First Timothy lesson 28 end, start 29

So lesson 28, 1 Timothy 5.13, we're on question number 12, because Mike decided to put 12 questions in this lesson. All right, the question reads, does the quote from Deuteronomy 25 mean that those that labor and teaching are worthy of pay? We're going to decide whether or not Mike and Roger should be paid. Was that Cheryl? Yes. Hi Cheryl. I can't see the class on camera, but you're fine. It's okay.

So Paul's use of Deuteronomy 25.4. Someone want to look up that verse in the Old Testament? You shall not muzzle the ox. While it is threshing. Out on the corn. Yeah. So what does this establish? What's the point of this verse? Why are the references here? Does the ox deserve to eat?

Yes. Yes. You're right, Cheryl. Yeah. And in the same way ministers deserve, those of Mike and Roger and the like, deserve to be supported while laboring to produce spiritual food for the congregation. That's kind of the difference there is that the analogy is They deserve to be supported because they are laboring and teaching and worthy of being fed, right? Yes.

There's a double scripture support, and I think Paul reinforces this with a second quote. The worker is worthy of his pay. uh... maybe look ten seven can somebody look up look ten seven staying at house eating and drinking whatever they give you for the worker deserves his wages do not move around from house to house Yeah.

Thank you, Ingrid. Thank you. So, the logic here is that teaching requires intensive labor. And that word, kopi, if I said it wrong, it's that, yeah, I'll let Courtney. No, no. It's exhausting work, and the labor benefits others. It's a spiritual nourishment for the church, and financial support is justified for that work. It's not charity, but actually earned compensation. So Paul isn't arguing for charity toward poor ministers, but he's really establishing that ministry work has inherent value and is worthy of payment. Those who labor in the Word, they deserve financial support, just as any worker deserves wages.

The application for us, I believe, from the church is that we should view this as supporting teaching ministers, those who teach, not as optional generosity but as biblical obligation. And I think the Deuteronomy principle that Paula read just then is a matter of basic fairness. that those producing spiritual benefit for others deserve material support and return.

Yeah, so that's question number 12. I was also thinking that the more you're in the Word, the more you get out of it. The more you give, the more you get. Yeah, I think there's a real close connection here with those that are feeding you with the word of God deserve to be compensated.

And I think that's Paul's message here is that just, yeah, And that's the Deuteronomy principle and the Luke 10 7 principle. So, I think you're right, Mike. We got to take care of those folks that teach and we're not all compensated, but for those that are full-time and that's their focus, we've got to focus on them. It's a biblical foundation that Paul establishes here.

It's interesting, just from the Old Brethren perspective, this used to be kind of a contentious issue sometimes about paying elders. It was like, did you read this scripture? There are times where, do you ever pay an elder? And so that was sometimes a contentious issue. But it's clearly here, especially a teaching elder, were the double honor. Double honor. Double honor, which is more than the regular elder, which is single honor being paid. So it was kind of an interesting dilemma occasionally when that came up.

It was like, well, wait a minute. If they're doing the work, it clearly says that they are worthy of being paid. So, just a historical reference. Sure. And with that, I'll pass it on to you. Okay, so I just want to go through this whole section, because this is all on elders, so this is all focused on elders. So, 1st Timothy 5, and I'll read from 17 to 22. The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. Again, undeniable that it is okay to pay an elder, especially one who is preaching and teaching. And then continuing on.

For the scripture says you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing, or the laborer is worthy of his wages. Now, these are the verses we're going to focus on today, 19 through 22. Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin rebuke in the presence of all so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of his chosen angels to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands on anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others. Keep yourself free from sin.

So again, we touched on and we just finished up about it's okay to pay an elder, especially one who is a teaching elder. So now we're moving on to a little bit different. That was kind of the positive aspects that he's worthy of double honor to be paid for his teaching. Now we move into something a little different. which is in verse 19, do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. So the question is, can any one single person bring an accusation against an elder? Pretty easy. What's the answer? No. So, pretty simple. Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.

