Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

Think of all the advantages the Ephesian saints possessed. An apostle had founded the church and worked with them for three years (Acts 20:31). After that, Timothy worked with them (1 Tim. 1:3). Some of them “spake with tongues, and prophesied” after the apostle laid his hands upon them (Acts 19:6; cf. 8:18). They had “all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 13; 2:6). They had been “sealed with that holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13). Paul wrote a letter to them. Just imagine that all these things had occurred where you worship! What would your reaction be? How great would be your expectations? Then, suppose the church was active, alive aggressive and that the Lord himself knew of their tireless, tedious toil. What kind of church would it be? Great! Wonderful! Fantastic! Right?

Wrong. The Lord wrote a letter to he Ephesian church described above. With all of their positive aspects and glorious past history, with all of their diligent devotion, listen to what the Lord said to them:

I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: and hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name’s sake hast labored, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent (Rev. 2:2-5).

Kind of scary, is it not? Look at the compliments and the words of praise. They were real, sincere, genuine. What would we say of a church today that was equally enthusiastic and “on fire for the Lord”? Here was a church that was debating false teachers, especially false apostles, and “posed them as “liars.” Note the terms that show hard work; observe their steadfastness, their endurance. How would we describe such a church today? There are no words in our vocabulary sufficient to praise such a congregation! Back to the frightening part – see the words of rebuke. The Lord says, in effect, “I am ready to cease recognizing you as one of my churches” (Rev. 2:5; 1:20b).

It had only been a few years since Paul and Timothy walked and worked among them. They possessed zeal, but they were about to be extinguished. What happened? What was the problem? The Lord said, “Thou hast left thy first love.”

Have you left your first love? It is not enough to charge the church with having done so. Have you left your first love? Pointing fingers is easy. “If we only had a good preacher.” “If we only had elders.” “If we only had other elders.” “If our singing was better.” “If brother and sister Snobby would just leave.” “If only brother and sister Friendly worshiped here instead of across town.” “If only” will not build a strong church. Pointing fingers does not solve problems. Blaming others and hurling excuses only compounds the difficulty. Evidently, the church at Ephesus had all the “if onlys.” They had it all. But the Lord said, “Thou hast left thy first love.”

What Does That Mean?

What does it mean when it says they had left their first love? Consider a marriage. The couple is together. They have a comfortable life. “Things” are essentially good. He has a job. The house runs smoothly most of the time. Meals are on the table. The children are doing fairly well. So, what is the trouble? “I don’t know. I just feel listless, unhappy, unfulfilled. All is well. The same things are going on day after day. Nothing has really changed, but our marriage is dull, dead and boring. ” This imaginary couple is going through the motions. They have left their first love.

It can happen to Christians and to churches. What is the answer? What is the solution? It is not a small thing. It is a serious matter. The marriage partners must renew and rekindle their courtship. They must get back to the basics of love, duty and responsibility. Kindness, courtesy and consideration have ceased. As a result, the marriage is stale, dry and undesirable. So it is with faith. Disciples go through the motions of spirituality. They attend services; they give money; they perform token efforts of “good works.” They draw near the Lord with their mouth; they honor him with their lips, but their heart is far from him. Their worship is vain, empty, lifeless (Matt. 15:8,9). “Wherefore He saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light” (Eph. 5:14). The child of God is commanded to be “renewed in the spirit of (his) mind,” and to be “transformed by the renewing of (his) mind” (Eph. 4:23; Rom. 12:2).

You will search in vain for a “spiritual high. ” There is no cure to be found in a “Pentecostal Pep Pill.” There is no shot that some religious “Doctor” can inject that will give you a “boost” from your lethargy and apathy. You must seize the initiative, “and Christ shall give you light.” Quit blaming others. Repent. Pray fervently and frequently. Feed on God’s word. Seek to serve and save others. You will be better in no time.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 675-676
November 16, 1989

By Randy Cavender

But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things yes, the deep things, of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of man which Is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. These things we also speak, not In words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual (1 Cor. 2:10-12).

