Paul is writing to Timothy.
Timothy is in Ephesus.
He is going to be teaching and educating those who are in the church at Ephesus.
He is going to be encouraging and edifying those who are leaders and those who are teachers in Ephesus.
He is going to, unfortunately, have the
struggle and the responsibility of rebuking those if they are not doing what is right.
And yet, he's a young man.
And so, Paul is going to address some of the things that Timothy needs to be teaching the church, some of the things that the church needed to have set in order.
You know, when we read in the book of Acts that Paul will send Titus, or Paul will send Timothy, or Paul will send others,
and he will send them to a church to set things in order.
Sometimes there's a specific discussion in that context about ordaining elders in the church, and that's appropriate and that is exactly one of the things that Timothy is going
to have instructions on, if I can get my words out, have instructions on in this text going back to chapter 3.
There's a reason why Paul gives the qualifications for elders
because one of Timothy's roles was to ordain elders in the churches as he is there with them as Paul and Barnabas also will come back through in their journeys and do the same
thing.
But as we get down to verse 17 of chapter 5, we have a further instruction as we've entered into a discussion in the beginning of chapter 5 about monetary things within the
body of Christ.
The first area of discussion concerning these monetary issues was widows.
The second one has to do with elders.
Chapter 5 verse 17, let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.
We discussed that in some detail last Sunday, so we're not going to spend a great deal of time on it other than to introduce it by saying God is through Paul
to Timothy telling the church that an elder who is working in that role, is diligent in that role, and is given his full-time focus to that role is one who is worthy of being
paid for the work that he is doing.
But he's further pointing out, as we discussed last week, that there's a discussion of honor.
That's back in verse 3, honor widows who are really widows.
Okay?
That means it was that these widows were worthy of financial support, but there were qualifications.
In verse 17, he describes double honor.
Now, what he's not saying, and again, we talked about this last week, you can go get the full discussion from the recording from last week, he's not saying, hey, they get double
the pay.
That's not what he's talking about.
My firm conviction is their children had a responsibility to them and he's just gone through a long discussion about the children's responsibility to honor, that is to provide
for, their parents.
So the elder who has reached this age, because he's one who has ruled well already, past tense, he's already been an elder for some time, he's now reached the age at which his
children
should be providing for them to make sure that their provisions are taken care of in their old age, Paul is saying that does not alleviate the church of its responsibility to show
honor to an elder who has ruled well.
Now that their children are taking care of them, that does not relieve the church of what they owe that elder who has ruled well.
Rather, he says they're worthy of double honor.
both from their children and from their spiritual children, the church.
Okay?
So he says that they are worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in word and doctrine.
For the scripture says, you shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.
Paul is going to reach back into Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy chapter 25, and he is going to tell these Christians that God's principles
of how we treat others haven't changed.
That you as a person, if you own a business, should not withhold the pay from the laborers because they're worthy of it given that they have done the labor.
The same way as he brings the analogy from the agricultural world, God gave instruction to the farmers
You don't muzzle the ox that is treading out the corn, treading out the wheat.
What's the idea here of muzzling the ox as it's treading out the wheat?
All right?
So in the practice of the, especially the time period where they would separate the wheat from the chaff, all right, so the harvest would have been done and they would bring in the
wheat and they would go through the process like with a mill where they would grind it and they would separate the wheat from the chaff, from the stalk, from the rest of it, so that
they could, and then they'd blow the chaff away, okay?
They'd blow away the part that was not,
the wheat.
Okay?
They would do this usually by having an ox that would just be running in circles, uh walking in circles, pulling that heavy wheel that was grinding out the corn.
And God says, don't put a muzzle on the ox.
If you close the mouth of the ox, the ox is not, as he's working, not going to bend his head down and eat.
Which means you're going have more wheat left when it's done because the ox isn't going to eat.
God says you don't do that.
He's doing the work.
He's worthy of eating from the produce.
Okay?
There's other passages that describe
the laborers and the things involved uh throughout the Old Testament as they pick the grain, as they consume some of what they pick.
God says you don't withhold that.
They're the ones doing the labor.
They should have part of the bounty from it.
Now, Paul takes that principle in Deuteronomy 25 and brings it forward and says this scripture has already been stated.
The truth has already been given by God.
You don't expect labor
and the laborer to not get any return from the labor.
Now is God condemning, volunteering, and helping someone in asking nothing in return?
No.
eh That is not the discussion here.
Everyone has the ability, has the opportunity to work, to labor in some task and ask for or insist on nothing in return.
What example do we have of that from the New Testament?
