Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. (Phil. 3:17)

Imitate me, just as I also imitate Christ. (1 Cor. 11:1)

And Paul even says to Timothy:

Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. (1 Tim. 4:12)

Oh, one more thing.

It is interesting you raise this, because just yesterday a certain R. Warren tweeted this:

Up at 4am 2 pray 4 worship leader, pastor,church planter &staff in my care in PD Global network. LOVE u all! Proud of YOU.

I responded:

@RickWarren It’s great that you pray for those in your care. But what Matt. 6:5–6?

Cara and I then had a discussion over this. She asked me how I would teach on this. Would I use myself as an example? (Leaving aside the fact that I have never risen at 4 am to pray – I probably do have something to learn from Mr. Warren here!)

And Cara raised a good question! I had to think for just a moment or so, before deciding that no, I would not use myself as an example. I would go first to Scripture (Ps. 55:17; Ps. 88:17 – the latter with the implication of early in the morning, etc.). And then, perhaps I would use the lives of one or two past saints, noted by others for their lives of prayer. But myself, no, not here. Somethings are supposed to be secret, between oneself and God.

How to reconcile that with what Paul and Peter say? Some aspects of our conduct are secret, and let us not talk about those. Other aspects of our conduct are public, and observable to all whether we like it or not. People will see them and, after all, elders are supposed to be examples to the flock (the 1 Pe. 5:3 passage you mentioned). And in all things, we should strive to behave as if we were being an example, whether or not our actions are public.

But, although the conduct of elders is to be an example to the flock, I am uncomfortable when anyone (and I am thinking of RW’s tweet here) then points to himself and says, ‘See, look at me, how righteous I am. Do thou likewise.’ After all, I am fallible. I might sin in this very area tomorrow. And then, of what value would my exhortation be? So it seems to me better to look to the Scriptures and the examples we have there, and perhaps also to the saints who have run their race and already obtained their imperishable crowns.

It looks like I did have something to add, after all – I seem to have yet again used a great many words merely to agree with you. Oh well

Points #4 and #5 above, Daniel, are a good. Things seem to be getting somewhat clearer. Still, this is a tricky issue. It seems that any time we work on a tough Scripture to try to understand it, there are two voices that pop up, one on each shoulder. The one says “Be true to the text!” and the other says “Don’t be a legalist!” and both of them appear to be angels of light. What to do?

I had an interesting experience yesterday, which I will relay in order to make a point at the end: bear with me. I nearly fell into a very large spiritual trap yesterday as I was trying to think of ways to encourage others (friends, family, church) to emulate Christlikeness in their lives. Following Him is crucially important to being a Christian: 1 John 2:6 “Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.” But I find that this (walking as Christ did) is difficult to “see” for most people, and for myself. What does this look like? We don’t know how to do it, and we make tons of mistakes while trying.***

In my zeal to help others and to be true to the Word in my life, I came up with a very foolish plan that would have involved exposing my own good deeds as a sort of example *cringe* of how to do it. As I read through the gospels, gathering fodder for my plan, I came across this verse, Matthew 6:1…”Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.” Hm.

There was a moment where I said, “No, this is different. I’m trying to help people. It’s different. This verse doesn’t apply to me.” (Yikes.) And then our Oh so Gracious God urged me to pray, to just talk to Him about this thing I was considering before rashly rushing into it.

So I said “Okay, Lord, am I missing something here? Think of all the people I could help if I did this!” And he gently responded, “Think of all the people you could lead astray if you do this.” Ah! I felt truly horrified at what I had almost done. It was like staring down into a pit. What a knife-edge we walk!

It is especially frightening to wonder how many false teachers started out that way – how easy it would be, were He not preserving us, to take that one step away from God (such a tiny step) and wind up becoming the one people look to instead of Christ. There before the Grace of God go I. Romans 7:24-25, “What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

The reason I bring confess this terrible thing is because I think, when we’ve come to a sticky spot on issues like this one about children, where, at least for me, the heart’s desires are often clearer than the conclusions my mind can come to, the only course of action is to pray, beg God for wisdom by the Spirit, and ask for peace in following the correct path. I know this works… James 1:5-6 has saved me from making terrible decisions numerous times.