After reading this passage of Scripture, would it not be fair to say there are some things that God wants us to know? The Bible was written so all could understand its message. Paul wrote, “. . . how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets” (Eph. 3:3-5). God has a message that he wants all to understand. God’s word is plain and simple. Man’s eternal well being depends on those things that God has given in his word! I would like to show you what God’s simple message to man is. What are some things that God wants us to know?

1. God wants us to know that he desires all people to be saved. “Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11) This was God’s message to the children of Israel! Does it sound like God hated his people? Certainly God hates all sin, but he does love the sinner and his desire is that all men will be saved! Paul wrote to Timothy, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3,4). Sinner friend, God will not accept you while you persist in your sinful ways, but if you will turn from your past life of sin through humble obedience to God’s will, he will then graciously accept you as his child. My friends, God wants to save you! Why not let him?

2. God wants us to know where salvation is! Have you ever thought about where salvation is? No, I am not speaking of any certain countries, states or towns. I am speaking of Christ Jesus. You must be in Christ in order to be saved! Peter revealed, “Let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands before you whole. This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become chief cornerstone.’ Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:10-12). The plain, simple truth of the gospel is that salvation is in, and only in, Christ Jesus, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Jn. 14:6). Salvation is not in man or any of man’s devices (including denominationalism)! Without Christ, there would be nowhere to go for salvation (Jn. 6:63-68)!

3. God wants us to know how to get into his Son. God has not given us his only Son and then not told us how to get in him. No Bible-believing person would deny the fact that one must be in Christ to be saved! However, there is disagreement on how one gets into Christ. All we must do is go to God’s word and read what God has said about the matter. God is not the author of confusion and he has given us just two verses of Scripture that teach us what we must do to get into Christ. Romans 6:34 – “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Also Galatians 3:26,27 “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” There you have it, the only two passages that teach us how to get into Christ where salvation is! No, this is not to say that faith, repentance, or confession is less important! But it is what God said must be done. Will you not follow the will of God?

4. God wants us to know that we must continue in Christ in order to be saved. It is not enough to get into Christ and then depart. Those of us who are Christians must live our lives in Christ Jesus. Please notice some of the passages that show this. “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.” “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit” (Gal. 2:20; Rom. 8:1). There should be no doubt in our minds about this point! I must continue in the steps of Christ to be saved! In fact, Jesus himself reveals to us how this is to be done. “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, ‘If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed'” (Jn. 8:31). As I abide in God’s word, obeying his commands, I am in the Son of God, where salvation is! Are you abiding in God’s Son?

5. God wants us to know the consequences of disobedience to his will. “Because I have called and you refused, I have stretched out my hand and no one regarded, Because you disdained all my counsel, And would have none of my reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your terror comes, When your terror comes like a storm, And your destruction comes like a whirlwind, When distress and anguish come upon you. Then they will call on me, but I will not answer; They will seek me diligently, but they will not find me” (Prov. 1:24-28). Oh how sad it will be for those who have refused to come and humbly submit to God! As we mentioned earlier, God is “not willing that any should perish” (2 Pet. 3:9), but we must consider the severity of God (Rom. 11:22). Are you prepared to meet God in judgment? If you are not in Christ, you’re unprepared! If you are not continuing in Christ, you will be lost eternally! The desire of God, his Son, and all Christians is that sinners will freely submit themselves to God in humble obedience. But be it known that if you refuse to come to God, you will be punished with everlasting destruction (2 Thess. 1:8,9)!

You see, the Bible was given to us in order that we might know the mind of God! God has revealed all of these things to us. Indeed let us all be thankful to God for “the grace of God that brings salvation” (Tit. 2:12).

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 673, 695
November 16, 1989

By Lowell Sallee

For a man to serve in the office (work) of a deacon he must meet the qualifications given by the Holy Spirit. These qualifications are listed in Acts 6:1-6 and I Timothy 3:8-13. First, let’s take a closer look at the qualifications found in 1 Timothy 3:8-13.