Paul, okay, when y'all make comments you gotta speak loud enough to be heard by me at least.
Paul would not allow what group of people to pay him.
In he uses the example, but what was his practice in every church where he was?
He wouldn't let the local church that he was teaching and that he was giving birth to as he went into a city where there was no church, he would not let that local church pay him.
Why?
Exactly.
Paul said, as he explains this to the Corinthians, though it wasn't the only occurrence, he explains that he never wanted anyone to be able to argue that the reason he had come to
Thessalonica or Berea or Antioch or any other city to preach the gospel was because he wanted them to pay him.
That he did it for the money.
So rather,
He says, I robbed other churches so that you might receive the benefit.
What does he mean by he robbed other churches?
Alright, he asked for their support.
Well, wait a minute.
Why is he calling it robbing?
Is he still laboring at their congregation?
No, but they're giving.
Okay?
He's saying, I'm taking funds from another congregation where they're not getting the benefit of my labors.
They have in the past.
It was usually the churches that he had already worked with that supported him, like the church at Philippi.
He writes about that in Philippians chapter four.
But he says, they're not getting the benefit of my labors.
You are.
And yet, I'm not charging it to you because you need to focus on spiritual matters and not supporting me.
Okay?
So it's authorized for someone to do something and accept no pay.
Because it may be the case that someone looks at a lot of churches today and they go, well, I see a lot of elders and I don't know of any of them that are getting paid.
There's a difference between someone who says, number one, I'm willing to do the work, because that was qualification number one of elders, right?
They had to be willing to do the work.
They had to be desirous of the work of an elder.
But they also have to be willing if they're going to be paid to accept the pay.
And some will say, no, I don't need that.
God's blessed me with what I need.
I'm able to work without that.
And that's perfectly fine.
But are they worthy of it?
And that's the discussion here, and Paul says they're absolutely worthy of it.
They're not only worthy of it, but as they have demonstrated their worthiness through the labor that they have done when they were self-sufficient, they now should not be have that
support withdrawn from just because now their children are aiding them in honor.
He says they are just like the ox in the Old Testament.
They are doing the work and as a laborer doing the work they're worthy of their hire.
He says, verse 18, the laborer is worthy of his wages.
Do not
He then continues in this discussion, do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.
Paul, as he's giving instructions concerning elders, says to Timothy, Timothy, you're going to be in a position as the minister where someone could at some point come to you
with an accusation against one of those elders.
He says you don't even hear it.
Be careful with, do not receive it, and do not listen to what's being said.
oh There's a difference between the two.
This is a judicial style receiving an accusation.
This is to receive it and consider it, to act upon it.
It's not, wait a minute, I don't see three people here, so nope, you can't talk to me about Brother So-and-so.
That's not what he's saying.
What he is saying is you do not receive it and act upon it in a judicial manner as a minister if it is not corroborated by two or three witnesses.
And you go back again to the Old Testament.
And what was the law from given by God to Moses to Israel concerning the death penalty under the Old Testament?
Alright, they had to have a minimum of two people in order as witnesses who could establish this thing under the law.
Alright, turn over the book of Hebrews.
Hebrews chapter 10 verse 26.
The Hebrew writer says, for if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation
of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
Anyone who rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of
What?
Two or three witnesses.
And notice, he says, of how much worse punishment do you suppose will he be thought worthy, who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by
which he was sanctified, a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
For we know him who said,
Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord, and again the Lord will judge his people.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." The Hebrew writer here establishes what the Hebrew Christians already knew.
That under the law of Moses, a person who rejected God's law and would not be obedient to it could be put to death with
two or three witnesses.
Yet the Hebrew writer says, how much sore punishment do you suppose we're worthy if we, having received the knowledge of the truth, having received obedience to the gospel,
having been those who at one point submitted to God and to Christ and recognized the sacrifice of Christ, turned back and reject the doctrine of Christ?
and we count that sacrifice as an unholy or a common thing and we show that we don't care about the sacrifice of Christ.
We're going to do what we're going to do.
The Hebrew writer uses this exact same knowledge concerning the Old Testament to establish the fact that under the Old Testament you can be put to death by two or three witnesses.
How many witnesses were necessary for the Jewish trials of Jesus?
Well, they went searching for witnesses.
How many did they need?
They needed to.
What was the problem?
They couldn't find two that agreed.
They finally found two that both said he said he would tear down the temple in three days and rebuild it.
And since the temple belongs to God, there they could say, ah see, he blasphemed against God, he rejected the law.
He can be put to death.
