1 Timothy 3:2

Moreover, he [the guardian/overseer (3:1)] must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:7 ESV)

One of the qualifications for the “guardians” (overseers) in Ephesus listed above concerns the Christian man’s reputation among non-Christians. In 1 Tim 3:7, the church is called to evaluate this testimony as a preventive measure in the selection process of a “guardian.”

It has been asked, “what will happen to a leader who is not so regarded by those outside the church”?[1] The answer is clear: it becomes a trap set by the Devil to bring about disgrace in the church. The man’s public record must weigh in as to whether or not he should have the responsibility of a guardian. Let us explore this verse in some greater detail by looking at three aspects of the text.

(1) A Final Necessity

After exploring thirteen qualifications designed to add details to the broad concept of being “above reproach” (1 Tim 3:2), the final detail is the measure of his character as reflected by “outsiders.”

The nature of his public record must be “morally excellent.” The ESV has “well thought of,” but the text literally reads, “have a good testimony.” It covers the positive moral ideas of good, noble, and praiseworthy, a quality that is “favorably valued.”[2] His character and standing in the community (3:7) must be equal to the “good work” as a guardian (3:2).

The “source” of information which is supposed to help the church examine a “guardian’s” candidacy comes from non-Christians (literally, “from those on the outside”). At first glance, this may appear to be strange. Why would public opinion matter when addressing the leadership role of a church “guardian”? The short answer is his public reputation either brings glory to God or disgrace to His Kingdom. This qualification of the quality of an overseer’s reputation must not be ignored.

(2) The Reason for the Requirement

The middle of the verse reads, “so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” The emphasis is placed upon protecting the church from those who have a bad reputation in the community; such a scenario would play “into the devil’s trap.”

Are there any longstanding frictions with the community which not only are detrimental to the guardian’s service but also to the mission of the church? Is he “known” for having improper relationships, or do rumors circulate about him which would be reproachable to him?

These questions must be asked and answered. However, despite the importance of public record, the community is not the final say. It is an important part of the appraisal process designed to prevent disgraceful men from entering the eldership. It is much easier to get a man in than it is to remove an unqualified elder.

(3) The Ever-Present Danger of the Devil

There are no sinless guardians; however, pretense and hypocrisy are subject to slander and accusations. Such is the main objectives of “the Slanderer” (i.e., the Devil). The man’s public record should not be a prized trophy captured by the Devil (i.e., the implied hunter’s snare). Consequently, “Christian men who bring widespread scandal upon the church of God have a heavy burden to bear.”[3]

If one’s character is something that has been built brick by brick, then so is one’s reputation. Good character does not have to be perfect, but according to this verse, one’s reputation does need to be well thought of. This, then, is not a role where one develops a good reputation; quite to the contrary, the role is for the person who already possesses an excellent reputation. Contextually, further, they must already possess such a reputation from the community.

A Final Word

One’s public record is a general guide to anticipating the trajectory of a person’s character: where does it point? We must allow for imperfect people to have imperfect records; furthermore, not all concerns are of the same weight and worth. Nevertheless, if there is no longstanding trajectory towards godliness in non-Christian circles then it is adequately apparent such a prospect cannot serve in such an iconic and spiritual role as shepherd, elder, and overseer in the church of God, which is God’s house (1 Tim 3:15).

I was recently told of a congregation that was in the process of selecting new elders. In keeping with the tenor of this character requirement, the congregation placed a notice in a local newspaper seeking public input as to the character and public record of the proposed elders. I am unaware of the outcome, but their action is powerful as it upholds the importance placed upon an elder’s public record.

Endnotes

George W. Knight, III, The Pastoral Epistles (1992; repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 165.
Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), BDAG 504; Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed. (New York, NY: United Bible Society, 1989), L&N 88.4.
Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), 94.

The telephone rings and I answer it. The person on the other end asks the following question: “is the pastor in?” To which I reply, “No, we have no pastors, but I’m an evangelist can I help you?” The phone is silent for a few seconds, often followed by some stuttering; the refrain repeats uneasily, “is the pastor in?”

I am not purposely being difficult. I am however being biblical. I receive letter after letter, and call after call, where people (usually salespeople) are looking for or seeking “the pastor.” They are seeking the preacher but that is not the preacher’s title or description in the New Testament.

It is a rather unfortunate situation. It is also very awkward. I am often introduced (sometimes even by Christians) or greeted as a “pastor.” It really chills the occasion when I say, “no, I am not a pastor, I am an evangelist.” Somehow, that just rubs the world of Christendom the wrong way.

Maybe I should find a better time or way to correct that misunderstanding. In fact, there is a wholesale need to correct this application of the term “pastor” to the preacher.

The biblical use in the New Testament makes it clear that this is one of a few terms used with reference to a select group of congregational leaders.

