19<\/strong>. Against an elder<\/em> ] A continuation of Timothy’s official duties towards the presbyters, as is indicated by the context. The Mosaic precept here referred to is given in its most general terms, Deu 19:15<\/span>, ‘One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.’ So the preposition rendered by A.V. here ‘before’ is more exactly given R.V. at the mouth of<\/strong>, the phrase being given thus in full, Mat 18:16<\/span>. Winer’s note<\/em>, 47, 9th ed. ‘by, with, on the testimony of witnesses’ is more exact than the phrase in his text ‘before witnesses.’ The reason for being particular here is that in our idiom ‘to hear a thing only before witnesses’ implies merely sufficient publicity and evidence of its having been heard<\/em>, an entirely different thing from what the Greek conveys with the context<\/em>. The preposition by itself would equally well bear either meaning e.g. (1) in 2Co 7:14<\/span>, ‘our glorying which I made before<\/em> Titus;’ (2) in the common phrase ‘of a truth,’ Luk 4:25<\/span>, ‘of a truth,’ i.e. with, on the firm basis of truth, ‘I say unto you.’ Both meanings come from the proper notion of superposition<\/em>.<\/p>\n but before<\/em> ] Lit. to give an English colloquial pleonasm, ‘except unless.’ So with more stress than ‘but,’ except it be<\/strong>. The phrase occurs 1Co 15:2<\/span>, where R.V. alters ‘unless’ into ‘except.’ Cf. the old use of ‘but’ according to its derivation, ‘touch not a cat but<\/em> without a glove,’ and Spenser<\/p>\n ‘But this I read that but<\/em> its remedy<\/p>\n Thou her afford, full shortly I her dead shall see.’<\/p>\n This direction is to be regarded as embodying the sense<\/em> of what St Paul wished to convey under the form of another quotation from O.T., so that we should paraphrase, ‘except it be,’ in the spirit of the old precept, ‘at the mouth of two or three witnesses,’ and so Drs Westcott and Hort print the words. This is the simplest answer to De Wette’s question whether Timothy is not to observe this judicial rule in all cases as well as merely in the case of an elder. There is no question<\/em> of the precise observance of this or any other purely ceremonial precepts any longer. The spirit however lives; ‘judge, rebuke, but never on ill-supported accusations.’<\/p>\n Against an elder – <\/B>The word elder here seems to be used in the sense in which it is in the previous verse as relating to office, and not in the sense of an aged man, as in 1Ti 5:1<\/span>. The connection demands this interpretation.<\/P> Receive not an accusation – <\/B>He was not to regard such a charge as well founded unless sustained by two or three witnesses. It is clear from this, that Paul supposed that Timothy would be called on to hear charges against others who were in the ministerial office, and to express his judgment on such cases. There is no reason, however, to suppose that he meant that he should hear them alone, or as a bishop, for this direction does not make the supposition improper that others would be associated with him. It is just such counsel as would now be given to a Presbyterian or congregational minister, or such as would be given to an associate justice in a court, on the supposition that a brother judge was at any time to be tried by him and his colleagues.<\/P> But before two or three witnesses – <\/B>Margin, under. The meaning is, unless supported by the testimony of two or three persons. He was not to regard an accusation against a presbyter as proved, if there was but one witness in the case, however positive he might be in his testimony. The reasons for this direction were probably such as these:<\/P> (1) This was the requirement of the Jewish law in all cases, which had thus settled a principle which the apostle seems to have regarded as important, if not obligatory, under the Christian dispensation; see Deu 17:6<\/span>; Deu 19:15<\/span>; compare notes on Joh 8:17<\/span>; 2Co 13:1<\/span>.<\/P> (2) There would be much greater reason to apprehend that one person might be deceived in the matter on which he bore witness, or might do it from malignant motives, or might be bribed to give false testimony, than that two or three would give such testimony; and the arrangement, therefore, furnished important security for the innocent.