So they started searching for witnesses, not because they were interested in the truth, but because they had a legal requirement they had to get over.
And so they went.
Witness hunting.
That's not what's being described here.
This is not, just the same way that was not lawful, this is not, you know what, somebody said something bad about brother so and so who's an elder, let's go start spreading the
word until we find somebody who agrees with them.
That's not a witness.
A witness is someone who says, no, I was there and I and this other person
are concerned that based upon this action this elder has departed from the truth.
That's the discussion here.
This is not, you know what, Elder so-and-so got really mad last Sunday and in front of all these other witnesses he blew up and he said really unkind things about me.
Okay?
That's not what we're discussing here.
Now is it the case that it
elder needs to have a temperate attitude, they need to be a person of self-control and soberness, does that mean that there's never going to be occasion in all the rest of their
lives where they ever fly off the handle and need to apologize for their attitude?
No.
It means their character of life is such that that's not how they behave.
If an elder sins and others witness it, what should the elder do?
step down from the eldership.
He needs to do the same thing every other Christian needs to do, which is what?
Repent, confess that to the Father if it's private, but we've already said there were witnesses, so it wasn't private, was it?
He needs to go address that with who?
The people who witnessed it.
The people who, if there was a, someone sinned against,
He needs to go address it with first the person who he sinned against, then those who witnessed it who that could become a stumbling block to and to God.
Those are the categories of people that need to be addressed.
Now, what if the elder says,
I refuse.
I'm not going to repent for that.
I think I'm just fine participating in whatever action that was involved in this scenario.
Then what is the church supposed to do?
The next step, if we were to take Matthew chapter 18 as an example, Jesus provides us an example of, here's an individual who sinned against someone else.
That individual says, so and so has sinned against me.
And he brings that situation forward.
He should first have addressed it with the individual, right?
Now, let's take the scenario and review it again.
Here's an individual who says, we've witnessed brother so-and-so who's an elder and he committed this sin against this brother.
And they bring that to a person who's Timothy.
Timothy's a minister.
Why are they bringing it to Timothy?
Because he's a minister.
Question, what should they have done first?
Say again.
They should have gone to the elder first.
As Jesus teaches in Matthew chapter 18, it is important when you see that someone has sinned that you address it first with the person who has sinned and that you don't include
anyone else.
That you don't spread it abroad.
rather scripture all the way from Proverbs all the way to the end of the book of Revelation tells us that the person who loves his brother will hide the sin if the person
is willing to repent of it and appropriately and properly deal with it.
That instead of spreading it abroad, do you know what brother so-and-so did to brother so-and-so?
And they're talking to somebody who wasn't there.
and who never needed to know.
He says, no, no, you go take care of it with that brother who sinned first and privately.
Because if you can take care of that sin privately, then you have gained your brother.
Turn to Galatians chapter 6.
In chapter 5 verse 25 we read, if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.
Considering yourself
lest you also be tempted." Notice what Paul does not tell them to do.
You see a brother overtaken in a fault?
Go tell everybody so there's a lot of social pressure on him to go change.
It's not what he says.
He says, you who are spiritual, go to that brother.
But he also says, bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.
if we understand that in many scenarios the fewer people who knew that someone stepped out of line the easier it is to get them to step back into line and head down the right path.
If their heart is right, if they're open and willing to repent
if they understand what they did was wrong, and all of this is under the discussion of an elder.
This is a person who's of spiritual maturity.
They ought to know all of those things, and yet they might still sin against somebody else.
They might still be overtaken in some sort of fault or trespass.
And Paul says that you who are spiritual, go restore them.
Don't tear them down.
Don't rip them apart.
Don't criticize them in front of everybody, go restore them in a spirit of what?
Gentleness, meekness.
If we turn over to 1 Thessalonians...
see if I can find the right passage that I'm looking for because I didn't write this down.
Looking for the passage where he talks about, ah, 2 Thessalonians chapter 3, that's why I'm in the wrong book.
2 Thessalonians chapter 3 verse 6.
I knew it was the last chapter of Thessalonians.
Wrong book.
Second Thessalonians chapter uh 3,
make ourselves an example of how you should follow us.
For even when we were with you, we commanded you this, If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.
For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies.
Now those who are such, we command and exhort through our Lord Jesus Christ that they work in quietness and eat their own bread.
But as for you, brethren,
Do not grow weary in doing good.
And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him that he may be ashamed.
Yet, do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
in this very idea of financial matters and work and labor, Paul as he's writing to the church at Tesloneica says, it's reported that there are some who are in your presence,
some who are in your congregation, who are sitting back and they don't work, yet they expect to be fed.