1 Timothy 3:8-13

For one to serve in the office of a deacon, he must first of all be a man. The Scripture says, “Likewise must the deacons. . . ” (1 Tim. 3:8) and “likewise” indicates that the subjects that Paul is addressing are men, which he introduced in 1 Timothy 3:1, “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office. . . . ” The New American Standard Version (NASB) says, “Deacons likewise must be men of dignity” (1 Tim. 3:8). We see further that deacons are men when the Holy Spirit says, “Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife” (1 Tim. 3:12). A women then cannot serve in the office of a deacon.

Deacons must be grave (1 Tim. 3:8, KJV) or “men of dignity” (NASB). The Greek word is semnous which means “august, venerable, reverend; to be venerated for character, honorable. ” A deacon must then be an honorable man; one that is serious, dignified.

Deacons are not to be double-tongued (1 Tim. 3:8). In the Greek, the phrase is ma dilogous (ma – “not, by no means, never at any time”; dilogous – “double-tongued, double in speech, saying one thing with one person, another with another (with intent to deceive).” Thus a deacon is not to be a tale-bearer, but rather a straight-forward man and by no means a gossip.

A man that is qualified to serve in the office of a deacon is not given to (or addicted to, NASB) much wine” (1 Tim. 3:8). In the Greek the phrase is, ma oino pollo prosechontas (ma – “not, by no means; never at any time”; oino – “wine”; polio – “abundant, plenteous, much”; prosechontas – “to be given or addicted to”). The literal meaning of the phrase is “not to be addicted to much wine.” A man cannot be a deacon if he is a wine, beer, and/or whiskey drinker, whether it be social or privately in one’s own home.

A deacon is not greedy of filthy lucre (fond of sordid gain, NASB) (1 Tim. 3:8). The Greek says ma aischrokerdas (ma -“No, by no means; never at any time”; aischrokerdas – “eager for base gain; sordid”). The idea is, a deacon is not to be a man who loves money to the point of being dishonest and greedy.

A deacon is one that is holding the mystery of the faith in a pure (clear, NASB) conscience” (1 Tim. 3:9). He is one that is standing firm in the faith of Jesus Christ and his conscience is one of conviction and application of the faith. The deacon is a man that is completely trustworthy and pure toward every scriptural doctrine and practice.

The Holy Spirit says that before a man may serve in the office of a deacon he must first be (tested, NASB) proved (1 Tim. 3:10). The Greek is de dokimazo proton (de C 6 also, moreover, also”; dokimazo – “to test, examine, prove, scrutinize”; proton – “first, at the first, in order of time”). We should be very careful who is appointed to serve as a deacon. The church should know the man well enough to have “tested” and “proved” him to be qualified. Do you know him well enough to know if he is or is not qualified? Is he a worker? Is he willing to work? We must understand that not just any man will do.

A deacon must be blameless or beyond reproach (1 Tim. 3: 10). The Greek word anepilampton means “one against whom no evil charge can be sustained; one who is above an established charge of evil.” Please understand that if there is a charge, it must be “established.” Paul said, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Cor. 13:1).

Deacons are to be the husbands of one wife (1 Tim. 3:12). If a man’s wife dies and he remarries, he still is the husband of one wife (Rom. 7:1-3). If a man has scripturally put away his wife for the cause of adultery, and then remarries, he’s still the husband of one wife (Matt. 19:9). Understanding, however, that deacons’ wives have qualifications too (1 Tim. 3:11).

Deacons are married men that are ruling (good managers) their children and their own houses well (1 Tim. 3:12). The Greek is proistamenon which means “to set over, to be over, to rule, to superintend; to preside over.” The Holy Spirit did not say that the deacon’s children had to be Christians. This implies that deacons are generally going to be younger men whose families are still young. However, the deacon must have his family under control.

Acts 6:3

Now, let’s turn our attention to the qualifications that are found in Acts 6:3. The Scripture says, “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among, you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint &er this business.”

Deacons must be men of honest report or good reputation (NASB). Deacons are men that both in the community and the Lord’s kingdom have lived such a life as to have a “good reputation.” Some men do not have good reputations because of bad business dealings or immoral conduct. A deacon must be above all these types of charges.

A deacon is one that is full of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that a deacon must have miraculous abilities. It does mean that he “be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18). All Christians are to be filled with the Spirit, that is, guided by the Spirit of God. Deacons must possess, as all Christians should, the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22).