<\/P> (3) There might be reason to apprehend that evil-minded persons might be disposed to bring charges against the ministers of the gospel or other officers of the church, and it was important, therefore, that their rights should be guarded with anxious care. The ministers of religion often give offence to wicked people by their rebukes of sin (compare Mar 6:17-20<\/span>); wicked people would rejoice to see an accusation against them sustained; the cause of religion would be liable to suffer much when its ministers were condemned as guilty of gross offences, and it is right, therefore, that the evidence in the case should be as free as possible from all suspicion that it is caused by malignity, by hatred of religion, or by conspiracy, or by a desire to see religion disgraced.<\/P> (4) The character of a minister of the gospel is of value, not only to himself and family, as is the case with that of other people, but is of special value to the church, and to the cause of religion. It is the property of the church. The interests of religion depend much on it, and it should not be wantonly assailed; and every precaution should be adopted that Christianity should not be deprived of the advantage which may be derived in its favor from the piety, experience, and talents of its public defenders. At the same time, however, the wicked, though in the ministry, should not be screened from the punishment which they deserve. The apostle gave no injunction to attempt to cover up their faults, or to save them from a fair trial. He only demanded such security as the nature of the case required, that the trial should be fair. If a minister of the gospel has been proved to be guilty of crime, the honor of religion, as well as simple justice, requires that he shall be punished as he deserves. He sins against great light; he prostitutes a holy office, and makes use of the very reputation which his office gives him, that he may betray the confidence of others; and such a man should not escape. There should be no benefit of clergy, and neither a black coat, nor bands, nor the lawn should save a villain.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 19. Against an elder<\/B><\/I>] Be very cautious of receiving evil reports against those whose business it is to preach to others, and correct their vices. Do not consider an elder as guilty of any alleged crime, unless it be proved<\/I> by two<\/I> or three<\/I> witnesses. This the law of Moses required in respect to all. Among the Romans, a plebeian<\/I> might be condemned on the deposition of one<\/I> credible witness; but it required two<\/I> to convict a senator<\/I>. The reason of this difference is evident: those whose business it is to correct others will usually have many enemies; great caution, therefore, should be used in admitting accusations against such persons.<\/P> <\/p>\n Against an elder; <\/B>whether an elder in years or in office, though the latter being the persons formerly spoken of, seen here principally intended. <\/P> Recieve not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses; <\/B>that is, not to proceed to any judicial inquiry upon it, Deu 17:6<\/span>. This was a law concerning all elders or younger persons, especially in capital causes, but the apostle willeth this to be more specially observed as to officers in the church, whose faithful discharge of their trusts usually more exposeth them to peoples querulous tongues. <\/P> <\/p>\n 19. Against an elder<\/B>apresbyter of the Church. <\/P> receive not<\/B>“entertainnot” [ALFORD]. <\/P> but before two or threewitnesses<\/B>A judicial conviction<\/I> was not permitted inDeu 17:6<\/span>; Deu 19:15<\/span>,except on the testimony of at least two or three witnesses (compareMat 18:16<\/span>; Joh 8:17<\/span>;2Co 13:1<\/span>; 1Jn 5:6<\/span>;1Jn 5:7<\/span>). But Timothy’sentertaining an accusation<\/I> against anyone is a different case,where the object was not judicially to punish, but to admonish: herehe might ordinarily<\/I> entertain it without the need of two orthree witnesses;<\/I> but not in the case of an elder, since the moreearnest an elder was to convince gainsayers<\/I> (Tit1:9<\/span>), the more exposed would he be to vexatious and falseaccusations. How important then was it that Timothy should not,without strong testimony, entertain a charge against presbyters, whoshould, in order to be efficient, be “blameless” (1Ti 3:2<\/span>;Tit 1:6<\/span>). 1Ti 5:21<\/span>;1Ti 5:24<\/span> imply that Timothy hadthe power of judging in the Church. Doubtless he would not condemn<\/I>any save on the testimony of two or three witnesses, but in ordinarycases he would cite them, as the law of Moses also allowed, thoughthere were only one witness. But in the case of elders, he wouldrequire two or three witnesses before even citing them; for theircharacter for innocence stands higher, and they are exposed to envyand calumny more than others “Receive” does not, as ALFORDthinks, include both citation and conviction, but means only theformer.