I’m not advocating staying ignorant of what the Bible says – by no means am I saying that. Neither am I saying that anyone here has *not* been asking for wisdom and prayerfully considering all these things. But, by way of encouragement, I say we must remember this beloved verse: “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct your paths.” Prov. 3:5-6

After thinking through these things, it seems clear that the Holy Spirit leads us as we walk in Him, and that is how we learn to emulate Christ. We can’t “see” Him because we don’t read our Bibles! And it is not something another person can do for us anyway. We must rely on the Spirit and the Word and the supernatural nearness to Christ that they create. There is one mediator between Christ and man. Luther would say Amen to that.

***I realized after my adventure with sin that emulating Christ so that others can emulate you is bad motive. But asking others to emulate them as they emulated Christ is something that Paul and Peter both did (1 Pet. 5:3) and (I can’t find the place where Paul says the believers should look at his behavior as an example of how to act, but I know it’s there somewhere!) It seems to me that the difference (in addition to motive) is that these men were divinely appointed to the position of “example” and it is not something we can just decide to be. We must stay in the place we are put, and thrive there, until God (who is entirely able) calls us and places us somewhere new.

I am encouraged by all of you. Thanks.

Tiffany

I’d respond to this in a similar way as I did to Tiffany’s raising of 2 Peter 1:3–4a. It could be argued that 1 Cor. 7 is dealing with general truths concerning all believers. Such general teaching should not be used to undermine specific qualifications for a particular office that might possibly be clearly taught elsewhere in Scripture.

As I have understood it, the general argument that you are collectively advocating against a strict requirement for elders to have children is this:

1. The qualification regarding children should be interpreted as a general indicative characterization of how someone suited to the role would oversee his children, should he have any.

2. Some of the other qualifications in the same passage, meanwhile, are absolute. For example, the requirement that an elder should be ‘skilful in teaching’.

3. The difference between the the general indicative and absolute requirements is this: the former relate to observing someone’s character and maturity in Christ; the latter relate to specific abilities and gifts that are absolutely required to discharge the office of elder. For example, since one of the purposes of being an elder is to instruct the flock in sound doctrine and to rebuke error, someone who is not a skilful teacher would simply be incapable of performing the duties required by the office.

4. Furthermore, St. Paul, whilst he may not have strictly been a local elder of the church, can be shown to have performed all the duties Biblically required of an elder. Thus, it seems to be overly naïve to read the eldership qualification in such a way that would exclude him. (I don’t mention Timothy here, since we do not know whether he might have been married with children, and cannot therefore draw any conclusions from the silence of Scripture.)

5. It is admitted that part of the reason for the eldership qualifications given by Paul is to protect the church from unsuitable candidates. But, in the case of the general indicative qualifications of character and maturity, a congregation or eldership board that knows the candidate well should be trusted to determine the suitability or otherwise of a particular candidate’s general character using the means at their disposal. Again, the relation of children to their father would be an example of one valid way to evaluate a candidate, but certainly not the only way.

Have I missed anything out?

I find this line of reasoning to be generally plausible, and I think that, if an elder at my church were to advocate it, I should be content with his qualification for his office, even if he did not have children.

I am still pondering…if only we could have a better argument regarding the meaning of the text itself!

I think the young man Josh probably should not be qualified to be an elder due to him only being 22 years old. BUT not because of having no children at this point in his life.

In 2004 our church council (against the wishes of our liberal minded pastor, though that was not made clear until afterward when he tromped all over us) convened a subcommittee to look into the formation of an elder board. Yes, this after the church had been in existence for about 10 – 11 years… sigh. In the process of looking at the various Scriptures this is what we came up with (off the top of my head).

I’m not so sure that elders MUST have children. I would think they should not be opposed to having them, but if they for some reason are denied children, why should that be reason for disqualification? His children, if he has them, then, should be well behaved, etc etc… (and whose kids are always well behaved… it is a generalization). I tend to agree with the ‘If he has children, then they must be well behaved” interpretation you referenced above.

Likewise suppose an elder is unmarried. I would think that should not disqualify him, as long as he is not opposed to marriage, and goes about it in a God honoring way. Or suppose an elder who is married loses his wife to death? Is he therefore now not qualified? Divorce is another question entirely and I do believe that should probably disqualify an elder.

