Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadEzekiel, Jonah, and Pastoral Epistles by Patrick Fairbairn - 1 Timothy 5:17 - 5:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Ver. 17. Let the elders who govern (or preside) well, be counted worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in word and teaching. That elders alone are mentioned in connection with the government or presidency of the churches, is again a clear proof that they were the only spiritual overseers known to the apostle. But whether the passage is available to prove that there was in the apostle’s days a formal distinction among those who bore the common name of presbyter—as that some were set apart to the work of both teaching and ruling, and others to that simply of ruling—is certainly not expressly said, and has often been disputed, as well by Presbyterian and Independent writers as by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians. Vitringa has discussed the matter at considerable length in his work on the Synagogue (L. ii. c. 3); and though on other grounds favourable to the existence of a body of ruling elders in congregations, and deeming them capable of doing much good service, he yet holds this passage to be incapable of rendering support to such a view, and especially on three grounds:—1. That the term presbyters is everywhere used by Paul and by the other sacred writers in reference to the stated, ordinary, and perpetual pastors of the church. 2. That the qualifying epithet also, ðñïåóôῶôåò , is always applied to the same class of officers, and to these only. 3. That the ôéìç ́ required to be given them has respect, if not exclusively, yet mainly, to the support due to them on account of their official ministrations,—a support proper only to those who were known to be engaged in the discharge of clerical functions. These are substantially the grounds on which the same view is maintained still, with the additional consideration of a historical kind frequently introduced, that ecclesiastical antiquity is silent respecting a class of presbyters whose duty was to rule merely, as contradistinguished from both ruling and teaching. Here we have to look at it simply in an exegetical point of view; and in this respect, the closing portion of the note of Ellicott gives, so far, what must be regarded as the fair and natural import of the apostle’s language: “The concluding words, ἐí ëüãῳ êáὶ äéäáóêáëßᾳ , certainly seem to imply two kinds of ruling presbyters—those who preached and taught, and those who did not; and though it has been plausibly urged that the differentia lies in êïðéῶíôåò , and that the apostle does not so much distinguish between the functions as the execution of them (see especially Thorndike, Prim. Gov. ix. 7), it yet seems more natural to suppose the existence, in the large community at Ephesus, of a clerical college of governing elders, some of whom might have the ÷á ́ ñéóìá of teaching more eminently than others.” But it must in fairness be added, that this teaching qualification appears here rather as a separable adjunct than an essential attribute of the presbyteral function,—a gift which, in so far as possessed and faithfully exercised, would materially contribute to the efficiency of the office, and entitle him who so held it to special honour, yet not so as to disqualify those who wanted it from discharging, and even discharging with credit, its primary duties. Seeing it was a spiritual community which was here under consideration, a certain didactic power must be understood to have belonged to every one who could rightly take part in the government of its members; for it belonged to his office that he should at least be able to discern between carnal and spiritual in the characters of men, be capable of testing their knowledge in divine things, and by private fellowship and friendly admonition, if not otherwise, subserve the interests of truth and righteousness among them. So much must be supposed inseparable from the office of presbyter, as held by every qualified person; but the gift of teaching in the more distinctive sense, or, in modern phrase, of preaching the gospel with intelligence to the edification of others, is not represented as indispensable. A man might as a presbyter govern, and even govern well, without it. And, indeed, as Lightfoot remarks (Com. on Philip. p. 192), having respect to the actual state of things in most of the early churches, “government was probably the first conception of the office,”—hence also in this passage governing is the distinctive epithet coupled with presbyter; yet he justly adds, “that the work of teaching must have fallen to the presbyters from the very first, and have assumed greater prominence as time went on.” This was a species of development which, in the natural course of thirds, could not but take place, as the visits became rare of the first heralds of the gospel, as the more special charismata of the Spirit also began to be withdrawn, and the churches themselves grew in their membership, and naturally called for greater fulness and variety in public min5trations of word and ordinance. The teaching function would naturally, in such circumstances, come more and more into requisition; and the presbyters who more peculiarly possessed it would also, as a matter of course, rise into greater prominence, and in process of time come to be regarded as alone properly entitled to the name of presbyter. Yet the process was very slow and gradual, as in the Ignatian epistles, with all the extravagance that otherwise characterizes them, the president of the presbyterate (bishop, as he is there termed) appears to have taken upon himself nearly all the more distinctive parts of public worship; and so late even as Cyprian’s time, presbyters and presbyter-teachers were still spoken of as sometimes distinct—indicating, apparently, that persons might possess the one function without also possessing the other (Ep. 23, Oxford Ed. 29).
On the whole, therefore, we seem warranted to draw from the passage the following conclusions: That while it furnishes no ground for maintaining that any formal distinctions were made between one member and another of the presbyteral body as to ruling and teaching, the function of government was originally the more prominent element in their collective calling; that the discharge of this function, from its very nature, involved a certain capacity for conveying spiritual instruction, though it might often be only in a private and conversational manner; that, however, the gift of ministering publicly in the exhibition of gospel truth became gradually more important for the interests of religion, and necessarily distinguished, according to the degree in which it was possessed and exercised, one presbyter from another; so that the respect and honour due to all for their office sake, more especially gathered around those who, besides being faithful in governing, also proved successful in instructing and edifying the members of the flock.
As to the mode of expression to be given to this higher estimate of that class of elders, indicated here by double honour, äéðëῆò ôéìῆò , there can be no doubt, from that follows in the next verse, that it includes pecuniary remuneration; but “that ôéìç ́ here designates only such remuneration, or precisely a definite salary, is what cannot be made out, either from the expression or from the connection. Ôéìç ́ is consideration, honour, here certainly used with a particular respect to remuneration as he special mode of expressing it” (Huther). Consequently the epithet double is not to be taken in the strict sense, as if the presbyters in question were to have awarded to them exactly twice as much as the others, or, as some would take it, twice as much as the widows mentioned in 1Ti_5:16; for this would imply that the term honour must be limited to the definite sense of pay or salary, which it does not properly bear. Hence, also, the supposed allusion (by Hammond, for example) to the double portion of the firstborn, indicating that “the bishop who dischargeth his duty or prefecture well, should be looked upon in all respects as one that hath the primogeniture of maintenance as well as dignity,” falls of itself to the ground. Double is but a specific mode, common in all languages, of expressing much or greater in comparison with something else (hence Theodoret explains by ðëåé ́ ïíïò ); and this emphatic attribution of honour, expressing itself in substantial gifts and marks of respect, was to be given to those who devoted themselves most to the ministry of the word,—in proof, as Milton puts it, that “laborious teaching is the most honourable prelaty that one minister can have above another in the gospel.”