<\/P><\/p>\n Against an elder receive not an accusation<\/strong>,…. A charge of any crime:<\/p>\n but before two or three witnesses<\/strong>; good sufficient ones, who are capable of well attesting the fact: a charge against a pastor of a church is not to be easily received; it should not be listened to privately, unless it clearly appears by such a number of witnesses; nor should it be brought publicly before the church, until it is privately and previously proved, by a sufficient number of credible witnesses, that it is really fact. The sense is, not that judgment shall not pass against him but by such a number of witnesses, or that the evidence upon his trial shall consist of such a number; for this is no other than what ought to be in the case of a private member, and of every man, according to De 19:15<\/span>. But the sense is, that the affair of an elder shall not be put upon a trial, much less sentence pass, until it has been privately proved against him, by proper testimonies, beyond all exception; only in such a case, should a church admit a charge against its elder. The reason of this rule is, because of his high office and the honour of the church, which is concerned in his, as well as of religion; for it carries in it some degree of scandal for such a person to be charged, even though he may be cleared; as also because of his many enemies, who through envy, malice, and the instigation of Satan, would be continually pestering the church with charges, could they be easily admitted.<\/p>\n Against an elder <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). In the official sense of verses 17f<\/span>.<\/P> Receive not <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Present middle imperative with <\/SPAN><\/span> (prohibition) of <\/SPAN><\/span>, to receive, to entertain. Old verb. See Ac 22:18<\/span>.<\/P> Accusation <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Old word (from <\/SPAN><\/span>). In N.T. only here, Titus 1:6<\/span>; John 18:29<\/span> in critical text.<\/P> Except <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). For this double construction see 1Cor 14:5<\/span>; 1Cor 15:2<\/span>.<\/P> At the mouth of <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Idiomatic use of <\/SPAN><\/span> (upon the basis of) as in 2Co 13:1<\/span>. <\/P> <\/p>\n Receive not an accusation [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Neither word in Paul. For accusation see on. Joh 5:45<\/span>. It means a formal accusation before a tribunal. The compound verb para emphasises the giver or transmitter of the thing received : to receive from another. But [ ] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Except. A pleonastic formula, except in case. The formula in 1Co 14:5<\/span>; 1Co 14:9<\/span>. <\/P> Before [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Or on the authority of. On condition that two witnesses testify. The O. T. law on this point in Deu 19:15<\/span>. Comp. Mt 18:16<\/span>; Joh 8:17<\/span>; 9<\/span> 1Co 13:1<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “Against an elder receive not an accusation”<\/strong> (kata presbuterou kategorian me paradechou) “Against an elder, a mature ordained brother in the church, do not accept, receive, or field an accusation or derogatory report,” do not become party to “puffing up” a scandal on the basis of rumors, whisperings, reports of talebearers, Pro 16:28<\/span>; Rom 1:29<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “But before two or three witnesses.”<\/strong> (ektos ei me epi duo e trion maturon) “Except or unless it is on the word of two or three witnesses;” the type of testamentary evidence from reputable witnesses, required under law and sanctioned by Jesus Christ. Without such a reputation the influence of the Church and the reputation of her ordained brethren, all elders in the church, could be terribly scandalized, Deu 19:5<\/span>; Joh 8:14-18<\/span>; Heb 10:28<\/span>;<\/p>\n While every pastor is a bishop, as such a general overseer of a congregation, it appears that administrative church government was directed by all elders of the church – the ordained; Heb 13:7<\/span>; Heb 13:17<\/span>; Heb 13:24<\/span>.