1 Timothy 5:17–22

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

No one is so open to attack from those who resent him. So divine wisdom holds back the urge to take up such charges unless serious evidence supports them. Otherwise oversight would become a dreaded task, instead of a good work that a serious man might aspire to. So we cannot agree with Chrysostom and others that the point here is age, as at the start of the chapter. The point is an office that called for a guard not usually needed. A single witness might bring a charge against a Christian, as against an Israelite, though confirmation was needed to convict him where the result was serious. No one could even bring a charge against an elder rightly, except on the testimony of two or more. Righteousness takes circumstances into account, and not just individuals. Timothy had to respect the authority of others, whose faithfulness might put them in danger. Otherwise he would undermine what the Lord had set up.

His service would leave the elder more open than others to misunderstanding and criticism. At times he had to deal with faults in others. That could stir up resentment and ill-feeling, which might show itself in a malicious accusation. A charge might indeed be just. Even so, no one should receive it without witnesses.

So God would have such men protected from malicious prosecutions and attacks. Such attacks could crush a sensitive and faithful servant in his spirit.

In all such cases, nothing matters more than basing our judgment on facts — all the facts, on both sides. We must not let our own impressions guide us. We all know that mere impressions are most untrustworthy. They may be correct; and they may be utterly false. Nothing spreads more easily than a false impression, so any judgment built on mere impressions is worthless. We must have solid, clearly established facts — facts established by two or three witnesses, as Scripture so plainly insists. And we must never be guided in judgment by a one-sided statement. Anyone may colour his account of a case, even with the best intentions. One fact left out can change how all the other facts look.

This is an important principle in God's Word, and it is stated a number of times. To establish any charge of wrongdoing, there must be two or three witnesses, or a confession of guilt from the one charged. One witness will not do. It is not said that the witnesses must be Christians, as some insist. We should accept the testimony of any reliable and upright person.

The apostle supported the elders in a work that was bound to provoke the damaging tongues of troublemakers. Yet he was far from sheltering an elder charged on adequate testimony. So here he insists that no one should spare those who are guilty of persistent wrongdoing.

The first of these commands has nothing in particular to do with the elders. It opens out into the wider field of believers in general. The apostle backed the elders in a work that was bound to stir up harmful talk from rebellious people. Even so, he was far from shielding an elder who was accused on solid evidence. So here he insists that no one guilty of ongoing wrongdoing should be spared.

The word "rebuke" is the same as found, for example, in John 16:8, where it is translated "reprove"... In both places the more exact translation is "convict." The very presence of the Comforter on earth "convicts" the world of sin — in the rejection and crucifixion of Christ. So in our passage, those who sin are to be "convicted" before all. To understand this, remember that this scripture does not clash with other passages. Those passages guide us in dealing privately with believers who fall into sin... To convict them before all is to show their sin in a way that reaches their conscience, so as to lead them to confession and restoration.

"Those who sin." It does not say, "those who have sinned," nor each time they have sinned. We all have sinned. We all do sin. But we are not all, each time we have failed, to be dealt with according to the directions given here to Timothy. Someone might be caught in a fault, as Galatians 6:1 describes. Those who are spiritual were to restore such a person gently, watching themselves in case they too are tempted. In that case, rebuking before all would go beyond what the Word allows.

The passage literally says, "Those who are sinning — the tense means those found going on in a sinful course — convict, or put to shame before all." The sin here is of a kind that affects the public testimony of the gathering. A public rebuke is needed to clear the assembly and convict the offender.

Suppose the private warning has failed to reach its aim. Then another step follows: public rebuke... To spare a brother the shame and humiliation of a long time shut out from fellowship, someone must bring him face to face with his wrong... There should be no display of anger or resentment, and no self-righteous, Pharisee-like spirit. Sorrow fits those who realise that it is not they but their Lord who has been injured in the house of His friends.

Suppose the guilt is serious and obvious, so that the shared conscience of the saints rejects such offenders. Then simply rebuking the person does not "purge out the old leaven." The assembly is left a leavened lump, not a new one.

The shame of a public conviction may tell upon the person. But the special aim set before us in 1 Timothy 5:20 is the profit of all, "so that the rest may stand in fear." With this in view, as we carry out the directions of Scripture, there will be no wish to point the finger of scorn at the one who has failed. Instead our hearts will feel more deeply what we are by nature, and how much we need real watchfulness, in case a rebuke should one day fall rightly on us.

Public rebuke of those who are sinning is rarely seen in the assemblies of saints today. But we believe that if it were practised more, we would see more godly fear in the hearts of believers, and more care in their walk. We would also see fewer cases of excommunication from the assembly. The ones going wrong would be rebuked and stopped at the start of their path of sin.

