Mr. D's Notes on I Timothy
Rev. Stanley L. Derickson Ph.D.
Copyright 2000

CHAPTER 24

"A Christian leader told of a group of laymen who came to see him one day for some advice. They wanted to know of a diplomatic way to get rid of their pastor. The man, sensing that they were not being fair, gave them some suggestions:”

"1. Look your pastor straight in the eye while he is preaching and say amen once in a while. He'll preach himself to death.

"2. Pat him on the back and tell him his good points. Before you know it, he'll work himself to death.

"3. Rededicate your own life to Christ and ask your minister for a job to do. He'll die of heart failure.

"4. Get the church to unite in prayer for him. Soon he'll become so effective that a larger church will take him off your hands." (From the November 10, 1995 Daily Bread)

Concerning church elders and our relationship to them we will be looking at PAY EM in verses seventeen and eighteen, TRUST EM in verses nineteen and twenty, and EQUAL EM in verse twenty one.

I. PAY EM

17. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.

I Thess. 5.12-13 mention a similar line of thought. "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. [And] be at peace among yourselves. "

The term "rule" is a little misleading in our society. It has the thought of being boss and I fear many of our independent Baptist brethren have taken this word at its general usage and have created unto themselves dictatorships.

The term actually has the thought of leading. The man that leadeth the congregation well is worthy.

The term is translated "over" in I Thess. 5.12 which we just looked at.

The term is the same that is used of the elder ruling his own house well.

Titus 3.8 and 14 both use the term in the phrase "maintain good works" which would indicate maintaining that which is desired. In light of an elder it would be one that maintains the direction of the church, that is assuming the church has some direction - many today are in maintenance mode - maintain the status quo - never mind what the Lord might want.

Stedman mentions of the thought in a sermon, "One who leads is not necessarily a boss. He does not drive people, he leads them. He goes before and sets the pace and the direction; whether people follow or not depends entirely upon how much respect he has built in their eyes by his personal character, his abilities, and his gifts. An elder is a man who is able to command the respect of others and get them to follow him in the directions the Lord has set."

What can we learn from Paul's use of the plural term elders in this verse?

We can see that the plural term shows that more than one elder can teach and preach - not just one person. We also see that there more than one elder in the church to lead the membership.

I would like to take some time and consider this thought of honor and double honor. This is one of the texts full time pastors drag out anytime anyone asks them about being paid for their ministry.

I frequent a board that is run by a man that feels he is owed a good living if not a living equal to the richer of his church. He sells his sermons on the internet, and he offers Christian software on his site, but at a higher price than the source dealers sell it for. I'm not sure that is Biblical honor.

Anyway the thought of honor most likely relates to both respect and material support, but I would like to see if we can really - Biblically justify the thought of full time paid pastors.

Though we are not going to take time to delve into the respect/honor issue, it is just as important if not more so than the material.

Some would go back to the Levites and their being supported by the giving to the Lord. The one major problem with this is that there is no priesthood today as there was in the Old Testament. We all - every believer - are priests, so if you want to use the Levites as a proof text you will have to pay each and everyone in the church equally. However, this is part of the basis for giving to elders. We will see this shortly.

We might mention that the early elders of the church recorded in the book of Acts were not graduates of Jerusalem Baptist seminary, they were common people of the church that met the criteria to be elders. There is no indication what so ever that they were paid.

Paul himself took gifts from those that wished to share with him, but he did not have a retainer from a local church. He, indeed, went back to his tent making abilities to support himself when in need.

There is indication in II John that the early church preachers were not paid, but relied on the kindness of believers. Verse ten mentions "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed." Many believe that some preachers moved from town to town preaching and were dependent on believers for room and board.

One problem that paid pastors never address is the Spiritual gifts. Each and every believer has at least one spiritual gift. Now, the shepherd is to be a teacher - or literally to have the spiritual gift of teaching. Why should a person with one gift be paid full time and not all the others? Not overly logical.

We do have before us one main text which we need to consider.

18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer [is] worthy of his reward.

We have two illustrations. The ox that treadeth should not be muzzled, or he should be allowed his feed - now this offers nothing more in my mind than to allow the elder to be given that which will cover his physical needs. Deut. 25.4 mentions, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

The second phrase mentions the laborer is worthy of his reward. This illustration brings us to the proof that the elder may be paid, indeed, should be paid. The worker is due his hire.

Some believe that the Gospel of Luke was already in existence and that Paul was quoting Luke in this verse (Luke 10.7). Others believe that Paul was just mentioning a phrase that the Lord had used in His ministry.