<\/p>\n 19 Against an elder receive not an accusation After having commanded that salaries should be paid to pastors, he likewise instructs Timothy not to allow them to be assailed by calumnies, or loaded with any accusation but what is supported by sufficient proof. But it may be thought strange, that he represents, as peculiar to elders, a law which is common to all. God lays down, authoritatively, this law as applicable to all cases, that they shall be decided “by the mouth of two or three witnesses.” (Deu 17:6<\/span>; Mat 18:16<\/span>.) Why then does the Apostle protect elders alone by this privilege, as if it were peculiar to them, that their innocence shall be defended against false accusations? <\/p>\n I reply, this is a necessary remedy against the malice of men; for none are more liable to slanders and calumnies than godly teachers. (103) Not only does it arise from the difficulty of their office, that sometimes they either sink under it, or stagger, or halt, or blunder, in consequence of which wicked men seize many occasions for finding fault with them; but there is this additional vexation, that, although they perform their duty correctly, so as not to commit any error whatever, they never escape a thousand censures. And this is the craftiness of Satan, to draw away the hearts of men from ministers, that instruction may gradually fall into contempt. Thus not only is wrong done to innocent persons, in having their reputation unjustly wounded, (which is exceedingly base in regard to those who hold so honorable a rank,) but the authority of the sacred doctrine of God is diminished. <\/p>\n And this is what Satan, as I have said, chiefly labors to accomplish; for not only is the saying of Plato true in this instance, that “the multitude are malicious, and envy those who are above them,” but the more earnestly any pastor strives to advance the kingdom of Christ, so much the more is he loaded with envy, and so much the fiercer are the assaults made on him. Not only so, but as soon as any charge against the ministers of the word has gone abroad, it is believed as fully as if they were already convicted. This is not merely owing to the higher degree of moral excellence which is demanded from them, but because almost all are tempted by Satan to excessive credulity, so that, without making any inquiry, they eagerly condemn their pastors, whose good name they ought rather to have defended. <\/p>\n On good grounds, therefore, Paul opposes so heinous iniquity, and forbids that elders shall be subjected to the slanders of wicked men till they have been convicted by sufficient proof. We need not wonder, therefore, if they whose duty it is to reprove the faults of all, to oppose the wicked desires of all, and to restrain by their severity every person whom they see going astray, have many enemies. What, then, will be the consequence; if we shall listen indiscriminately to all the slanders that are spread abroad concerning them? <\/p>\n (103) “ Que les docteurs ou pasteurs fideles.” — “Than faithful teachers or pastors.” <\/p>\n (19) Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.<\/strong>By the elder here we must understand a presbyterthe ordained minister of the Church. St. Paul has been directing his son in the faith, and successor in the government of the chief Asian Church, carefully to watch for, and to reward by dignity and honour, the services of the more zealous and distinguished presbyters. He now tells him that the other matters, besides zeal and successful service among the Churchs professed officers, will come before him when he stands at the helm of the Church. Chargesowing, possibly, to jealousy, party feeling, suspected doctrinal errorwill not unfrequently be brought against a presbyter. Such an accusation is only to be received by Timothy when the evidence is perfectly clear. Every possible precaution against simply vexatious charges brought against one occupying the hard and difficult position of a presbyter, must be taken by the presiding minister. The reference is to Deu. 17:6<\/span>.<\/p>\n 19<\/strong>. <\/strong> Trial of elders. <\/p>\n Two or three witnesses<\/strong> Moses (Deu 19:15<\/span>) required that number of witnesses to condemn a man; St. Paul requires that number to even put an elder on trial. The character of the man demanded a double amount of presumption against him.<\/p>\n ‘Do not receive an accusation against an elder, except at the mouth of two or three witnesses.’<\/p>\n Paul is aware how vulnerable these elders will be to accusations and charges made by different disgruntled members of the church he has good reason to be aware that even Christians can become disgruntled), and so he points out that accusations made by just one person against elders, which cannot be substantiated by at least one other independent person, should not be accepted. The elders are to have the same protection as would be available in a Jewish court of law (Deu 9:15<\/span>). It may be that the protection applies to all older men, for they would all have responsibilities over their wider families and might similarly be open to abuse.