I do agree that ideally there should be some elders who have children and wives, so as to better minister to those in the congregation who also have them. These lists of qualifications do not seem to be the comprehensive sort, but generalizations. I think probably my husband would have a better exegesis of the passage however, he can open up Logos and pick it apart.

If it is not worthwhile to discuss this, then it is by the same token also not worthwhile to study the Bible at all.

I’m becoming slightly bogged down, so in order to clarify, I’m going to produce a list of things that I believe we agree on, based on the last few posts, so that moving forward will be easier for all.

1. An elder and a pastor are essentially the same office, based on the Greek rendering of the two words.
2. It is not likely that an elder or pastor who is continuing in willful disobedience to God’s Word will be blessed in ministry and used of God.
3. It is possible that God would still see fit, in His Grace, to use a pastor or elder who is in disobedience because of misunderstanding.
4. Eve was meant to be first and foremost a companion and helper to Adam.
5. Children are a natural (though not spiritually mandatory) result of marriage.
6. Children are a blessing
7. It is up to each person to examine his / her motives, keeping a clear conscience, acting from faith, and asking “What does Scripture say?” in any point of confusion or conflict.
8. Parenting, though a worthy endeavor, is time-consuming and absorbing, and changes one’s life.
9. It is possible to draw a parallel between marriage and parenting based on 1 Cor. 7

The following items are still on the table (because you or I or both are not yet totally clear on what we think):
1. Malachi 2:15
2. Whether or not Timothy was a pastor / elder / local pastor / missionary / evangelist
3. Whether Paul’s requirements for an elder / pastor indeed include fatherhood

And yet, Paul does give other specific qualifications that are not within the scope of the general godly characteristics talked about by Peter. The elders must be men, for example. Does this mean that women partake any less in the ‘divine nature’ than men, or that they somehow are less able to exhibit the godly characteristics that Peter describes? May such a thought never be uttered! But, nevertheless, elders must be men.

Thus, it is critical not to take a passage such as one 2 Peter 1:2–8 (which talks about universal characteristics of a holy life and how they come about) and use it to dismiss the clear teaching of other passages (which give specific instructions for particular circumstances). If we were to do that, we would inevitably appoint elders who were unqualified for their office.

Ah, it seems this is very true. I see my mistake. You sum it up by saying…

Surely , a critical part of the thorough equipping ‘for every good work’ that the Scripture brings is guidance for how to deal with particular circumstances? Could it be correct to use the argument that ‘Scripture is sufficient’ to dismiss what that very same Scripture teaches?

Of course, Scripture does not negate itself, I see that now. The thrust of my argument (not adding anything to the Scripture) is correct, I believe, however, as you pointed out, a list of requirements put forth by Scripture itself is also Scripture, and should be paid attention to. My argument is similar to the faulty argument that “we do not need to life a holy life because we are covered by Grace.” People back this view with Scripture all the time. But the whole of the Word of God they do not consider. In context, with the Scriptures all taken as one, we see that the Faith grace produces will result in a holy life because of the new nature we have been given by God. And when that is understood, even the book of James makes perfect sense.

Regarding the issues still on the table, especially the one originally posed by you, I suspect that we are simply missing a few pieces of the puzzle. I propose we continue to seek them.

I sometimes read long comments and my heart sinks, inwardly sighing ‘There’s so much wrong with this – it’s going to take me forever to respond sensibly.’

And then there are comments like yours, where someone has clearly thought through the issues and formed a sensible Biblical perspective. For these, having appreciated the thoughtful insights, the task of responding is but a simple matter of expressing agreement and admiration for a case well put. And if there are one or two points that require a lengthier treatment? Even they are intelligent observations or questions, worthy of a response. Considerations that bring about a deeper understanding of Scripture as one attempts to answer them.

I appreciate your desire to ask “What does the Scripture say?” in an effort to answer my questions, and I sympathize with the challenge of doing so when the answers are based on a passage that is unclear to us both. Rest assured my conscience is not troubled, and I am very much enjoying this discussion.

I am relieved to hear that

That said, you are sure to find some logical holes in my train of thought and I apologize for them beforehand.

Well, let’s see how things go And there is no need to apologize in any case – this back and forth is both stimulating and helpful.

