Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadEzekiel, Jonah, and Pastoral Epistles by Patrick Fairbairn - 1 Timothy 5:20 - 5:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Ver. 19. Against an elder (that is, manifestly, one in the presbyteral office) receive not an accusation, except it be ( ἐêôὸò åἰ ìὴ , a double negative to strengthen the proviso) upon two or three witnesses,—namely, upon their united testimony as the ground of formal proceedings. According to the ancient Jewish law (Deu_17:6, Deu_19:5), the testimony of two was required to substantiate a charge against any one, whatever might be his position in society; and various reasons have been suggested why only in the case of a presbyter adherence to the common rule should have been pressed. It will certainly not do to say, with Bengel, that the apostle is here speaking only of receiving an accusation, not of accrediting the charge; for he obviously means receiving it in the sense of making account of it. But the special mission of Timothy must be borne in mind. He had to make inquiries into matters which must often have been of a delicate and somewhat indefinite kind. Occasionally he might be tempted to go upon information which was partial and defective; and he should therefore be the more careful to insist upon sufficient evidence, especially when one in the position of an elder was concerned; otherwise he might entangle the church in worse evils than those he sought to remedy. But this, of course, implied that in all ordinary circumstances the same method should be generally followed; and attention was specially called to the case of presbyters only because a certain deference was due to their position, and the consequences would naturally be of a graver kind should any false step be taken. The sense of ἐðὶ adopted by Winer (§ 48, 8, c), also preferred by Huther, coram, in the presence of,—as if the meaning were, that Timothy should only decide on an accusation against an elder when he had two or three others beside him,—is grammatically unnecessary (see Ellicott; also Jelf, Gr. § 584), and would give an unnatural turn to the instruction conveyed respecting the cases in question.
Ver. 20. Those that sin rebuke before all, in order that the rest also may have fear. The participle being employed to designate the offending parties, ôïὺò ἁìáñôÜíïíôáò , implies more than an occasional act of transgression; it denotes persons who are given to sinning, or are known as sinners. Such Timothy is instructed to rebuke openly, before all (for there can be no doubt that the ἐíþðéïí ðÜíôùí is intended to qualify the rebuking). He was to adopt so severe a method in order to vindicate the cause of righteousness in the community, and to strike fear into others, that they might be deterred from pursuing like devious courses. Hence the case of such is to be distinguished from that of those who may have been overtaken in a fault, and who should, as elsewhere advised, be tenderly dealt with (Gal_6:1); and in the original instructions given by our Lord respecting grounds of offence among the members of His community, it was clearly implied that a quiet settlement of matters which involved a certain amount of moral blame may and often should be effected, sometimes without the intervention of any church action, and sometimes again by means of it (Mat_18:15). From the very nature of things, it must always be matter for thoughtful consideration how rebuke should be administered so as best to secure the ends of discipline. Not merely the particular kinds of sin to be dealt with, but the state of society also at the time, must be carefully taken into account, though still there are great landmarks to be stedfastly maintained; and a faithful church must leave no room to doubt that “she cannot bear them that are evil.” Some would understand the class of persons described as sinning, and in consequence deserving of rebuke, only of the elders mentioned in the preceding verse. But this is arbitrary, as in the words themselves there is no proper ground for the limitation; and the one verse does not appear to be any way dependent on the other.