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:19<\/span> . The apostle now defines the proper conduct on Timothy’s part towards the presbyters who do not superintend the church , but expose themselves to blame, thereby doing hurt to their official influence.<\/p>\n ] Chrysostom wrongly remarks on : , . Timothy is not to receive an accusation ( , Luk 6:7<\/span> ; Joh 18:29<\/span> ) in order to decide regarding it, . On the pleonasm, , see Lobeck, ad Phryn.<\/em> p. 459; comp. 1Co 14:5 ; 1Co 15:2<\/span> . Paul is here referring manifestly to the Mosaic law, Deu 19:15<\/span> (LXX.: ); comp. Deu 17:6<\/span> ( ). It is a question whether he does so in the sense corresponding with the law of ordaining that Timothy is only to receive an accusation against a presbyter when supported by the testimony of two or three witnesses (so de Wette, [189] Wiesinger, van Oosterzee, and in general most expositors); or whether here, as in Mat 18:16<\/span> , there is only a somewhat general reference to the law, and it is merely said that Timothy is to receive the accusation only when brought before him in presence of two or three witnesses [190] (so Hofmann; comp., too, Winer, p. 351 [E. T. p. 469]; Buttmann, p. 289; occurs also in the classics in the sense of “before witnesses”). As he is not speaking here of a decision, but only of the reception<\/em> of an accusation (in order that a decision may be made), and as the construction also is irregular, the second view may be adopted as the more probable one (different in the third edition of this commentary). Reference to the law is made in the N. T. also at Mat 18:16<\/span> ; 2Co 13:1<\/span> , and Heb 10:28<\/span> ; comp., too, Joh 8:17<\/span> .<\/p>\n [189] De Wette’s question, whether Timothy was not to observe this precept of justice in the case of accusations against others, is not to the point. Timothy was not appointed judge over all matters of private dispute.<\/p>\n [190] The suitability of such a precept is manifest when we consider the position which Timothy had to take up towards the presbyters; comp. on this Hofmann.<\/p>\n 19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 19. Receive not an accusation<\/strong> ] If to be accused were sufficient to make a man guilty, no good minister should be innocent. Praedicare nihil aliud est quam derivare in se furorem totius mundi, <\/em> saith Luther. Truth hath always a scratched face. Men hate him that reproveth in the gate. Every fool hath a bolt to shoot at a faithful preacher. <\/p>\n 19<\/strong> .] See the summary above. Against a presbyter<\/strong> (Chrys., Thl., are certainly wrong in supposing that age, not office is again here indicated: the whole passage is of presbyters by office cf. 1Ti 5:22 below) entertain not an accusation, except<\/strong> (reff. pleonastic expressions such as , or , are found in later writers, such as Plutarch, Dio Cassius, &c.: we have in Demosth. 141. 21, 719. 1: Aristot. de Anim. i. 5. 9, al. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 459) before<\/strong> (lit. in presence of<\/em> ; and perhaps we ought to press the meaning: but from the occurrence of . . . . in ref. Deut., it is more likely figurative, ‘in the presence of,’ signifying merely ‘ vorhandenseyn<\/em> ,’ their presence in the case) two or three witnesses<\/strong> (De W. asks, but were not these required in every case, not only in that of a presbyter? Three answers are given: one by Chrys. ( , , ), Thdrt. ( , . ), and so Calvin at more length: the other by Huther, that Timotheus was not constituted judge in private men’s matters, only over the officers of the church in faults with which they might be charged as regarded the execution of their duty: a third by Bengel, ‘privatus poterat, lege Mosis, citari uno teste, non condemnari: presbyterum ne citari quidem Paulus jubet, &c.’ But this is manifestly a distinction without point the being used not of mere citation, but of entertaining the charge as a valid one: in other words, as including citation and conviction as well. So nearly Grotius, but bringing out a different distinction, which is manifestly here not in question ‘poterat ad unius testis dictum vir plebeius capi aut contra eum inquisitio incipi: non ita autem contra Senatorem, cui quiparatur Presbyter.’ The first reason seems the more probable: that he is only recalling the attention of Timotheus to a known and prescribed precaution, which was in this case especially to be always observed. Somewhat otherwise Ellicott: see his note).