So, first I wanna look at my usual, what does accusation mean? What does accusation mean? They're bringing an accusation, what is that? A complaint? A complaint. Other thoughts? It's an incrimination of a person, right? They did something wrong. They're telling that they did something wrong. So, of course, what do I do? First thing. Miriam Webster. I always try to just get what our definition, our current definition is versus when we get into the Greek also. So I looked up accusation in Miriam Webster and a charge of wrongdoing. I don't like this.

An act of accusing someone, the state or fact of being accused. I hate when you use the word in the definition. So, I looked up accused. To charge with a fault or offense, blame. To charge with an offense judicially or by public process. So this is kind of blame, what Ron said. It's blame, charge of wrongdoing, charge with fault or offense.

So they're bringing up something that's wrong. They're saying this elder did something wrong. And the Greek word for accusation is, okay, JD, kategoria, a formal accusation before a tribunal. So this is really like bringing up charges in a court. They're bringing this accusation that's worthy of some kind of tribunal, some kind of action by a body against the person having the accusation. So instead of putting it all together, Paul states the local body should not accept any accusation against an elder except in the case upon the authority of two or three witnesses. So again, the key is not only one accusation. Somebody comes up and says this elder is doing this. Uh, it, it, it has to be multiple people coming up to, and we'll get into that a little bit later, um, with, with the numbers. So in versus question two and verses 19 through 21, what is Paul's motive for these prescriptions? In other words, for this question, why did Paul provide this guidance for Timothy? Why did he provide it? Verse 20 talks about sin.

So I guess the idea is not to have any. over sin in the church. Especially where? Especially in the leadership. In the leadership. So he's really at this point saying, you know, he's addressing not sin in the body. He's saying this is specific to the elders. What would be the accusation? What? We don't really know. He's just, he's saying it, which we'll kind of get into the next.

We've only given 40 lashes. Rods, beating with a rod and all that. So basically, I said, Paul is setting up a protective device for overseers that Timothy is to use. This was to prevent frivolous or malicious charges against the elders in Ephesus. So what does he tell him? He says, don't accept the accusation of one person.

Why is that? Why would that be? Is one witness enough? No. Why? Because you have to be discerning. Well, I mean, he comes up with this elder is doing this. It's terrible. There has to be proof. What did you say, Cheryl? There has to be proof. Proof. And how does proof... There are two witnesses, maybe even more. Right.

Yeah, so have we seen this pattern before in scripture? Where there's one witness, is that enough? Have we seen it in scripture before? This pattern? Is this for elders? We're talking about, have you seen this before? And it's for this very reason that Cheryl said, you need proof. One person can bring up an accusation. And could that be made up? Yeah. Yeah, it could be. So how do you do that?

Unless you get a conspiracy of three or four people coming up and lying. And then we'll get into actually to the next question about the accusation. But we've seen this pattern in scripture before. In Matthew 18, 15, and 16, the Lord gives the following. If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private. If he listens to you, you've won your brother. But if he has not listened to you, take one or two more with you so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every act may be confirmed.

So again, key word here is witness. Okay, we'll get into that in the next question. So, one person could confront him at first. And this is within the body. You know somebody, you come before them and say, brother, I've seen you sinning, and you need to correct this. If he doesn't, or if he does, great, you've won the brother. He says, yeah, I didn't realize that. I'll correct that. If he doesn't, you basically have, you bring other witnesses. Now again, the key is witnesses that will come before him and say the same thing in order to win the brother back, in order to correct that sinful behavior.

So again, it's not one, if you do it, great. And maybe, you know, in this case against an elder, I think it's even more important because it's the head of the local body. It's much, I think, much more critical for an elder to be corrected than even within the body. Everybody needs to be corrected if they're sinning, but especially the local head of the church, the elders, if they're sinning, especially not just one accusation. And again, I'm kind of getting ahead, but on the next question, we'll deal with that.

The other is in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 17, four through seven, Behold, if it is true that a certain thing that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death on the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses.

He who is to die shall be put to death. He shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. Again, from Old Testament to New Testament, the principle is the same. Don't rely on one person to bring you accusation against somebody. Again, brother to brother, you could maybe do it and it works great. But if not, you bring witnesses. And again, I want to, leading up to the next question. Anything on that, on the pattern? The pattern has been well established. Not one, but bring multiple witnesses to somebody who is sinning, especially an elder. Yeah, Courtney. Go ahead. Oh, sorry to speak over you, Paula.

