REBUKE NOT THE ELDER: There is one anecdote I can offer, that, although technical and involved, serves

to illustrate the point adequately enough. Those easily bored by technical discussion would do well to skip ahead a couple of pages, with only minimal losses. Imagine two ways of coming to understand what a verse is actually saying. Not what you want the verse to be saying, or what you can make the verse appear to say, but what it is saying in its own voice. In the first way, we look at the verse as an isolated entity, and derive its meaning from related ideas contained in a cloud of other isolated verses. In the second way, we look at the verse as a link in a chain of thought. Sometimes, either method of approach produces the exact same conclusion. Other times, the two differing approaches suggest interpretations that are almost complete reversals of each other. Once I heard of a pastor who did not like to be called out very much. As admirable as he seemed in other respects, when a member of his congregation would try to point out an area where he was perhaps in error, he might not have always been very receptive or appreciative. More than that, he felt that the person offering the corrective advice was jeopardizing himself before God by even making such observations. In the pastors favor, you get sick of eighteen-year-old punks accusing you of everything under the sun after opening a Bible for the first time, especially after leading a church and having to deal with the same thing for twenty, thirty, forty years. Additionally, it is a manifest human tendency to find more offense in small inconsistencies in the behavior of others, especially authority figures, than to even be aware of gross inconsistencies in our own behavior. On the other hand, anyone can err. He insisted that his relationship with God was such that, if any serious faults did arise in his life or thinking, God would take care to inform him of this directly. He would occasionally cite part of a Bible verse when confronted with being called out by someone in his fellowship, attempting to defend and support his position. It seemed to do the trick adequately enough: The Christian Scriptures clearly command, in one place, Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren. An elder, therefore, is not to be rebuked. One should not attempt to straighten out an authority figure in the group. Perhaps, if elders are in need of correction, then God will rebuke them. Moshe, after all, was corrected by God, and God slaughtered anyone willing to resist or gainsay Moshe. Why behold the mote in the pastors eye, and not consider the beam in ones own eye first? So, that interpretation can be, more or less, constructed from this verse alone and scattered other ideas found in the Bible. How does this interpretation bear up when context and audience are factored in? The book in which this verse is found is commonly called First Timothy. The first verse in that book (or epistle, actually) introduces us to its apparent author, Paul the Apostle. Immediately, the recipient is identified as a man by the name of Timothy. Sixteen of the [_#_] Christian books, if you include the Revelation of John, incorporate proper names in their common short titles. A quarter of these names are associated with the recipient, the rest with the authors or apparent authors of the various works. Two are addressed to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon. The third chapter of the First letter to Timothy devotes itself to two tasks: listing what seem to be requirements for something called bishops, and a similar list for something else called deacons is forwarded in the same breath. A similar group of requirements appears in the letter addressed to Titus. That list, starting right after the author informs the postman (and us) whose mail were rifling through, begins thus: For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful

children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (1:5-7) After looking at various ways the other Christian canonical books use the words elder and bishop, it does not seem grossly improbable or inconsistent for the two words to be understood as basically interchangeable here. Titus letter has an obvious intention or purpose behind it: Titus was given a job to do, and the list serves as a guideline for how to do it. How can you ordain a bishop/ elder if nobody tells you how to recognize a candidate? It is not explicitly stated that Timothy was charged by Paul to ordain elders the same way Titus was, but the lists of qualifications found in both books have enough in common to make it difficult to write off this possibility. Also, Timothy is given enough other charges in the previous two chapters to bear out that he was acting as Pauls agent, handling several other responsibilities. For all the talk of bishops and elders, it is perhaps telling that history didnt preserve any letters Paul may have written to any of them. In the military, as in many contexts, orders are handed down through a chain of command. Even in our group, this was true. The Elder would tell the phone brother, the phone brother would tell the older brother where we were, that older brother would tell us. There's the pay phone, and it is a precious and indispensable tool if you know how to use it properly. (Giorgio 131) In the same way, people dont really direct promotions from beneath. Inductees into the military do not elect their drill sergeant. The military would be much different if this were allowed. You do not often get to pick your own bosses. So, obviously, the argument under construction is that, perhaps Timothy was above the bishops he may or may not have been charged to ordain underneath him, lower down in the hierarchy. That Pastor seemed to insist that Timothy was being told not to straighten out those in authority over him. If we suggest that Timothy was, in reality, told not to be correcting the bishops that are under his authority, we hit a bit of a snag. It seems more likely that Timothy would be fully expected to help those in his care see faults in their lives they could not see on their own, that he would be fully expected to rebuke them. Thats the problem with reading other peoples mail. You can figure out some stuff, but chances are the writer didnt put a lot of effort into clarifying things that are supremely obvious both to them and to whom theyre writing. Does The President have to recount the authority structure of the white house in every private memorandum that he circulates among the members of his cabinet? Some facts are too obvious to both the sender and receiver to merit inclusion in private exchanges between friends or co-workers. Pauls epistles to both Timothy and Titus were originally penned as a private exchange. Paul knew who was in charge, and so did Timothy. Paul did not need to remind him that he was under (or over) a bishops authority and Timothy was likely to be painfully aware whether or not he was supposed to be ordaining anyone. If he was not supposed to ordain elders like Titus was, the question presents itself: what other purpose is the list of qualifications meant to serve? Taken with an eye to immediate context, the snag mentioned above loses a degree of force. Like many words in many languages, the English word elderexactly paralleling the case with the Greekhas more than one meaning. It refers to an office in the church. It also refers to just any older person. Its also used in reference to a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin. First Timothy chapter five uses the word elder more that once. It is clearly evident that in different places it invokes first one, than the other of these distinct meanings, forcing us to work a little harder so as not to be confused: Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity. (5:1,2) When it mentions elder women, it is likely he is just distinguishing them from the younger women, the same way that mothers and sisters are distinct. The word elder here means, simply, older. I dont hear it argued much that elder women refers to a formal office.