Yet, I do think it’s worth discussing the difference between misinterpreting the text (an example of a hidden fault, a symptom of our sinful state) and the willful state of disobedience that would occur if a person was convinced that Paul meant that Elders *must* have children, and YET, remaining as a shepherd, went on deciding NOT to have children. This would indicate a “practicing of sin” that has a problematic (to say the least) outcome. “No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.” (1 John 3:9) I doubt that God would bless the ministry of a person in that state. This is all, of course, assuming that Paul did in fact mean that children are a necessary ingredient for requirement as a shepherd. More on that later.

I agree completely.

Thanks for the clarification on elders and pastors. That is something I have heard before and had forgotten about. My only remaining question is about Timothy – the article seems to imply that his ministry was indeed pastoral in nature. I am going to have to think more about that.

It certainly had those elements, as indeed did Paul’s ministry. But does that make either Timothy or Paul ‘an elder’ in the sense that they should be bound by the qualifications given by Paul to Timothy and Titus concerning the role of local church elder? That it did was the essence of Sean’s posts previously. That case can be made, but I am as yet unconvinced. (Perhaps I am simply exceedingly stubborn!)

Regarding Malachi 2:15 – Yep, we have definitely wrestled with this passage. Currently, my stance on it is that, in context, and in the light of the rest of the OT, “godly offspring” seems to be referring to the mandate to avoid intermarriage with other nations, and so have offspring that are holy to God. My thought on that could be challenged, so feel free to do so.

Again, I agree. The context of that passage is that the men of Judah had divorced their Jewish wives to marry the ‘daughters of foreign gods’. Thus, one component of the horror of this behaviour was that, rather than having godly offspring, the men of Judah would now have offspring who would serve those false gods.

The Lord’s rebuke to Judah is interesting:

‘And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the LORD with tears, With weeping and crying; So He does not regard the offering anymore, Nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. Yet you say, “For what reason?” Because the LORD has been witness Between you and the wife of your youth, With whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion And your wife by covenant. “But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth. For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence, Says the LORD of hosts. Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously.”’
(Mal. 2:13–16)

1. The Lord has Himself been witness to the marriage.

2. The men of Judah had each dealt treacherously…

3. …with his companion and wife by covenant.

4. The Lord made each man and woman one (flesh) in their marriage…

5. …just as He had even breathed into Eve the remnant of the same Spirit that He had breathed into Adam.

6. He made them one because He desires godly offspring.

All of these things refer back directly to the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman, and the institution there of marriage. The men of Judah were attempting treacherously to break apart a covenant that God had instituted, witnessed, joined, and blessed (‘be fruitful and multiply’). Yes, there was a specific problem (divorce to marry the daughters of foreign gods), but the proof of the iniquity of this act is an appeal to the creation order and the institution of marriage in Genesis.

Thus, although the specific circumstances do not apply to us, the principles that underly the Lord’s charge against the men of Judah are universal, and most certainly do apply. That’s why I am a little hesitant to dismiss this passage’s applicability to my own situation.

None of this should undermine the fact that the account of the institution of marriage in Gen. 2 does not include the blessing to ‘be fruitful and multiply’. That comes from Gen. 1:28. Now, obviously, the blessing is to the Man and the Woman following the creation of Eve and their subsequent marriage. It is therefore legitimate to put these things together, as indeed God does through Micah here. However, it seems to me significant (although I cannot prove this significance) that the blessing to be fruitful is recorded separately from the Divine institution of the marriage covenant. The implication is that a marriage has Divine warrant independently of whether or not it produces children.

In support of this, notice how the ‘godly offspring’ point is the last of the reasons for the iniquity of Judah’s actions. The first point is that they were breaking a covenant that God Himself had witnessed. What presumption! But the very next charge is that of dealing treacherously with a wife who is companion. This immediately brings us back to the primary reason why God created Eve: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’

Where does this leave us? Children are undoubtedly a blessing from the Lord, but they are not the primary purpose of marriage. That purpose is companionship and help. And if the marriage is blessed with children? Malachi tells us that God wishes them to be godly. Marrying an unbelieving wife is clearly not conducive to this end. (And divorcing a godly wife to marry an ungodly one should be unthinkable.)

One question I ask myself is whether my decision to avoid having children comes from a pure motive. What is the underlying reason / desire? Is it selfishness? Or am I doing it from faith? “Whatever is not done in faith is sin” (Romans 14:23) And I’d encourage you and Cara to ask that same question as you wrestle through the issue.