I Cor. 9.9-14 is also a text which gives some value to the thought of a paid pastor, however I feel that it is a far cry from what we see in the church today. " 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he [it] altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, [this] is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. 11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others be partakers of [this] power over you, [are] not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. 13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live [of the things] of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

If you have an elder that is spending great time in the ministry then the church is obligated to assist him to keep his families needs met.

Some references that might be of help in further study of this idea are: Matt. 10:9-10 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for [your] journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. This is the context of the sending out of the apostles and probably has no direct relation to church leaders, though there may be some application. Lu. 10.7-8 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. 8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: Again this is not directly applicable to us, but there is application for us. Deut. 24.15; Lev. 19.13.

The next question is this - is it wrong to have a paid pastor? Not necessarily provable, but there also may be reason not to want one. These questions are asked only to stir your thinking about what God really wants in the church.

a. Is the man that looks to the people for his security always willing to preach the Word freely and openly as he sees it?

b. Is the paid pastor a hindrance to the involvement of the congregation?

c. Is the paid pastor truly free to consider openly before the Lord God's leading to another ministry?

d. Is the paid pastor relying on the Lord for his subsistence?

This honor is the same as in the case of caring for the widow. It is not only the honor due a person in a position of leadership but it is quite possibly material assistance as in the case of the widows.

This is not a basis verse for the thought of a full time pastor. The full time pastor comes to us out of a society that is lazy and too affluent. We have the money to pay him and we are too lazy to do the work ourselves so we JUST MUST HAVE A PAID PASTOR!

I would encourage you to get that thinking out of your mind. We are functioning under that system but it is not necessarily "Thus saith the Lord!" We need to get back to the idea of elders from the assembly doing the work of the Lord and not relying on a full time man to care for our every need.

It is of interest to me that Paul placed this thought of honor to the elder in the context of the widow that is assisted in her NEEDS by the church because she has no other choice.

The honor due the elder should be something to assist him to get along because he is doing so much in the church that he can't work enough to supply the families need.

If we were to get back to the idea of several elders sharing in the work of the shepherding, we would have several men that had jobs that would maybe/maybe not need a supplement to that job to keep the family going.

Paul's context wasn't the idea of everyone needs a house, car, two TV's, five stereos, a washer and dryer plus multiple other items.

He was speaking to a people, many of which may well have been slaves that had little need other than food shelter and clothes.

ENOUGH SAID PROBABLY IF NOT TOO MUCH.

Burkitt mentions that some in his day took this passage to mean the elders of the family not the elders of the church. I personally don't think the passage lends itself to that interpretation, though there might be some good areas of application for the family if one were to consider this line of thought as a sidelight to that of the elders of the church.

II. TRUST EM

19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

This is really an application of Matt. 18.15ff and the principle that the person in sin is to be confronted individually first then by taking two or three with you.

Paul is simply stating that the elder has the same right in this aspect as any other believer.

If an elder is accused of something then there had better be two eye witnesses to it that are reliable.

OTHERWISE DON'T ACCEPT IT! (Some other refs for your future study: Deut. 17.6; 19.15; Jn. 8.17; II Cor. 13.1; Heb. 10.28.)

I mentioned in an earlier study a pastor that had been accused of making obscene phone calls to a woman in his church. I also mentioned that he ultimately had to leave that church. He was incorrectly accused, and he was incorrectly held accountable. There was only one woman making the accusation and no witnesses, thus he should never have been accused publicly by the woman nor should the supposed offense ever been brought up in any gathering of the church or the church leadership.

20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

If you have an elder that has erred then he should be rebuked publicly before the assembly so that others will fear the same if they fall into error.

I personally believe that some of the television preachers that have fallen into moral problems should have been confronted publicly on the stations where they ministered. The people they were in contact with needed to know of the improper actions and that the actions were not being taken lightly.

So, who says fear shouldn't be part of the spiritual life. It would seem that Paul wanted the people to fear incorrect activity!

III. EQUAL EM

And I don't mean give them Equal sweetener for their coffee when they come to visit with you.

21 I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

Oh foooeeeyy! Paul is no fun!

He wants us to treat everyone the same and not play favorites!

I assume the "observe these things refers to the widows and the elders. Both groups should be treated equally and without favorites. One widow should not be treated differently more than the other nor should one elder be rebuked and another receives no rebuke.

This may well go back even further to the thought of treating all of the subgroups of this chapter without partiality.

Paul seems to be somewhat serious when he states, "I charge [thee] before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring...."

He means business. Why? Partiality in a church is a natural trouble maker!

I would like to consider the reason that some of the writers of Scripture use multiple Persons of the Trinity when speaking of God - one God as we all know the Bible teaches.

Why did Paul say "before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ" when speaking in this text? Why did John, in Revelation 11.15, say "of our Lord, and of his Christ?"

