Let the elders who take the lead [among the saints] well be esteemed worthy of double honour, specially those labouring in word and teaching;
Paul has been telling Timothy how to treat widows; now he turns to those who lead. Two questions follow: what is the "honour", and why do some elders get it "especially"?
In this verse "rule" means taking the lead among God's people. One writer describes the work:
The work of the elders was to take the lead in the assemblies of God's people. They are responsible to keep godly order in public and private. Honour was due to an elder as such. Those who did their work well deserved double honour. This was true above all of those who, besides caring for the saints, laboured in word and teaching.
Kelly says this leading is itself hard work:
Presiding is a delicate and difficult task. It demands tact and moral courage more than public teaching does. Steady perseverance, in the face of frequent discouragement and trial as well as opposition, calls for that kind of "labour" — not for moving from place to place like an apostle, prophet, or evangelist. Eldership is quite distinct from all of those.
Kelly reads the "double" as two grounds stacked together:
Where elders exist, those who preside well were to be counted worthy of double honour. Honour was due to an elder as such, and double honour if he did his work well. There is no comparison with any preceding class. And "honour" means what it says, though it would be strange honour that could neglect their wants. But there is a special value, beyond that double honour, due to those who labour in word and doctrine. Ruling was the aim of their appointment. If they also laboured in word and teaching, that had a peculiar worth in the apostle's eyes. Not all of them did so. They were not "teachers," though aptness to teach was looked for in anyone eligible for the office.
The word "especially" marks out a second group. Older versions render their work "labour in the word and doctrine"; the ESV has "labor in preaching and teaching". Commentators draw a line between an office and a gift from Christ:
This verse supposes that some overseers have not only office but gift, and that they set themselves to labour in word and doctrine. "Labour" is a strenuous word. Acts 20:28 speaks of such men feeding the church of God.
The distinction matters because gift travels and office does not:
A pastor is a gift from Christ for the whole Church everywhere. A bishop, or overseer, was a local officer. The apostles appointed him by their own authority, and he was a bishop only in the assembly where they ordained him.
Many elders never taught in public. That did not make them second-rate:
Whatever gifts they had, they used, as all did. So the apostle directs that elders who rule well are to be counted worthy of double honour, and above all those who labour in the word and doctrine. But they might rule, and rule well, without this.
This instruction exists because quiet leadership can go unnoticed:
The elders, whose business it was to rule, were in danger of being despised, even if they were not teachers. They were to be honoured as a class.
Commentators differ on how far "honour" here means money. Kelly holds that the word means honour, and that real honour will not leave a man in need:
In every case, whether they were in need or well provided for, those who rule well are to be held worthy of double honour. If such an elder were wealthy, or had enough to live on, would a salary or even a gift of money really honour him? … Here it was important to show this: an elder who rules well deserves such honour as would neither leave him in want nor turn him aside from his absorbing work to earn the bread that perishes.
Pollock takes the practical point, but stops short of a contract:
The next verse — about not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain, and the labourer deserving his wages — points to their receiving material things in recognition of the spiritual things they gave. But it does not mean a fixed salary. It means a loving, grateful thank-you for spiritual benefits received.
Some who led had no appointment at all. Kelly notes what was true before there were any elders:
Before there was any such official relationship, there were those who laboured among the saints, took the lead among them in the Lord, and warned them. The apostle holds these up as entitled to more than recognition in their work. They were to be esteemed very highly in love because of it.
- Labour — leading well is real work. It takes courage and steady perseverance, not just a title.
- Honour — one measure of honour is due for the office, a second for filling it well. The word means real esteem, not a wage.
- Especially — some elders have gift as well as office. Their hard work in the word earns extra recognition.
- Not less — an elder who never teaches in public is still worthy. The verse guards him from being despised.
- Support — the ox and the labourer show that real honour meets real need, gladly and gratefully, but never as a fixed salary.
for the scripture says, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox that treadeth out corn, and, The workman [is] worthy of his hire.
Paul supports his instruction about elders with two quotations — one from the law of Moses about oxen, one about a workman's pay — and calls both of them "Scripture." So the verse does two things at once: it shows how the church should care for those who lead and teach, and it tells us which writings God counts as His own.
Paul joins a line from Deuteronomy to a line from the Gospel of Luke. One formula introduces both.
In 1 Timothy 5:18, we read: "for the Scripture says." Two quotations follow, one from Deuteronomy and one from Luke. So both count as part of "the Scripture." In the same way, Peter speaks of Paul's writings "and the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16) — implying that Paul's writings are inspired.
It also tells us something about timing.
First, it shows that Luke's Gospel was already known when Paul wrote the First Epistle to Timothy. Second, it proves that Christians at once received the Gospel of Luke as a canonical book, part of the Holy Scriptures. The introductory words of the Apostle Paul, "for the scripture says," put both references from Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 upon one level, the level of the inspired Word of God.
Matthew records a similar saying that Paul could have used. He quotes Luke instead, and commentators see the choice as deliberate.
He might have quoted Matt. 10:10 from one who was an apostle like himself; he was led of God to quote from one who was a prophet, not an apostle. For we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). So Luke was no mere secretary writing out Paul's mind, as the tradition of Eusebius held. He was an inspired writer, and the apostle cites him while writing in the Spirit.
The first quotation comes from a farming law: the ox treading out grain must be free to eat as it works. Who was that law written for?
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. The rightness of this, according to man, is beyond dispute: did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction. If He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out grain, He did not have cattle in view, but His people, His servants in the word.
Read that way, a puzzling farm rule becomes plain. Its place in Deuteronomy also gains a point, right after rules about punishing the guilty.
The ox speaks of one who labors for the Lord. He is therefore entitled to the consideration of being allowed to live by his labors. Though one guilty of serious crime was to be punished (vs. 1-3), one who labored for the Lord was to be rewarded.
The verse before asks double honour for elders who lead well. So how far does honour reach into money?
So there is no fair doubt that the English version is right: salary or pay is not the main idea, or even the true one — the idea is "honour." Still, what follows makes plain that this includes every loving consideration for the elders who lead or preside well. It is a gift of honour rather than a wage. On the one hand, it degrades the service of Christ to make it a question of earning, as in a trade or profession. On the other hand, it dishonours the saints who reap the fruit of tireless and unselfish care in spiritual things if they show no sense of it. That is true not only where the servants are needy, but in mutual loving regard where no such need exists. ... In the verses before, the apostle told Timothy to "honour widows"; here he claims honour twice over for elders who take the lead well.
The verse does not leave support to sentiment. It places a duty on those who benefit.
Suppose one devotes so much time to the work of the Lord that other regular employment cannot support him. Then the saints of God are to consider themselves responsible for this: "The laborer is worthy of his reward."
Yet this is not employment, and the difference is more than words.
What they gave, it was to God they gave it, and it was his privilege to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference: for you cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" (in this sense of offering) to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.
- Scripture — One formula covers both quotations. A line from Moses and a line from Luke stand on one level: the inspired Word of God.
- Choice — Paul passes over Matthew and quotes Luke, marking Luke as an inspired writer, not Paul's secretary.
- Ox — The farming law about the unmuzzled ox was never about cattle; God had His servants in the word in view.
- Honour — The word means honour, not pay; but honour that ignores a servant's needs is no honour at all.
- Offering — The saints owe support to those who feed them. But they offer their gift to God; they do not pay a man.