Elders, Overseers, and Pastors (Shepherds)

It is just seems ingrained within the world of Christendom that the preacher must be a “pastor” of some kind. J. W. Roberts writes:

Some think of a priestly group; some think of the ministry of the Word and the preacher or ‘pastor’ of the flock; others with the metropolitan or diocesan concept think of the denominational ‘bishop.’ In truth, Paul means none of these.[1]

Roberts is correct. In Acts 20:17, the “elders” were summoned from Miletus to Ephesus; these “elders” were qualified by the Holy Spirit to be “overseers” in the church “to shepherd” the church (Acts 20:28).

Students of the New Testament are quite observant that these terms refer to the same office. In fact, one can see the interchange of these terms in 1 Peter 5:1-2, “I exhort the elders among you to pastor the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight.”[2]

Notice the three terms used in 1 Peter 5:1-2 which are exclusively for “a body of men in the primitive churches called elders.”[3] The “elders” (Grk. presbuterous) are to “pastor” (Grk. poimaino) the church, employing “oversight” (Grk. episcopountes). The New Testament demonstrates that each congregation had a plurality of men so described (Phil 1:1-2, etc).

To apply the term pastor to an evangelist/preacher is to do so without New Testament precedent. “Such is a non-biblical use of the term ‘pastor,’ in spite of the popularity of such in modern society.”[4]

Does it Really Matter?

When a practice has no biblical basis, should we not simply abandon its use? This is at the heart of the problem.

Timothy and Titus represent a category of Christian workers known as “evangelist” (2 Tim 4:5) who “preach the word” (2 Tim 4:2). This is their “ministry” (2 Tim 4:5). The main obligations of the work are explained in 1 Timothy 4:13, 15 and 2 Timothy 4:2-5.

In summary, it has been observed by Earl D. Edwards that “every aspect of their work had meaning only as related to ‘the Word.’”[5] When one evaluates the basic responsibilities found in these passages a few things are evident:

The evangelist had the duty, first of all, to ‘preach’ the Word and then ‘correct’ those who did not follow that Word, and even ‘rebuke’ those who attempted to undermine the Word. He was also to ‘encourage’ with gentleness that Christians might follow the Word without becoming discouraged. In addition he was to ‘devote’ himself to the ‘public reading’ and ‘teaching’ of the Word.[6]

While the elder (pastor/overseer) must have the capacity and ability to be a teacher (1 Tim 3:2) in order to shepherd the flock, it is clear that the evangelist holds a complementary role for congregational development and a public proclamation of the gospel.

The preacher’s work is not the elder’s work. The most important qualification for the evangelist is that they are “faithful” recipients and heralds of the message (2 Tim 2:2). An elder, also, may fulfill the role of an evangelist (1 Tim 5:17; Eph 4:11); however, a preacher is not necessarily a pastor.

Not all faithful males may serve in the office of a pastor, for these men must possess specific qualifications (1 Tim 3:1-7 and Tit 1:5-9). Thus, the use of the term “pastor” to refer to the “preacher” is incorrect – a misnomer – and should be abandoned.

Concluding Thoughts

Some may be thinking, “No, I don’t buy it. A pastor is the one who leads the flock.” To which I would argue in response, “yes, pastors after a biblical pattern do lead the flock of God.” But our discussion is centered on the misuse of the term, and consequently, a blending of two distinct ministries found in the New Testament church.

There are those who are elders (overseers, pastors) who serve in a very unique office only after they met the qualifications set forth by the Holy Spirit (1 Tim 3:1ff; Acts 20:28). There are others, however, who serve as heralds of the word; that is to say, they preach the word as they labor alongside the pastors of a particular congregation (Eph 4:11).

Consider this final thought. Suppose one encounters a missionary from the Latter Day Saints, who in fact use the title “Elder”. “Elder Smith” however is a young man, single, and has no children. Yet, the inspired instruction from the Apostle Paul clearly indicates that the man must be of age (hence the term elder), must be a married man (1 Tim 3:2), and have children over which he has shown leadership (1 Tim 3:4-5).

Can we honestly say, in light of the biblical data, that these young men flashing the “Elder” badge are elders after a biblical order? Hardly, This is precisely our point. The New Testament use of the term elder (overseer, pastor) applies to a very uniquely qualified man, as he serves within a group of other men of equal caliber. Let us seek to call biblical things with Bible names, and do Bible things in biblical ways.

Sources

J. W. Roberts, Letters to Timothy (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing, 1961), 26.
Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 318-23.
John W. McGarvey, The Eldership (1870; repr., Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Christian Bookstore, 2002), 9.
Wayne Jackson, Before I Die: Paul’s Letters to Timothy and Titus (Stockton, CA: Christian Courier Publications, 2007), 82.
Earl D. Edwards, “The Evangelist in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (Book 1),” Alternative 8.3 (Summer 1982), 19.
Edwards, “The Evangelist in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus,” 19-20.