<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:19<\/span> . The mention of , and of what was due to them, naturally suggests by contrast the consideration of unsatisfactory presbyters. Yet even these were to be protected against the possibility of arbitrary dismissal. They were to have a fair trial in accordance with the provisions of the Old Law, Deu 19:15<\/span> (see also Deu 17:6<\/span> , Num 35:30<\/span> . This requirement of two or three witnesses is used allegorically in 2Co 13:1<\/span> . Cf.<\/em> Joh 8:17<\/span> , Heb 10:28<\/span> .) It has been asked, Why should this, the ordinary rule, be mentioned at all? The solution is to be found in a consideration of the private, unofficial, character of the Christian Church when this epistle was written. The Church was altogether a voluntary society, unrecognised by the state. The crimes of which its governors could take cognisance were spiritual; or if they were such as were punishable by the ordinary state law, the Church was concerned only with the spiritual and moral aspect of them, that is to say, so far as they affected Church life. There were then no spiritual courts, in the later sense of the term. No Church officer could enforce any but spiritual punishments. In these circumstances, the observance of legal regulations would not be a matter of necessity. Indeed a superintendent who was jealous for the purity of the Church might feel himself justified in acting even on suspicion, when the question arose as to the dismissal of a presbyter.<\/p>\n : This phrase arises from a blend of and . Examples of its use are cited from Lucian. Alford notes that similar “pleonastic expressions such as or , are found in later writers such as Plutarch, Dio Cassius, etc.”. Deissmann cites an instructive example for its use in the Cilician Paul from an inscription of Mopsuestia in Cilicia of the Imperial period ( Bible Studies<\/em> , trans. p. 118). See reff.<\/p>\n : This seems an abbreviation for . So R.V. Cf.<\/em> 2Co 13:1<\/span> , Hebr. . It is a different use from in the sense of before<\/em> (a judge), Mar 13:9<\/span> , Act 25:9-10<\/span> . See Blass, Gram<\/em> . p. 137.<\/p>\n Against. App-104. <\/p>\n receive. Greek. paradechomai. See Act 16:21. <\/p>\n accusation. Greek. kategoria. Here; Luk 6:7. Joh 18:29, Tit 1:6, <\/p>\n but. See 1Co 14:5 (except). <\/p>\n before. App-104. <\/p>\n two, &c. Compare Deu 19:15, Mat 18:16. 2Co 13:1, <\/p>\n 19.] See the summary above. Against a presbyter (Chrys., Thl., are certainly wrong in supposing that age, not office is again here indicated: the whole passage is of presbyters by office-cf. 1Ti 5:22 below) entertain not an accusation, except (reff. pleonastic expressions such as , or , are found in later writers, such as Plutarch, Dio Cassius, &c.: we have in Demosth. 141. 21, 719. 1: Aristot. de Anim. i. 5. 9, al. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 459) before (lit. in presence of; and perhaps we ought to press the meaning: but from the occurrence of . … in ref. Deut., it is more likely figurative, in the presence of, signifying merely vorhandenseyn, their presence in the case) two or three witnesses (De W. asks,-but were not these required in every case, not only in that of a presbyter? Three answers are given: one by Chrys. ( , , ), Thdrt. ( , . ), and so Calvin at more length: the other by Huther, that Timotheus was not constituted judge in private mens matters, only over the officers of the church in faults with which they might be charged as regarded the execution of their duty: a third by Bengel,-privatus poterat, lege Mosis, citari uno teste, non condemnari: presbyterum ne citari quidem Paulus jubet, &c. But this is manifestly a distinction without point-the being used not of mere citation, but of entertaining the charge as a valid one: in other words, as including citation and conviction as well. So nearly Grotius, but bringing out a different distinction, which is manifestly here not in question-poterat ad unius testis dictum vir plebeius capi aut contra eum inquisitio incipi: non ita autem contra Senatorem, cui quiparatur Presbyter. The first reason seems the more probable: that he is only recalling the attention of Timotheus to a known and prescribed precaution, which was in this case especially to be always observed. Somewhat otherwise Ellicott: see his note).<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:19. , an elder) 1Ti 5:17.