Amen.

(One interesting side note: your statement about the horrifying prospect of having children to fulfill the requirements of an office, made me think of a discussion Tim and I were having about pragmatism, and that just as there are women who will marry simply for the purpose of children, there are churches who will create marketing plans and build larger buildings simply for the purpose of bringing people into the church. It seems to me the same kind of thinking. Love for your spouse is what produced children, naturally. Love for Christ is what should produce church growth, not pragmatic methods.)

Yes, I like what you say here. I think there are parallels. The love between a man and a woman expressed in marriage has its natural fruit. The love of Christ through faith in Him also has its natural fruit.

Regarding my comment about children being a hindrance: Hindrance holds such a negative connotation, and I didn’t really mean it to sound that way. I was simply being lazy with my words. I should have said that having children sets one on a different path – that everything changes with the arrival of children, and therefore (in a sense) “hinders” the path you were previously on. It’s a bit difficult to express, but I think you see my meaning.

I do see your meaning, and I agree. Having children changes things, and this fact is undeniable.

There’s perhaps a parallel here with 1 Cor. 7: the married man or woman has concerns that do not trouble the unmarried. Is it not also true that, likewise, parents have concerns that do not trouble those not blessed with children?

I see the benefit of having children. But I do not long for them as some women do. Still, I have my moments. For example, I read a passage in Dickens’ Christmas Carol, night before last, where Scrooge has traveled with the ghost of Christmas past into the sitting room of his ex-girlfriend (seems a strange word to use for that time and place, but I suppose that is what she was!) and he sees her daughter, and thinks it might have been his daughter, and Dickens goes on about Scrooge realizing a “similar creature” could have been a bloom of spring in the “haggard winter of his old age” and I won’t lie – it was very emotional for me. But the emotion was a strange feeling – it was not self-pity or regret or longing – it was more like a sudden realization of the price of sacrificing having a family to be dedicated to ministry. I had not thought about it before, quite in that way. The fact “came home to me” that whether a sacrifice comes with peace and contentment, or with tears and terrible sorrow, its meaning and necessity remain the same.

Cara and I understand this entirely. I’d even say that your motives in these things seem more honorable than ours – I don’t think we’ve ever really thought of our not having children as a sacrifice.

The fact also remains that, as of now, I feel that I can serve my husband best, and therefore God best, by not having children. I have asked God to change my heart if He desires me to have children. And perhaps someday He will change my heart and change our circumstances and make everything different. Perhaps we will be moved to adopt. But for now, however, the answer is no children. And I am content with that. And I believe that if at some point I do have children, I will be content with that too, because at that point God will have changed my heart. So, it all works out. “Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD.” Jer. 17:7. Also Prov. 3:5-6.

I think this is key. If we are genuinely seeking the Lord’s will, rather than our own, asking Him to conform our wills to His own, studying the Scriptures diligently, then we are open to being persuaded otherwise. And, having asked the Lord for wisdom in these matters, should we not trust and believe in Him without doubting (James 1:5–8) to give it to us as we apply ourselves humbly to His word?

There is one last verse I think might speak to us on this issue: “His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises…” 1 Peter 1:3-4a

If the common believer has all things that pertain to life and godliness because of the knowledge of Him who has called us to his own glory and excellence, does it stand to reason (not that man’s reason is anything, but rather, would Paul reason this way), that the overseers of the church would need any earthly addition (children) to make them qualified for service?

Let me put it another way. We believe Sola Fide, Sola Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura for our life and salvation. Knowing this, when we desire to minister to the flock, does it follow that the bearing and rearing of children is also a necessity? Can it be argued that though the flock needs nothing but Christ for their life and ministry among the body to be complete, the overseer needs children to be competent for ministry in God’s sight?

Question: What is it that 2 Peter 1:3-4a teaches we have through the knowledge of Christ? And what does Peter mean when he refers to ‘all things that pertain to life and godliness’?

Let’s give the passage a slightly wider context, and let me quote to you from the NKJV, rather than the ESV that you cite:

²‘Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, ³as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, ⁴by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. ⁵But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, ⁶to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, ⁷to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. ⁸For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ (2 Pe. 1:2–8, NKJV)

1. In the Greek (NA27, Byzantine text form, and TR), there is a little connecting word, hos (‘as’, ‘even as’), at the beginning of verse 3, which the ESV translators omit. But that word is quite helpful (even if not essential) in correctly understanding the passage.