Offenders, whether elders or not, are to be rebuked in front of everyone, so that others may fear. Their faults must first be fully proved by enough witnesses. But a rebuke is not given only before other people. It is given before God, whose house we are; before the Lord Jesus Christ, who is Son over God's house; and before the elect angels, who serve those who form the house.

Timothy was to keep these things as in the presence of God and Christ and the elect angels. This solemn appeal makes the difficulty plain. He had to act in the presence of those before whom men were as nothing!

The one article identifies the two persons in a common object. The article that follows marks off the "elect angels". However exalted they are, they have no title to be identified in that way. Christ Jesus could be, and is, put with God on the same ground. The elect angels are not. They are brought in alongside, yet kept apart, as witnesses now and not only in the future scene of glory.

God placed them where they were to keep their standing by obeying His decree. He did not bring about the fall of any of them. He allowed that fall to happen where the creature revolted against his Creator. Countless others were upheld by His power, and not allowed to fall. Such angels are called elect.

The Authorized Version seems to lose the distinction between the two words. In the New Testament they are found only here. The first refers to "prejudice". It condemns a case before hearing it, or before hearing it properly. The second means an undue leaning, or "favour", toward one side, even if a person has heard both. Timothy is warned by the most sacred associations to watch against a bias either way.

It is far too easy to let strong feelings sway us in any matter. A person's godly qualities might attach us to him so much that we favour him even when he is wrong in a case. Or I may disagree with someone over some matter. Then I am quick to hold him in disfavour without a truly fair reason. How subtle the flesh is in every one of us!

Perhaps the family tie made Barnabas partial to his nephew. Natural affection is surely right, and to be without it is a sign of the last times. But we may learn a useful lesson here. Natural affection must not sway our spiritual judgment. It must not shape our actions in the things of God.

He was to rebuke any who deserved it, regardless of age, place, or standing in the assembly, even an elder. Today no one has Timothy's authority from an apostle. But we have the apostle's words in Scripture, and the assembly must carry out this instruction without partiality.

In Scripture to lay hands on another is the sign of fellowship, rather than the communication of authority as Christendom teaches. A false generosity can look big-hearted while it carelessly extends fellowship to people who are going a wrong way. In this way we may put our approval on evil and share in other men's sins. We are to keep ourselves pure, an instruction that clearly proves our associations can defile us.

There was also the laying on of hands as the induction to office, as Moses laid his hands on Joshua, and gave him a charge from the Lord as his successor. The apostles also laid hands on the men chosen to take charge of the poor, Acts 6:6... Hands were laid on Paul and Barnabas as a mark of commendation and fellowship when they were sent out on their missionary journey. Acts 13:3... The sick were often cured by the laying on of hands. Christendom has copied this apostolic action and badly misused it, claiming that it gives a man a status and passes on spiritual blessing. If people treated it as a simple recognition and mark of fellowship in service, it would be a scriptural act.

Scripture never once says that hands were laid on elders. Hands were laid on Timothy, and even the elders joined in doing so, when the apostle conveyed the gift of God that was given then. Hands were laid on Barnabas and the apostle himself when prophecy named them for a special mission... it takes extreme and ignorant prejudice to confuse either of these very different cases of laying on hands with eldership, or even with what people call ordination.

Scripture never says so, yet I do not doubt that hands were laid on elders, and that 1 Timothy 5:22 includes them. But the verse is not only about them.

Even when only the ceremony of laying on of hands is in view, the passage points to discernment and responsibility... Timothy was not to lay hands hastily on anyone. So it was a matter of discernment on his part, and of grave responsibility about the man he backed with his solemn approval. That makes the meaning of what follows very plain. If he did it lightly, and the man was unfit for this charge, Timothy would have his share in the evil that man might do.

Suppose a man he had laid hands on then walked badly. Timothy would be involved in the evil, though he never meant to be, because he had put the man in a position that carried his approval. This leads the apostle to add, "The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment." Everyone can see them. Like messengers sent ahead, they announce the judgment waiting for those who commit them. The sins of other men were more hidden, but they would still come out into the open... Since sins can stay hidden, Timothy was to be careful about laying hands on people who came to him for this.

Then follows the closing appeal: "Keep yourself pure." Wycliffe and the Rheims Version limit this last word to chastity, but that is only part of what the apostle presses on Timothy. Purity in Timothy himself would better guard him against careless, formal approval of men. Such men would do great damage to the flock of God, or dishonour the Master by abandoning the work out of love for the present age.

If I do not know the individual either personally or by reputation I may find myself identified with sins I did not suspect. To accept him in fellowship in the work of the Lord or in the worship of the Lord would make me a partner in what he practises. This is a more serious matter than even saints of God generally think.