-, accusation) According to the law of Moses, a private person might be summoned, but not condemned, when there was only one witness: Paul directs that an elder should not even be summoned; for both his character as an innocent person stands higher, and he is more exposed to envy and calumny.- , do not receive) Timothy had therefore the power of judging in the Church, 1Ti 5:21; 1Ti 5:24.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:19<\/p>\n Against an elder receive not an accusation, except at the mouth of two or three witnesses.-No accusation of wrong or ill-doing is to be entertained against an elder, save before two or three witnesses. It seems that Timothy as the inspired representative of the apostles was forbidden to entertain an accusation, which indicates that accusations against elders would come before him. Under the idea that young men as evangelists are the successors in the office of Timothy and Titus, the idea prevails to some extent that any youth doing the work of an evangelist may try and dispose of elders, and lord it over the heritage of God. Timothy and Titus as inspired men were the representatives of the apostles of God until the canon of revelation was perfected. None occupy such position before God or such relations to the church now as did these men. The fellow elders as the rulers of the church might bear such accusations regulated by the scriptural teachings on the subject or wise and prudent men might be chosen to make such investigations as are needed and might act for the church. The elders are not to do all the work, but to see that it is done by those who are competent to do it.<\/p>\n receive: Joh 18:29, Act 24:2-13, Act 25:16, Tit 1:6 <\/p>\n before: or, under <\/p>\n two: Deu 17:6, Deu 19:15, Deu 19:18, Deu 19:19, Mat 18:16, Joh 8:17, 2Co 13:1, Heb 10:28 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Gen 9:23 – General Num 35:30 – General Deu 13:14 – General 1Ti 5:1 – Rebuke 1Pe 5:1 – elders<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:19. The eldership is very important, and because of its public character of rulership, bringing it into contact with all classes of persons, it is exposed to the suspicions and little jealousies of those who might desire to injure the good name of the men in office. On the other hand, these officials are human and might fall a victim to their own unrighteous ambitions. (See Act 20:30.) As a safeguard, then, both to the eldership and the congregation, Paul directs that at least two witnesses be available before the evangelist may receive (which means to consider) an accusation against an elder. The word before is from the Greek word EPI, which occurs several hundred times in the New Testament, and Thayer uses five pages of his lexicon in defining the word. Among its many renderings in the King James Version, I shall list some as follows: Before 14 times, in 51, on 71, upon 158. It is clear that whether we render the word by “before” or by “upon,” the thought is that unless there are at least two witnesses to support an accusation against an elder, the evangelist must not act in the matter.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:19. Against an elder. Here the context is obviously in favour of the official sense. The rule of two or three witnesses, which in Deu 19:15 is given as applicable to all judicial testimony, is here specialized as applying fortiori to a case where there was a presumption in favour of the accused.<\/p>\n Here our apostle directs Timothy how to proceed in church censures against open offenders: which plainly shows, that there was a right of judging and censuring offenders in Timothy, by virtue of his office. <\/p>\n First then he begins to acquaint him with his duty in censuring an elder, and advises him never to admit an accusation against such, without the attestation of two or three witnesses: because,<\/p>\n 1. It is the interest of the church of Christ, that the reputation of its ministers be supported.<\/p>\n 2. Because prejudiced persons will be ready to accuse without reason.<\/p>\n Conscientious ministers shall never want accusers, if false accusers can but find judges that are willing to believe them: therefore against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses:<\/p>\n Next he advises him, when there is a just and sufficient cause for censuring an elder, to do it publicly. Then that sin, that is, such elders as sin, and are convicted of it, and so become scandalous by it, rebuke before all the church, before all the clergy as in a synod, putting them to public shame, that others may fear to sin, seeing thee to punish so publicly and impartially.