart. So the qualification of a one-woman man here is a man who is devoted to his wife; there aren't any questions about his relationship. Nobody can prove anything. Why are they always raising a question about your relationship here, your relationship there, your relationship here? This man is a one-woman man, that's clear. He's committed to his wife; he's faithful to his wife; it's evident he loves his wife and is devoted to her. That's the qualification here; he demonstrates faithfulness in his marriage.

Interestingly, this is the only qualification that covers the sexual areas, sexual activity. You would think with the way the pagan world was, you'd have a number of warnings here. We have them in other places in the New Testament, but here this one encompasses it all. Talk about a one-woman man; that takes care of any kind of sexual unfaithfulness, dallying in any area. So that resolved it. I take it that would be the qualification for the widow over in I Timothy 5:9, if she is going to be enrolled and eligible for support—she demonstrated that she was a one-man woman. So if that's not the case, if she hadn't demonstrated faithfulness to her husband, she wouldn't be qualified. That's evidence that is brought here.

The pagan world was openly immoral like the world we live in. Things had become acceptable, acceptable for people. I don't know how accurate the statistics, but I saw on a program here within the last week or week-and-a-half, they said 80% of teenagers have had sexual involvement by the time they are 20. I don't know whether that is true or not, how they gather that. We're well aware it is quite high; we're talking about whether we ought to put birth control machines of one kind or another in schools. I mean, what do you send your kid to school for? Well we don't have any standards; we're like animals here, and if they're going to rip and snort like the animals we want them to be protected. This kind of thing. We think we understand the pagan world. In the world of Paul's day among the Greeks and the Romans it wasn't viewed as a bad thing when a man had sexual relations with women other than his wife; he wasn't a scoundrel or somebody you looked down upon. We think our days are so bad, and those days must have been a lot better. Those were terrible days; and what happens when those things become generally accepted in the world around us, pretty soon the world looks for ways to make things acceptable among believers. And so we have to be careful. And that's what Paul is writing, the standard. We are aware that God established marriage, Genesis 2, one man with one woman. Jesus reiterated it in Matthew 19. If you have a problem understanding marriage and the marriage relationship, go back and read Genesis. And you read from the beginning He created them male and female, that's the union He has established. Don't try to undo what God has done.

The sexual relationship is for marriage and is limited to marriage, I Corinthians 7. Paul says I would like everyone to be like me, single, but everyone has a gift from God.
If you are burning with passion, you had better get married. So the clear reason for marriage is to satisfy sexual desires. Now in the world around us, immorality is rampant. Why? They ignore God's plan. And I've been through this with you before, we're not going down that road, but I have to spit it out. Sometimes Christian parents add to this because they don't want their kids to get married until what? You have to get through school, you have to get your college education, you need to get a good job. We try to do what the world does, the world says do it, it doesn't matter. No, the world lives differently. Remember we are lights in the darkness. Most important thing is not that we be successful in our jobs; the most important thing is not that we have the degrees that everyone would admire. The most important thing is that we have lives that are honoring to Him. Not saying that a person oughtn't to prepare himself, but we have to be careful by thinking we are doing something for our children when we are pushing marriage off. We ought to be pushing the biblical view of marriage. You have to work it out then in light of that context. And lastly I remind you, faithfulness in marriage involves mental as well as physical. That's Matthew 5:27-28.

Let's conclude by going to I Thessalonians 4. You see this requirement is for all believers. And anyone who does not follow this requirement of sexual faithfulness and purity is rejecting God, rejecting God. Note this, verse 1, finally, brethren, we request and exhort you in the Lord Jesus that as you have received from us instruction as to how you ought to walk and please God, that's what we're talking about, how you live your life, how you please God with your life. Just as you do walk--that you excel still more. For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you abstain from sexual immorality, that each of you know how to possess his own vessel. I take it that means his own body. In sanctification and honor, not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no man transgress and defraud his brother in the matter because the Lord is the avenger in all these things, just as we also told you before and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity, but in sanctification. So he who rejects this is not rejecting man, but the God who gave His Holy Spirit to you. That's about as clear as it gets. This is God's standard for all of us as His children, and it must be exemplified in the men who would serve as leaders of the body.

Let's bow in prayer. Thank you, Lord, for your grace. Thank you for a salvation so powerful, so effective that it washes us from the vilest sins; it sets us apart and provides for us your righteousness. Lord, we rejoice that in Christ we are clean. Thank you for your plan, for our fellowship in the body. Thank you for your provision for the care of the body, the oversight of the body. Thank you for providing gifted men, qualified men that you have raised up to lead your people. I pray for any who are here who don't know the wonder of Your salvation, that this might be a day when they turn
from their sin and place their faith in the Savior who loved us and died for us. We pray in His name, amen.