A deacon must possess wisdom. Wisdom is a necessary quality for any office or work. Deacons must be men of practical knowledge and ability that can and will get the job done.

Conclusion

These qualifications were given by the Holy Spirit for a purpose, God’s purpose of attending to the physical needs of the local church. The men that serve in the office of a deacon must be qualified men. “For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 3:13).

The Lord built the church and gave it a work to do. To accomplish that work, God ordained the offices of elder, deacon, and evangelist. Each of these offices is to be filled by a scripturally qualified man who desires to serve the Lord. To serve as a deacon in the Lord’s church is one of high honor and one that each member of the body of Christ should respect. Let us all respect and honor God’s Word and his work.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 680-681
November 16, 1989

By Phil Roberts

Everybody is a manager of some sort. Mothers manage the home, the boss manages his employees, and everyone manages his time. But on a professional baseball team that ordinary word “manager” becomes the official title of the head man. Tommy Lasorda is not just a manager in a general sense; he is the Manager of the Dodgers. In every language there are many words that are used in a quite general sense most of the time, but which are, in some context, used as technical terms for very specific positions or offices.

In the Bible several words for the leaders of God’s people were of such a nature. “Elder” (presbuteros) was obviously the common word for older people. But it was also the technical term for people appointed to the office of “Elder.” Likewise, diakonos was just an ordinary Greek word for “servant,” and it is usually translated that way in the Bible. But it was also the technical term for those appointed to the office of “Servant.” Modern translations, however, usually use the transliterated term “Deacon” when the term is being used in its technical sense to refer to the office.

In its general sense the term diakonos could be applied to just about anyone to whom we might apply the English term “servant” today, from household slaves to government officials. Because of the connotation of service on behalf of others, the word was especially suitable for use by NT Christians to describe their work, not only as servants of God, but also as servants of each other. Jesus described his own work as one of service to others (Matt. 20:28), and he admonished his disciples that, if any of them would be first, they must become a servant of all (Lk. 22:26). Thus, in the general sense, every Christian is (indeed must be) a servant, and almost every act in which one engages as a Christian can be described as a service, either to God or to man.

But in two places in the NT diakonos is clearly used in the technical sense of “Servant” (or “Deacon” if we prefer). Those two places are Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8,12. The context clearly indicates the technical use in both cases. In 1 Timothy 3:8-13 the technical use is indicated by the list of qualifications which must be met by those who would aspire to the position, which is in turn tied to the similar list of qualifications for those who would aspire to the office of Elders (or Bishop). In Philippians 1:1 the technical use is likewise marked by the link with the Bishops as the leaders of the church at Philippi.

[This word diakonos belongs to a group of three related words. The other two are diakonia and diakoneo. These three words correspond almost exactly with our word group, “servant” (diakonos), “service” (diakonia), and “serve” (diakoneo). But it was especially the first of these three (diakonos) that was used as a technical term for the church office of “Servant” or “Deacon.” Some lexicons do treat the use of the verb diakoneo in 1 Timothy 3:10 as a technical reference to discharging duties of the office of a Deacon, and some suggest that the noun diakonia (service) in Romans 12:7 refers specifically to the service of Deacons, though I am personally doubtful that Paul is referring specifically to Deacons there. With these possible exceptions, however, these two related words always mean nothing more or less than ” service ” or ” serve. “]

Observing the above distinction between the technical and the general use of diakonos has important implications in at least four areas.

First, some having noted that diakonos (servant) can be applied to many different people in the NT church, have concluded that there was no such thing as an office of Deacon – only a general service participated in by all. This argument is usually made to support the larger idea that were no offices at all in local churches in the NT, nor even any official organization to such local churches. But this approach is no more legitimate than collecting a lot of general uses of the word “manage” and trying to prove from them that there is no official position of “Manager” on a baseball team.

Others have suggested that the term Deacon was more of an honorary title for those who had distinguished themselves in their service to God and their brethren. But this interpretation ignores the clear implications of the requirements listed in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 (not greedy of dishonest gain; having already proved themselves; ruling their own house and children well; etc.), as well as the express statement that they are being appointed specifically to “serve” (v. 10). Moreover, the idea that we have here only a sort of honorary title of distinction is contrary to the very spirit of the N.T. Where does God give titles merely for the purpose of honoring distinguished service?

