1 Timothy 3.5-Paul Poses A Rhetorical Question That Is A Strong Argument For The Thirteenth Qualification In Verse 4
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Thursday April 21, 2011
1 Timothy: 1 Timothy 3:5-Paul Poses A Rhetorical Question That Is A Strong Argument For The Thirteenth Qualification In Verse 4
Lesson # 57
Please turn in your Bibles to 1 Timothy 3:1.
The apostle Paul in verse 5 poses a rhetorical question that is a strong argument for the qualification mentioned by him in verse 4.
1 Timothy 3:1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity. 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?) (NASU)
“But if a man does not know how to manage his own household” is composed of the conjunction de (δέ) (theh), “but” and the conditional particle ei (εἰ) (ee), “if” and the nominative masculine singular form of the indefinite pronoun tis (τις) (teece), “a man” and the articular genitive masculine singular form of the adjective idios (ἴδιος) (ee-thee-oce), “his own” and the genitive masculine singular form of the noun oikos (οἶκος) (ee-koce), “household” and the present active infinitive form of the verb proistemi (προΐστημι) (pree-steh-mee), “how to manage” and the emphatic negative adverb ou (οὐ) (oo), “not” and the third person singular perfect active indicative form of the verb oida (οἶδα) (ee-tha), “does know.”
The conjunction de is marking between the qualification in verse 4 with the protasis of the first class condition in verse 5.
The contrast is between the qualification in verse 4 with that of the man who does not manage his own household correctly.
The contrast is between managing one’s own household correctly according to God’s Word by possessing submissive children with all dignity due to disciplining them to act properly with that of a man who does not know how to manage his own household.
The conditional particle ei introduces a protasis of a first class condition that indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument.
The idea behind the first class condition is not “since” but rather, “if-and let us assume that it is true for the sake of argument that, then...”
This would encourage Paul’s audience to respond and come to the conclusion of the apodosis since they already agreed with him on the protasis.
Therefore, Paul is employing the first class condition as a tool of persuasion with his audience.
Paul’s audience would respond to his protasis.
Here the protasis is “if and let assume that it is true for the sake argument that someone does not know how to manage his own household.”
The apodasis is “(then) how will he care for God’s church?”
The audience would respond that there is absolutely no possibility of this man being able to care for God’s church.
The basic relation that the protasis has to the apodasis is “cause and effect.”
If a man does not know how to manage his own household is the cause and the effect is that he will not be able to care for God’s church.
The indefinite pronoun tis speaks of any man with the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher who aspires to the office of overseer.
Paul’s use of tis here indicates that this conditional clause is presenting an eternal spiritual truth.
The masculine form of the word indicates that only men can hold the office of overseer and possess the spiritual gift of pastor-teacher, which is supported by the fact that in 1 Timothy 3:2, Paul says that the overseer must be a one-woman man.
If women could be pastors, then why didn’t he address their qualifications for ministry?
Also, in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul just got through teaching the women in the Christian community in Ephesus that they could not teach men the Word of God in public in the local assembly or exercise authority over them.
The verb oida means “to have the knowledge as to how to perform a particular activity.”
Here the activity is a man managing his own household correctly according to God’s Word.
The word is emphatically negated by the emphatic negative adverb ou, which means “absolutely no idea.”
It is used to deny the reality of an alleged fact of this occurring and is the clear cut, point-blank negative, objective and final.
It therefore emphatically negates the idea of a man having knowledge as to how to manage his own household correctly according to God’s Word.
Thus, these two words denote a man “having absolutely no idea how to” manage his own household correctly according to God’s Word.
As it did in verse 4, the verb proistemi in verse 5 means “to exercise a position of authority” and is used with reference to the man with the spiritual gift of pastor who aspires to the office of overseer.
It is used with reference to the pastor’s authority over his own household.
The word conveys a leadership style characterized by loving care.
The word expresses the idea that the man’s children submit to his leadership out of respect for him and not out of fear.
The pastor’s wife and children must love, respect and follow his leadership and his children should have respect for authority in every area of life.
The noun oikos means “household” consisting of those related by blood and marriage as well as slaves and servants living in the same house or homestead (Louw and Nida, 10.8).
1 Timothy 3:5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?) (NASU)
“How will he take care of the church of God?” is composed of the interrogative pronoun pos (πῶς) (poce), “how” and the third person singular future middle indicative form of the verb epimeleomai (ἐπιμελέομαι) (ehpee-meh-leh-owe-meh), “will he take care of” and the genitive feminine singular form of the noun ekklesia (ἐκκλησία) (ek-klee-see-ah), “of the church” and the genitive masculine singular form of the noun theos (θεός) (thay-oce), “of God.”
The interrogative particle pos is used to ask a rhetorical question, which demands a negative answer.
This rhetorical question rejects the idea that a man who has absolutely no idea how to manage his own household being qualified to take care of God’s church and demands a negative answer.
Therefore, the interrogative particle pos should be translated “how” or “how is it possible” since there is no possibility of a man being able to care for God’s church if he has no idea how to manage his own household.
The verb epimeleomai means “to be diligent in showing concern and care for” the body of Christ, the flock of God.
This word denotes that the pastor’s “managing is to be characterized by a sensitive caring and not a dictatorial exercise of authority” (Mounce, page 180).
The word denotes a compassionate care and concern for the flock of God.
The future tense is a deliberative future which asks a question that implies some doubt about the response.
The force of the question is whether it is possible that a man could manage God’s church when he has no idea whatsoever how to manage his own household.
Therefore, the deliberative future of this verb in this rhetorical question indicates that it absolutely impossible that a man could do so.
The noun ekklesia refers to the Christian community and specifically a local assembly of Christians who meet in a particular location whether a house or school room.
It views this local assembly as the household of God.
This is indicated by the noun oikonomia, which appears in 1 Timothy 1:4 and means “administrate a household” and is used in relation to those pastors in Ephesus who were failing in their duties “administrating the household” of God.
The noun theos means “God” and refers to the Father and is a genitive of possession indicating that the church “belongs to” the Father or is “His possession.”