Greetings Mr. Jingles

Firstly "blameless" is an adjective and in the Greek it is a masculine, singular and accusative adjective because the noun is masculine singular accusative also because adjectives should agree with the noun they qualify (.. Tenses apply to verbs and the verb here is "must be" and it is present active in tense..

Secondly the NIV is a little more accurate then the KJV because the NIV uses the English wording "above reproach" rather than the Elizabethan wording of the KJV "Blameless" and the thought of being "above reproach" has far more weight in 21st Century English..

Maybe Ian can enlighten further

Blessings

Eric

Jingles,

In Paul's letter to Timothy in chapter 3 Paul says: "A Bishop must then be blameless" My question to anyone who can help is this:Is this Past - Present - Future tense? How is it applied? To begin with, there is more to correctly undertaking an exegesis of either 1 Timothy 3:2 or Titus 1:7 than simply working out such basic matters as the role of the predicate accusative in the clause. Syntactical/grammatical relationships are fundamental to proper interpretation: isolating superior and subordinating clauses, identifying syntax markers and qualifiers, and so forth. Simply zeroing-in on an individual word may work in Revivalism, but that's probably why Revivalism gets things wrong more often then they do get things right! But given that you've not asked for this level of necessary contextual detail, I'll give you the 'Cliffs Notes' overview instead.

Our verse wrested from its literary context reads thus, δεῖ οὖν τὸν ἐπίσκοπον ἀνεπίλημπτον εἶναι, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἄνδρα, νηφάλιον σώφρονα κόσμιον φιλόξενον διδακτικόν ... As Eric had already pointed out to you, 'blameless'/'above reproach' is an adjective: it describes a quality, and not a state frozen in time (whether 'past', 'present' or 'future', etc). Importantly, ἀνεπίλημπτoς doesn't just mean, 'of good report'; its primary meaning is 'of deservedly good report'. In other words, it describes proven and established good character. This idea of 'quality' being associated with personal character is reinforced throughout the pericope (which covers from verse 1 through 7) in both positive and negative standards: verses two, four and seven are parallels, as are verses three, five and six. That the verb δεῖ and the infinitive εἰμί are both 'present tense' reinforces the level of constancy/consistency that's in keeping with the thrust of proven good character. In closing, that Paul used such standard rhetorical features of his day to reinforce the message that he wanted his audience to hear, is telling.

What many people don't realise, however, is that the historical context behind Paul writing this letter had to do with heresy in Ephesus. The apostle was adamant, then, that the right sorts of people should be leading and guiding the church: those of proven and established good character, who were able to teach 'sound doctrine'!

Something worth you thinking about.

Ian

Thank you Ian, much appreciated.

I do have another question for you

If a person in a church is guilty of actions that are inconsistant with those attributes termed as "Good Report" That is to say that they are loose with thier morals, heavy drinker, past foricator etc etc.

Then if that same person reforms their behaviour and for many years are consistantly seen to be rightious in their conduct.

Is it then correct to say that this person is still not suitable for the office of a bishop because of Timoth 3?

mj

Jingles,

Thank you Ian, much appreciated. You're welcome. I do have another question for you. I thought you might. If a person in a church is guilty of actions that are inconsistant with those attributes termed as "Good Report" That is to say that they are loose with thier morals, heavy drinker, past foricator etc etc. Then if that same person reforms their behaviour and for many years are consistantly seen to be rightious in their conduct. Is it then correct to say that this person is still not suitable for the office of a bishop because of Timoth 3? The entire thrust of the New Testament is of the idea of seeking out the lost, forgiveness, recovery and restoration. There is no reason to assume that the same doesn't apply to leaders as well as to followers, noting, however, two important caveats: (1) the thrust of James 3:1; and (2) that if you are considering a situation in your fellowship, then the entire point is moot. You fellows remain outside the pale of the Christian Church, so anything pertaining to the function of the Church simply doesn't apply to you.

Ian  

Again thank you.

I am not talking about this situation being in our church.  

Recently a new person in our church posed this question to me, citing Timothy 3 and some bad experiences in their previous church denomination.

I am of the same belief as you on this matter, I just thought I would ask you what you thought and why you thought it

mj