But I fear that we who recognize the official nature of the office of Deacon may, at times, allow the office of deacons to function as little more than an honorary position. Sometimes if a fellow has been a faithful member for many years he will almost automatically be appointed a Deacon for no apparent reason other than a desire to acknowledge his long-term faithful membership. On other occasions I have heard brethren discuss the possibility of appointing a younger man as a Deacon to make him feel a part of the work, or to get him more involved. We should remember that the position is one of active service, and those who do not want to give themselves in that service should not be appointed for some other reasons.

A second implication can be drawn from taking note of the fact that in both cases where diakonos is clearly used in the technical sense of “Deacon” it is also linked with the office of Elder (or Bishop). And in both cases the Deacons are mentioned after the Elders, implying the subordination of the office of Deacon to that of the Elder. This subordination, though never expressly stated in the NT, is likewise clearly of the Deacons consists, indicated (1) by the terms used for the offices (Elders . . . essentially in that are both “elders” and (“overseers”); (2) by the which the Elders delegate to differing qualifications (the list for Elders is more extensive and includes such matters as “not a novice”); on behalf of their brethren and (3) the fact that we often find reference to the Elders of a church without any reference to Deacons (e.g. Acts 11:30; 15:2; 20:17), but never do we find any reference to Deacons apart from Elders; and (4) a priority attached to getting Elders appointed in each church (Acts 14:23; Tit. 1:5). Apparently the office of Elder could exist and function without the subordinate office of Deacon, but not vice versa.

I believe the above facts help us better understand the authority or extent of oversight which pertains to the office of Deacon. More properly, they help us understand the limitations of the authority and oversight of the office. Unlike the position of Elder, the position of Deacon is not identified as one of ruling or oversight in the NT. It is essentially a subordinate position of service. The authority and oversight of the Deacons consists, I believe, essentially in that which the Elders delegate to them in their work of service on behalf of their brethren and the gospel.

A third implication pertains to the use of the seven in Acts 6 as a case example of the appointment and work more of deacons. The use of the seven as examples of Deacons is usually based on the fact that the words diakonia (service) and diakoneo (serve) are used to describe their work in caring for the widows. But there is no indication that these words are being used in a technical sense here. In deed, in the very same passage diakonia is also used to describe the work of the apostles: the seven will attend to the daily service of the widows (v. 1) so that the apostles can continue in the service of the word (v. 4). But there are other indicators that we should be cautious in appealing to the case of these seven to define the office and work of Deacons. Note that the need that prompted their appointment was the neglect of the Grecian (i.e., Greek speaking) widows in the Jerusalem church. It can hardly be an accident that the names of all seven men are Greek. Contrast the case with that of the apostles, where only two of the twelve names are Greek. Clearly the seven were chosen from a particular segment of the church (the Greek speaking segment) to attend to the particular problem in that segment of the church (the neglect of the Greek speaking widows).

I would suggest that the Jerusalem church, at that infant stage, had neither elders nor deacons as yet, but was still being overseen directly by the apostles. And the case of the seven is primarily an example of a church selecting a group of particularly qualified men to attend to a particular problem.

If this assessment of the role of the seven is correct, then we should be careful about appealing to Acts 6:2 for a precise or limiting definition of the work of Deacons. I do not believe we should use this passage to limit the work of Deacons to “benevolence” or even to the “material” matters of the work of the church, though it would probably be fair to say that the work being attended to there by the seven is a good example of at least one type of work that might later be attended to by Deacons.

A fourth implication of the above distinction between the general and the technical use of diakonos pertains to the case of Phoebe in Romans 16:1. Though some have appealed to this as a third instance of the technical use of diakonos, I believe it is, like almost all other cases, only the general use. Paul describes here as a servant of the church in Cenchrea just as he describes himself elsewhere as a servant of the church in general (Col. 1:25). This matter will, however, be dealt with in more depth elsewhere in this issue.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 22, pp. 678-679
November 16, 1989