It's the double value given towards the accusation, right? So at least two, up to three or more, whatever the case, but it's about confirming we're seeing this and there's at least two that are bringing that accusation against the elder. You know, I'm reminded even in court system and judicial system right now, or even in just, I know an elder, you know, if somebody comes, a lot of times what's referred to as he said, she said, you get into a car where it's one, you know, one person back and forth. He said, she said, who's right? Well, to determine that's very hard, because each one has their opinion. Just like if you have one person come and say you're sinning, that may just be his opinion. But if you have two or three witnesses, it's confirmed that the bias of that one, maybe there's a bias of two or three, but eventually, which we'll get into, who is this brought before, and who does the correcting. But again, I think of that, he said, she said, if you only have one person and they come at it, that's your opinion, maybe you're wrong.

Maybe they're wrong, maybe whatever. Multiple witnesses will help confirm whatever that accusation or that issue is. So it's very biblical. Like I said, from Old Testament to New Testament, single accusations are not a good thing. Well, the other, I think, key thing is that this has to do with the congregation itself bringing those, because you could have outsiders. trying to judge. This isn't judicial in the sense of legal. This is congregational in the sense of the church, right? Yeah, this is within the body.

And again, remember, this is looking back, Timothy and Titus, these are pastoral epistles by Paul. This is how to run the local assemblies or local bodies. This is in Ephesus in Asia Minor where Timothy was. This is really pastoral guidance for him to set up and run the local churches in Ephesus and Asia Minor.

So again, this is, you're right, it's within the body. This is how the body is supposed to function. You know, you can go look in, in fact, I think it was just in Corinthians, reading my daily reading about, you know, why do you go before a heathen judge? Why do you do that? You should have smart enough brothers here to take care of any body, you know, issues. So again, this is a good point, JD. This is within the body. So now, To what are the two witnesses required to witness? The sin or the accusation of the sin? The sin. The sin or the accusation? Stunned silence. Because you have to kind of think about this, because... Can you ask that again? Yeah. Well, the question's right there.

To what are the two witnesses required to witness? The sin or the accusation of the sin? Now, when you go back to the verse, do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. So, to what are the two witnesses required to witness? The sin or the accusation of the sin? That's kind of a tricky question. The accusation of sin would just be hearsay. Exactly.

That's why the key word is witness. Do you witness an accident? I can listen to him talk about it, but that's not anything anybody can listen to what Joe Blow is coming up and telling him. The key is witness. Yeah. You have to prove it to be true, right? Correct. That's the key here. And that's where I've been getting ahead of myself about witness and highlighting witness. You have to witness that.

You can't just go and Joe Blow comes up and says, yeah, I agree with him. I agree with whatever he said. I'm sure Elder Bob was doing this. I'm sure he was doing that. What's the validity of that witness? Zero. If you now come with three guys who said, yeah, Elder Bob was doing this. We saw him. We physically witnessed what was going on. That's what he's talking about here. Not that he has three guys agree with the same accusation. They're witnesses, and the key word is witness. They have to witness the sin. So the answer is no? Witnesses are required to what? The sin or the accusation? It's the sin.

On a practical level, if there's one guy that observes something, he could alert the other guys in private and say, hey, I'm noticing this is a pattern with so-and-so. And they could be on the lookout for that, too. And then maybe they would be witnesses, if it's true. Correct. Yeah. You can, I mean, if somebody's saying, and I'd probably do that, just as a check for myself. Am I seeing this correctly? You know, Mike, JD, Miles, am I looking at this correctly, what I'm seeing? And then you look, and then, yeah, you're right. OK. The three of us, now we go and address the elder.

It's hard to catch it. Well, but this is when you do catch a thief, is somebody who's sinning. This is, again, pastoral. This is to make sure that the leadership of the body is not sinning, which is incredibly detrimental to the body. And so this is very important. You're saying, OK, if you're going to do this, two to three have to come before and say, this is a sin. And you have to witness it.