<\/p>\n Lastly, he concludes his advice with a very solemn charge to Timothy, before God and Christ and the glorious angels, to observe these rules of justice in ecclesiastical judicature, without preferring one man before another, doing nothing by a partial respect of persons.<\/p>\n Learn hence, That so heinous is the sin of unjust and unrighteous judging, especially in ecclesiastical persons, and of such fatal mischief to the church, that all imaginable care and caution ought to be taken to prevent both the sin and the danger of it. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, that thou observe these things.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:19-20. Against an elder Or presbyter; do not even receive an accusation Unless it is offered to be proved by two or three credible witnesses By the Mosaic law a private person might be cited (though not condemned) on the testimony of one witness. But St. Paul forbids an elder to be even cited on such evidence, his reputation being of more importance than that of others. Them that sin Namely, openly and scandalously, and are duly convicted; rebuke before all the church, that others also may fear To commit the like offences.<\/p>\n 1Ti 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.<\/p>\n This is really an application of Mat 18:15 ff and the principle that the person in sin is to be confronted individually first then by taking two or three with you.<\/p>\n Paul is simply stating that the elder has the same right in this aspect as any other believer.<\/p>\n If an elder is accused of something then there had better be two eye witnesses to it that are reliable.<\/p>\n OTHERWISE DON’T ACCEPT IT! (Some other refs for your future study: Deu 17:6; Deu 19:15; Joh 8:17; 2Co 13:1; Heb 10:28.)<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 5:19 {15} Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.<\/p>\n (15) The second rule: allow no accusation to be considered against an elder, unless there are two or three witnesses.<\/p>\n Criticism of leaders is a favorite spectator sport. Paul directed that his readers should not entertain accusations against elders unless two or three witnesses agreed to give evidence of wrongdoing (cf. Deu 19:15; Mat 18:16; Joh 8:17; 2Co 13:1). Following a private rebuke Timothy should publicly rebuke a persistently erring elder. This procedure would also discourage others from sinning. The sin in view is difficult to ascertain. The present tense implies continued sin, but the general word for sin (Gr. tous hamartanontas<\/span>) leaves the offense unspecified. Perhaps the sin involved violating one of the elder qualifications including the general qualification of blamelessness. [Note: David A. Mappes, "The Discipline of a Sinning Elder," Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September 1997):340.] <\/span><\/p>\n Who are the "all" and the "rest," the elders or the entire church?<\/p>\n ". . . since the level at which the sin of the elder is being dealt with is that of two or three witnesses, the analogy with Mat 18:15-18, particularly 1Ti 5:17, ’tell it to the church,’ would point to ’all the church’ as more likely . . ." [Note: Knight, The Pastoral . . ., p. 236.] <\/span><\/p>\n In our day the church leaders would be those responsible to carry out what Paul commanded Timothy to do. It seems reasonable to assume, on the basis of Matthew 18, that if they could deal with the problem adequately without involving the whole congregation, they would do so.<\/p>\n "’Where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ may be a good slogan for a volunteer fire department, but it does not apply to local churches. ’Where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ could possibly mean that somebody’s tongue has been ’set on fire of hell’! (Jas 3:6)." [Note: Wiersbe, 2:232.] <\/span><\/p>\n Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 19. Against an elder ] A continuation of Timothy’s official duties towards the presbyters, as is indicated by the context. The Mosaic precept here referred to is given in its most general terms, Deu 19:15, ‘One witness shall not rise up against … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Timothy 5:19”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-29710","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29710","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29710"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29710\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29710"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29710"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29710"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"