Thus, verse 3 is not so much introducing a new, isolated thought as it is an explanation of how it is that ‘Grace and peace’ shall be ‘multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord’. Peter has therefore established a spiritual context of ‘grace and peace’ for understanding the meaning of ‘all things that pertain to life and godliness’.

2. Peter introduces the idea of the ‘glory and virtue’ of Christ, further establishing context.

3. What follows on immediately from the section you cited is that we ‘may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust’.

What is the divine nature of which we partake? Peter has already told us that it has the attributes of ‘glory and virtue’.

Therefore, we understand that the ‘all things that pertain to life and godliness’ that are under discussion come to us by our being united with Christ, partaking of his glory and virtue, and thereby being separated from ‘the corruption that is in the world through lust’.

4. What follows on immediately from that, is an explanation of what being united with Christ and separated from this world looks like: ‘But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love.’

Here, we see what it means to be abounding in ‘grace and peace’, and the consequence of having been given ‘all things that pertain to life and godliness’ through the knowledge of Christ.

5. Peter finally concludes the thought he introduced with his blessing by bringing us back to the idea of the knowledge of Christ: ‘For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.’

Thus, Peter teaches in this passage that the outworking of grace and peace in our lives through the knowledge of Christ is the exhibition of godly characteristics, summarized as faith, virtue, knowledge, self-control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. These things are all a gift that comes from God’s divine power, through the knowledge of Christ. (This fact should surely stir up all elders everywhere to teach the whole counsel of God, that the Church might know Christ more fully!) The sanctified state of which these characteristics are indicative is what Peter means by ‘all things that pertain to life and godliness’.

Now, having examined the passage in a bit more depth, let’s go back to the application that you are tentatively seeking to make of it. You ask what ‘earthly addition (children)’ to these things would the ‘overseers of the church’ need ‘to make them qualified for service’?

That’s a very good question. In one sense, you have an excellent point: Peter has just described the sanctified life of a mature believer, and elders should be being examples of such a life. And, of course, the qualifications that Paul gives are to help Timothy and Titus identify in a practical way exactly this kind of maturity in potential candidates for the eldership.

And yet, Paul does give other specific qualifications that are not within the scope of the general godly characteristics talked about by Peter. The elders must be men, for example. Does this mean that women partake any less in the ‘divine nature’ than men, or that they somehow are less able to exhibit the godly characteristics that Peter describes? May such a thought never be uttered! But, nevertheless, elders must be men.

And elders must be, as a literal rendering of the Greek would have it, ‘skilful in teaching’ (1 Tim. 3:2). Does this mean that someone who isn’t a skilful teacher is somehow lacking in the ‘all things that pertain to life and godliness’ that Peter describes? Not at all! Yet an elder must be a skilful teacher.

Thus, it is critical not to take a passage such as one 2 Peter 1:2–8 (which talks about universal characteristics of a holy life and how they come about) and use it to dismiss the clear teaching of other passages (which give specific instructions for particular circumstances). If we were to do that, we would inevitably appoint elders who were unqualified for their office.

I understand that you were really countering my speculation as to the reasons for the qualifications that Paul gives to Timothy and Titus. But, even if my speculation were to be completely dismissed or disproved from other passages of Scripture, we would still have to face up to the question of what the text of 1 Timothy and Titus expressly teaches.

Come to think of it, another verse that pairs nicely with this idea is Tim. 3:16-17. “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

Surely , a critical part of the thorough equipping ‘for every good work’ that the Scripture brings is guidance for how to deal with particular circumstances? Could it be correct to use the argument that ‘Scripture is sufficient’ to dismiss what that very same Scripture teaches?

So I will leave you with a question: how do these verses about the knowledge of Christ and the Word the God making the man of God equipped for every good work speak to the necessity of children for qualification as an elder in the church of God?

I have endeavoured to address this above – whether or not I have done so adequately, I shall leave for you and others to judge!

Who is qualified to be an elder? I can only come back once more to this question: ‘What does the Scripture say?’. And it seems to me that the correct foundational passages on which we should base our answer to that question must surely be those that specifically address eldership.

My sincere thanks to you for your perceptive and penetrating comments.