And Ingrid's right, it's that, you know, maybe one guy's seeing it, and then, man, am I really seeing this right? Come here. I mean, let me tell you about this, and you just kind of keep your eye out and see if it worked, if you agree. If not, tell me I'm wrong, which is what the principle is, is that if one guy says it, maybe he's seeing it all wrong.

Maybe it's completely out of context what you saw. You know, you saw the elder coming out of a bar. Oh my goodness, he's sinning. Maybe he had somebody who was there who was meeting counsel, but you saw him coming out of a bar. Oh my goodness, he came out of a bar. Maybe he's a drunk. Bill, did you see that or do you think that's true? Well, let me look at it. No, that's not right. And he corrected with the two or three witnesses. What if he had a drink? There are what ifs. I'm just bringing up that, yeah, and having one drink is not a problem. Drunk is a problem. So anyway, that's, oh, go ahead.

I was going to say, and that's where having two or three witnesses is a wise principle. You know, like you mentioned earlier, it's possible for two or three to collude together against a person, but, you know, that's the principle that God's laid down in the Old Testament law, and it's a similar principle here in how to manage affairs. I mean, it's a lot more likely for one person with an axe to grind to come up with a false accusation than for two or three or more And, you know, like you said, one person might see something and take offense to it or take it out of context or whatever and, and could run away with that. But when you have. multiple witnesses, maybe on multiple occasions or this kind of thing, then it becomes a solid case. And I think if they're brought to you, and you could have three collude with that accusations. I think the question, if it came in that position, I would say, did you see it? Tell me what you saw. Tell me exactly when and where and how, and what you saw, all three of you. Maybe independently, ask them.

It's kind of what you do in court cases, we do this. There are exclusionary hearings. I've been expert witnesses and things, and a lot of times they'll keep, you can't talk to anyone else in the trial. You know what they call it now? Opinion. Well, yeah, I mean, an opinion, but what you want to try and do is verify the veracity of the charge. And if you don't have three people talking to each other, and you do them individually, then you can find out if the story is straight or not.

What did you see? Well, I saw this. And then witness two comes up and goes, well, I saw him over here doing, that's not the same. And then the third guy comes up, and I saw him over there. doing this, that's not the same. And you can see if it's a colluded, like I said, it's kind of judicially what we do now even. So anyway, I just think, go ahead. As you can see in Jesus trial, they couldn't get the testimonies to match, right? It's exactly what they were doing and they couldn't, you know. So it is a valid, it's a very wise principle, of course. Oh, yeah. So again, this is about witnesses to the sin, not the accusation.

So one person can make up an accusation and call others into witness what he had to say. The minimum of two witnesses means that at least two people must be able to bear eyewitness testimony to the sin of which the overseer is accused. The thing is, nowadays, like a car crash, and there's 40 people all around that see it, everybody has a different view. Again, it's the discernment of the eyewitnesses.

And if there's different views, you have to really wonder about the accusation. So now the question is, now moving on a little bit, is this accusation made here true or untrue? What do you think? Well, that's what you don't know until you determine or get a few witnesses. So what do you think? Any other thoughts? So, the first condition is that there are two or three witnesses to the elder's actions. If there were multiple witnesses, then Paul gives the advice on what to do in verse 20. What's it say?

Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all. so that the rest will also be fearful of sinning." So, it appears that what he's saying is that the accusation is true. He's giving the case where there are two or three witnesses, and so it says, those who continue in sin. So he's saying that whoever does this, the accusations were true, And if they continue, rebuke in the presence of all. So it's a warning to those, you know, if it's true about the two to three witnesses, if it's true, those who continue should be rebuked. So it's really saying for those cases where it's true, you rebuke them. So it appears that Paul is giving the answer to, yes, there are three witnesses and it's true. And if they're continuing, you rebuke them.