Is the case any different in verse one? Timothy is told to intreatarguably, also to Rebuke notfour easily distinguishable types of people: old men, young men, old women, young men. Brothers, mothers, sisters are all linked back to the verb intreat by the conjunction as. Paul seems to have chosen to avoid redundancy in not repeating the same verbs four times. Also, theres a separate set of instructions for the office-elders, and here we clearly see the second sense of the word: Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (vss.17-20) These elders are undeniably office-holders. It talks about the ones that rule well, and the ones that sin. What does Paul instruct Timothy in the case of elders that sin? He is commanded to rebuke them. He is apparently expected to rebuke elders, and commanded not to rebuke elders in the very same chapter. Is this another snag? Or are we reading about two separate types of elders, one being old guys, the other being the title of a position of actual authority? Whatever the case, we are also talking about two different meanings of the English word rebuke. In this instance, a lexicon rushes to the rescue. Timothy is told that he should rebuke an elder; the word represented in English as rebuke is actually the Greek verb (elegcho, Str. #1651 el-eng'-kho) which means to confute or admonish. To warn, perhaps also to give corrective advice. The Christian books use this term enough times that its meaning can be pinned down from its numerous scattered appearances. Timothy should show these elders their faults in a clear way; demonstrate his case against them; warn them, perhaps with some forcefulness. When Timothy is told that he shouldnt rebuke older men, he uses the verb (epiplesso, Strongs #1969, pr. ep-ee-place'-so) which appears exactly once in the Christian Bible. Epiplesso means to chastise or upbraid. We get a little deeper a sense when we look at the words component parts. The prefix (epi, Str. #1909, pr. ep-ee') is a very common preposition in the Greek Testament, used in familiar words like that for oversight; among other things, this is the English translation of the word behind the name of the Episcopalian Church. We should also be used to its presence in many English words, like epidermis, epitaph, epigram, et cetera. The verb (plesso, Str. #4141, pr. place'-so) means, simply to pound, implying with a fist or a hammer, perhaps in order to shape or flatten. A reasonable guess as to its intended meaning is to Pound flat or hammer upon. The author of a proverb once observed that The poor useth intreaties; but the rich answereth roughly. (Pr. 18:23) Here two types of people are contrasted by their often characteristic methods of communication. Rich and poor are more-or-less opposites, as we can deduce that intreaties and rough, harsh, disrespectful speech are decidedly dissimilar. So to summarize, our end-view of what it means to Rebuke not an elder; it would seem that Timothys instructions might follow something roughly along these lines: If you have a point to make to someone that is under your spiritual authority, but older than you in years, speak to them gently, imploringly, kindly, respectfully. Do not blast them like a verbal jack hammer. Apply this advice when speaking to anyone in the church; speak to them as family. Whether it be an old man, speak as though he were your own father; a young man, your brother, and so forth. How far away is this from do not offer any type of words of correction to someone under whose authority you are? Taking time to examine context and audience, in this case, has almost completely reversed the meaning we are able to decipher from four little words.