Here are individuals who are just sitting back and the idea, the context is they were taught concerning the resurrection that Jesus was going to return so they quit their jobs
and they're just letting the church feed them until Christ comes back.
Paul says, get back to work.
If a man will not work, neither should he eat.
Paul says that's exactly what we taught you.
But he says if you've got somebody who's not obeying our commands,
then you need to withdraw from them.
But as you do so, you need to admonish them as a brother, not treat them as an enemy.
So, um what, and if I understand your question correctly, what do you do in a congregation where there are elders and they're not practicing withdrawing from those who disorderly?
First of all, in order for that to be addressed, it has to be addressed through the elders and through the teachers, okay?
You must first get the,
people doing the teaching and those making in those roles to understand that they're not following the commands of God and that is if if withdrawing from those who have walked
disorderly has not been practiced for many years that's a long process.
uh And it usually is going to require taking some time and probably some outside help from other preachers who those individuals respect and honor and them coming in and helping
them understand, listen, you're not doing what you need to be doing in uh practicing withdrawing from those who walk disorderly.
You're not actually fulfilling the commands of God.
And so, in short, rarely is that situation
ever solved by members inside the congregation getting leadership inside the congregation to correct their actions.
It almost always needs help from outside ah in my experience.
um Which by the way is what Paul and Timothy are doing at Ephesus.
They are correcting issues and where did Paul begin in chapter one?
With Timothy correcting teachers.
He says, you've got to go in there and you've got to make sure nobody's teaching this.
Nobody's doing this.
The assistance needed to come from outside the body.
You go to 1 Corinthians and what is it that the house of Chloe had reported to Paul?
That there were those who were teaching things that they shouldn't teach, that they were drawing away people after themselves, that there were people calling themselves after
brother so-and-so and brother so-and-so and brother so-and-so instead of after Christ?
The house of Chloe couldn't fix it.
They needed the help from Paul and from others to help correct the leadership and the problem there.
So I just say that to say we have a bunch of New Testament examples to point out that rarely when there is a leadership problem is that leadership problem going to be fixed
from the inside, especially if both the minister and the elders are in the same position.
Now, if the minister's saying one thing and the elders are saying something else,
then there is some hope for the minister to correct the elders, just the way Timothy was taught.
But I'm going to tell you that he probably won't be there long even if he fixes the problem.
When there's that division between the eldership and the minister, and the minister saying, we're not doing what's right, and the elders are saying, we're not going to hear
you, that preacher's not going to be there very long.
ah And if he's wise, he will go...
This is not my task to overcome.
I need help from outside and he's going to get that help to come in and help those elders.
And if they still won't hear, then you have a different discussion.
But short version is you're rarely going to solve that inside that congregation by itself.
It's just not going to happen most times.
All right.
So back to Timothy.
As we've discussed all these issues about hearing an accusation, that's all to say,
If someone is sinned against, who should they take it to first?
The elder or the minister?
The elder who sinned against them or the minister?
The elder who sinned against them, just like they would any other brother.
And if there are two or three witnesses to the event that occurred, whatever the event is, who should those witnesses take it to first?
the one who sinned.
If the one who sinned will not hear the person who they sinned against and will not hear those two or three witnesses, who then should those witnesses and the one sinned against
take it to?
The church.
Now we have the discussion of Paul to Timothy about receiving an accusation.
Because Paul says when someone comes along and they say there is something that I have
ought against this brother who is an elder, Paul says, if there's an elder who has been faithful, and all of this, by the way, already assumes they've met the qualifications,
they're not an elder who is a disqualified elder, they're active in the work and in the labor of an elder, and here comes someone coming along saying, I have an accusation
against that brother, Paul says there is a requirement that they must have two or three witnesses.
before you receive that accusation and you move upon it.
Why?
Because the actions of the elder through their history have established their spiritual conduct.
And you don't allow someone to come along with no witnesses, therefore without sufficient evidence, and tear down God's spiritual pillars in that congregation.
The says you don't even accept that accusation.
Not if they don't have witnesses.
Now, is there some scenario where you may say, well, wait a minute, um couldn't that be dangerous because couldn't someone in power use their power to make sure that there are
never any witnesses but they continue to abuse their power?
Yes, could.
But if there's multiple people they've sinned against, wouldn't there be multiple witnesses?
Yes, okay.
So the point is, rarely does power get corrupted in a vacuum where there's no witnesses.
Paul's saying, there's no witnesses?
You don't accept that accusation.