Right, but that first person that confronts him, maybe he shouldn't. Three witnesses. Right. Three witnesses. But the first guy goes out. Yeah, it's talking about three witnesses, not one. So three witnesses. It appears that Paul is giving the answer to if the accusation is true. Then you do this. If they continue in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all. So, it's appearing that, okay, if this condition is true, that there are three witnesses, they corroborate, then what do you do? Those who continue, if the three witnesses haven't changed them, which, you know, kind of in the, when a brother confronts the brother, and he's changed, you've won the brother. If the three witnesses change them, and change the elder behavior, then you've won the elder.

But in this case, he's saying if they don't, they continue, then you rebuke them in the presence of all. So what is the nature of the accusation? Question five. So we look in verse 20. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. So what is an important condition given in this verse? What's the condition?

They continue? They continue. They've had three warnings, they've had three witnesses, and they're continuing. They're blowing off the fact that three witnesses have come before them and said you're sinning. And they're continuing to sin. So it's a true condition. They're sinning. So those who continue to sin.

The Greek for that word is in the present tense, active voice, meaning the elder is actively continuing in a sinful action. So three marriages and you're out. I'm trying to see how that equates, but I don't know. That's not a sinful thing if a wife dies and you're free. So it doesn't talk about removing an elder. No. It just talks about rebuking him publicly. Correct. So we'll get into that in question six.

What's it mean to rebuke an elder? So this is important because all of us sin and stand guilty on many and frequent occasions. While sin is sin, Paul must be referring to the type of sin that would create serious scandal among the believers. So this is something that an elder is doing that is going to really impact the body.

I mean, nobody's perfect. We all have sinful flesh. We're going to do things. This is one, and it's the continuing part. And that's why the Greek is important. It's a continuous thing. He keeps doing it and doing it and doing it and doing it. And the three witnesses have come up and said, hey, you're doing this. And he continues on. He doesn't take the counsel of the three witnesses that have come before the elders.

So this is a continuing situation. This isn't just everybody sins. So this isn't just, you know, I can't tell you whatever. Well, this is something that's impacting the body. And that's the critical issue here, is that it's an elder, and again, continuing in sin.

It wasn't like he did something stupid, and okay. This is that he is continuing in something that has been brought to his attention. So he's- This is an interesting one. There's an interesting one that actually ties together with the previous verses.

A church that we know of had a pastor hired for a number of years and they eventually found out he never prepared a single sermon. He had they were all they were all downloaded off the internet and just and just read out And nobody had a clue about it. So, you know, he was receiving pay Without working hard at preaching and teaching and so they they rebuked him and sent him on his way But anyhow, so he was not worthy of double honor. So he was not worthy of honor.

Yeah, I mean anyway, it You know, I mean, yeah, that is a detriment to the body. It was covering it up and when they confronted him on it. And I think that was just the end of it. But that's what you're supposed to do. And probably three witnesses or two witnesses say, hey, I've seen this guy. I've seen that sermon before. And then a couple, they tell Fred, isn't he doing this? And you both go, yeah, that's right. And you go to him and confront him and rebuke him.

So, you know, continuing on, those that sin refers to the elders in this context. So this is, remember, this is in context of the elders about sinning. Because of their public position, they should receive what? A public rebuke. So now we'll get into it. So in question 6, what does it mean to rebuke an elder?

We have time. Oh, it's 47. Maybe we'll continue on next week. I just realized what time it is. So we'll start with question 6 next week. What does it mean to rebuke an elder? And then we'll finish up, hopefully, the questions next week. So all right, let's close. We thank you. We thank you for this time. We thank you for this portion of scripture.

Just the wise counsel that you gave Timothy in setting up the assemblies that were in Ephesus and Asia Minor and just the way to keep in check the elders, that they were true to the word and, again, not continuing in sin, that you gave them a process to deal with this.

And we'll see about the rebuking and how you're actually supposed to treat that. But we thank you for the guidance given in scripture, both for leadership as well as the body. You've given us many things, even the scripture from Matthew about how to deal with even a brother in sin. And again, the pattern, you've created a pattern that is consistent from the Old Testament to the New Testament.

And we just thank you for the consistency of your word and how to deal with these issues. So Father, we just give you thanks again for this time to open up your word and to study it. And Father, we just pray for Roger to give us the message in the next meeting. Just prepare our hearts to receive it. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.