Of course we know that the Holy Spirit is moving the authors in what they record, but the use of two members of the Trinity is of interest to me. Also, why not all three members of the Trinity?

Some possible reasons:

1. When name dropping is used, why use only one, especially when you know three very IMPORTANT people. I don't think that Paul was name dropping, but when he charges, he wanted to make the point as clearly as possible - he was serious and he had good backing in what he said.

2. There is the possibility that he was charging them before their God, the author of their salvation, as well as their savior and head of the church Jesus Christ.

Then comes a further question, why does Paul charge the folks before the elect angels? What do angels have to do with saints living a proper life?

1. Heb. 12.1 may give some help. "Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset [us], and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, "

We aren't told specifically that this cloud of witnesses includes the elect angels, but that is a distinct possibility. I would suggest that the cloud of witnesses includes the entire heavenly court, but it Almighty God, the beasts of the throne, the angelic host and the departed saints.

2. I Peter 1.11-12 "11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. 12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into."

It would seem from this passage that the angels are very interested in the goings on between God and man especially in the area of salvation. I suspect it is similar to our interest in what they are like and what that time of decision was like when Satan rebelled.

Heb. 1.14 "ministering spirits sent forth to minister to those who shall be the heirs of salvation," shows clearly that the angels minister to the believer in some manner thus it shouldn't surprise us that they are witnesses of church/believer activities.

And then there is a further question. Why did Paul use the term "elect" in relation to angels? Are angels elected as humans are elected? If so are they also predestined etc.? If they were elect, were the fallen angels not elect? Wow, look at all the false doctrines we could build on this one verse if we determined to do so.

No, I don't think that they are predestined, but Paul is clear that they are elect - just what that means we need to consider further.

The term elect appears as elect, but also is translated “chosen,” thus indicating that the angels were chosen in some manner or some of the angels were chosen. It is the same term that is used of believers being elect.

The thought crossed my mind that this might relate to the arch angels as opposed to all angels. They are a special level of angels and would have been chosen to that level - logically speaking in my mind. Young translated the terms "choice messengers." This would allow nicely for my thinking.

There is also another possibility. Many believe that the angels that chose to serve God were somewhere before time sealed or guaranteed in their "GOOD" decision - thus prohibiting them from falling at a later time. This is a possibility, though I don't hold to this thought, nor is there any passage I know of that indicates it. If this is true, one might suggest that this was a choosing or election of some sort.

Burkitt suggests one final possible interpretation to the idea of elect. He mentions that these "elect angels" may be a group of angels selected or chosen by the Lord Himself out of all the angelic host to assist Him in his Headship over the church. These angels may be chosen to minister exclusively to the believers in this age, while other angels were to serve in other capacities in God's overall plan of the ages.

Some miscellaneous texts relating to angels that might be of use. Luke 9.26 mentions His holy angels. Jude 1.6 mentions those angels that fell, which automatically creates a class that did not fall. II Peter 2.4 also mentions the fallen angels. Paul relates again the relationship that exists between angels and man I Cor. 4.9; I Cor. 11.10

Now to the final thought of the verse.

NO FAVORITISM:

Not based on like or dislike.
Not based on rich or poor.
Not based on preacher or non-preacher.
Not based on good looking or bad looking.
Not based on doctrine or bad doctrine - well maybe there is one basis for making exceptions!

This seems to relate to how the congregation treats the elders since elders are the specific context.

We might apply this to relate to not upholding the teaching elder over and above other elders. It might apply to believing one elder over another, or for that matter believing an elder over a member of the congregation - well even vice versa.

I believe that the writer of Hebrews sums up the relationship quite well when he says in 13.7 "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of [their] conversation." And then in verse seventeen he continues "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that [is] unprofitable for you."

I do not know what all is involved with "must give account" but I trust that I have followed and remembered those elders that God has placed me under over the years - that they might give good report to the Lord with joy!

One further comment from the Hebrews text - the congregation is to submit to the elder. On one of the boards I visit often the men have been discussing church government as I have been presenting it in this study. One of the points they have brought forth is this thought of submission to the rule - or as we have seen - leadership of the elders. If this does not happen, then the system God set up won't function - this may be why we have so many systems. People do not want to submit so they devise other systems so they don't have to submit.

If God has set these men in office then the congregation is obligated to submit to their leadership. No choice - unless the elders are in sin or going a completely different direction than the congregation has set.

In our society each person is an island unto themselves and submits to no one! We were at a restaurant in line waiting. The line was in a hallway wide enough for people to pass and have room between. I was at one side. A young employee of the establishment who seemingly owned the center of the hallway came briskly through and hit my arm because I was in her space.

Congregations must learn they are a body, not individuals, for the church to function correctly.