If there are witnesses, different story, okay?
Now, he says, those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all that the rest also may fear.
What context is this in?
Is this in the context of general Christians, everyday members?
Elders.
When you come to this passage, do not remove it from its context.
Its context is elders.
This is not a carte blanche for Timothy as a minister to see someone who's a member of the church who's been a Christian for two years and he saw them out partying and drinking and
drunken and he gets up Sunday morning and says,
Brother so-and-so, let me tell you everything he did, let me tell you how he's sinning, let me rebuke him before everybody.
Would that be improperly using the position of a minister?
Yes, it would be.
That's not the context here.
The context is you must have this barrier that you must get over to accept an accusation.
Once you've received that accusation, that barrier has been met and this brother is identified as one who is living in sin, though he is an elder.
You don't deal with that privately.
Now, this already assumes that the person who was sinned against took it to him and said, you need to fix this.
It already assumes that the witnesses went to him and tried to fix this.
They're taking it to the minister because it can't be fixed yet.
He refuses to repent.
Paul says, next step is the entire congregation.
He must be rebuked publicly.
You cannot sweep this under the rug.
You must, Timothy, you must rebuke him before all because your concern at this moment is no longer just his soul, but whose.
the entire congregations.
Turn to 1 Corinthians chapter 5.
1st Corinthians chapter 5 you have the events of a man who has his father's wife and we read chapter 5 verse 1, is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you and
such sick sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles that a man has his father's wife and you are puffed up and have not rather mourned that he who has done this
deed might be taken away from you.
For I indeed, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged as though I were present, him who has done this deed.
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." If I were to put that in our more common terms,
Paul says when the next assembly arrives, you as a congregation are going to publicly withdraw from this individual and put both of them out of the assembly.
You are returning them to the world, to the condemnation of the world and the recognition that if they do not change, they are
lost.
And you're going to do it as a congregation, you're going to do it publicly, and you are going to do it with the authority of Christ.
But now notice what he says.
He says, your glorying is not good.
Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened.
For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us.
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice or wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people.
Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the
world." Paul's saying, when I wrote
this command to you, I wasn't talking about the person who's never been a Christian, who's a pagan, who's governor of your area, or who's a lowly worker, who lives in adultery.
Says I didn't give you a command to have no interaction with them.
Rather, he says, but now I have written to you, 11, not to keep company with anyone named a brother.
who is sexually immoral or covetous or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner not even to eat with such a person.
For what have I to do with judging those who are outside?
Do you not judge those who are inside?
But those who are outside, God judges, therefore put away from yourselves the evil person.
So when Paul says to Timothy,
Okay, you've received the accusation.
It's come with witnesses.
It's been established this individual is not living faithfully, has rejected the law of God, and will not repent.
You can't take care of this privately.
This must be a public congregational rebuke and putting aside.
Someone says, how can you take an elder out of the eldership if he's living in sin and refuses to give up his position?
right here.
the minister and the congregation remove him from the eldership.
Because Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 5, you put the evil person from among you.
By the way, you can't remove him from the eldership and leave him as part of the congregation.
if he has committed sins where he is and is unwilling to repent of them and it has been witnessed publicly, it has been attested to publicly, it has been addressed privately, it
is now being addressed publicly, you cannot remove him from the eldership and claim he's still a faithful member.
Can't be done.
Now, is there a scenario where an individual realizes because of their sin they need to step down from the eldership, they need to repent, they need to take care of the sin?
but because of the sin, they can no longer continue in that role and they need to step down from it?
Sure.
Can they then still be a faithful member?
Yes.
Should they be received as a brother who is faithful in Christ now, having repented of that sin?
Absolutely.
But could they have done such damage to their reputation, they could no longer serve as a qualified elder?
Yeah.
So all of these things are things that are necessary for a congregation to realize this is, these are God's instructions when it comes to elders.
There's a barrier because they've already, they've already gone through the qualification process because they're already elders.
They've already been established that they have good reputation outside and inside.
By the way, that's one of the reasons why you can't say, well, they get most of the qualifications, so we'll just go ahead and appoint them.
No, no, you're asking for trouble because when they get most of the qualifications and then somebody raises a problem inside the congregation because they're actively doing
something that's wrong, which would have been against the qualifications, but you ignored it.
Now you've got a real problem because it's really hard to get an elder out who's doing what's wrong and he was doing what was wrong before he was put in, but you decided to
overlook it then and now you want to hold him accountable now?
Now you got a problem.
Okay?
Thank you for your attention.
We'll close out chapter five next week.