Thursday 29 August 2019

The Prophetess and the Reluctant Soldier

By John L. O’Dell [1]

John L. O’Dell received a B.A. in Religious Studies at C.S.U.L.B. He is currently perusing a Th.M. at Chafer Theological Seminary. John is an instructor of New Testament Greek at CTS and works as a graphic artist.
When Ehud was dead, the children of Israel again did evil in the sight of the Lord. 
—Judges 4:1
For two generations God’s children lived quietly in their land. The great left-handed warrior Ehud had dealt the fatal blow to the Moabite king. But peace brings comfort and comfort brings laziness. The children of Israel fell back into their old patterns of wickedness. They chose to follow their own ways instead of God’s. The seductive gods of their neighbors proved alluring and the people gave worship and honor to them. These actions so displeased God that he brought punishment on Israel, giving them over to Jabin, the king of Canaan. Gone were the days of peace after the defeat of the Moabites. For twenty years now the people of Israel suffered under the heavy hand of the Canaanites.

Like Israel, God calls us to worship Him alone; and just like the Israelites, we find the many gods of the twenty-first century more compelling. Money, power, sex and social status—all call us to erect their statues in the temple of our hearts. God tells us that this spiritual infidelity is evil in His sight.

Jabin was the king of Canaan and he remembered what the Israelites had done to his ancestors. He remembered the stories of his childhood about Joshua cutting down the great king of Canaan he was named after. He was told how the Israelites killed all the people of his hometown, Hazor, and then burned the city to the ground. Now was his chance to avenge his people’s loss. He controlled Israel with a fist of iron—or more literally, with his iron chariots. Jabin gave the job of dealing with Israel to Sisera, the commander of the Canaanite armies.

Sisera was a hardened soldier. Everyone knew by his name that he was not a Canaanite by birth, but his martial skills and loyalty to Jabin made him a great defender of the land of Canaan. Sisera lived in Harosheth Hagoyim, “the blacksmith of the nations.” This gritty city was the foundry where Jabin’s iron-rimmed chariots, the most formidable weapons of the day, were born. With their metal axels and iron-covered wheels, they were swift and steady in battle. The Israelite army was no match for these powerful monsters that raided their cities and controlled the roads. Under Sisera’s orders nine hundred of these chariots kept the Israelites prisoners in their own land.



Too many had died at the hands of the Canaanites. For Israel this was too much to bear. They were tired of the raids and pillaging. They could not even be safe in their own cities. They cried out to God for deliverance. And God, as he had many times before, was ready to come to their aid.

The people whose customs had earlier seemed so appealing to Israel were the same people who now oppressed them. For us it is much the same. At first our desires seem so interesting and worthy of attention. Soon, though, the pursuit of satisfaction turns to obligation and then to addiction. When we are faithful to God, His burden is easy. But when we follow our own path, we are made slaves to our desires. At some point it becomes too much for us and we cry out to God for reconciliation. Fortunately for us, God is always faithful. As we cry out, he hears and answers.

In Israel at the time there was a woman named Deborah who was a prophetess of the Lord. Her husband, Lapidoth, watched her as she went about doing God’s work. He saw the power of her prophecies and judgments and knew that his wife was truly a woman set apart by God. She would sit in the hill country of Ephraim, between the towns of Ramah and Bethel, and the people would come to her for judgment and guidance. In fact, she was so prominent that the palm tree she sat under was called “Deborah’s palm.” Deborah had seen the great oppression from the Canaanites and their commander Sisera. The people had told her terrible stories of killings and destruction. She knew of the pain of Israel’s torment. And now as a prophetess she had received a message from God. She called for Israel’s great military leader Barak to come to her because God was going to use him to deliver the children of Israel.

Barak, the son of Abinoam, was a tough, pragmatic man. His name meant “lightning,” and as a soldier he had seen many battles. While a faithful worshiper of the true God, he also knew the hearts of men. He lived in Kedesh, “the fortified city,” in Naphtali. It was a rough-and-tumble place befitting a resident like Barak. Kedesh was where men with troubled pasts came to hide out. God had decreed that those who took a life would pay for it with their own. In His wisdom He also knew that sometimes a killing was not a murder and set up certain places as cities of refuge. Those who had killed someone accidentally could flee to one of these places, so that others could not exact their revenge on them. Kedesh was one of those cities. It was there that Barak lived and where the message of the prophetess found him.

When Barak met Deborah, she told him of the Lord’s plan. Barak was to gather an army of ten thousand men and go to Mount Tabor. There God would deliver Sisera and his chariots to them. Barak was a faithful Jew, but he was also a man who understood war. He had met Sisera’s chariots before and he knew that his men would be no match for the powerful Canaanites. Barak was torn. What should he do? He knew it was certain defeat to oppose Sisera, but a prophetess of God was telling him to go. Barak agreed but told Deborah that she must accompany him to the battle. For Barak, Deborah would be a talisman, a good luck charm, so that even if he lost the battle he might escape with his own life.

Though Barak knew that God could give him victory, he still chose to rely on his own strength. We are much the same. We read God’s Word and know that He delivers us from the things that we struggle with. God destroys the things that turn us from Him so that we may live more closely to Him. The problem is that we only see the battle from our point of view. When we cry out for deliverance and God answers, we start talking instead of listening. We let our pride and fear direct us instead of God. We fail to see that the same things that caused our trouble cannot end it. Only God can deliver us.

Deborah, like Barak, knew the heart of men. She heard the fear in Barak’s voice, so she agreed to go with him. Deborah saw his weakness in not trusting the God who had saved Israel so many times before. As God spoke through her, she told Barak that because of his lack of faith there would be no glory for him in the journey. God would defeat Sisera, but the victory would not be for Barak. God would deliver Sisera into the hand of a woman. Despite this prediction, Barak took Deborah, along with his fellow commanders Zebulun and Naphtali, and headed to Kedesh to raise an army.

God does not ignore our pleas for help. Nor does he ignore our fear and ignorance. Over and over again the Bible tells us not to be afraid. Fear is just another form of selfishness. It is our overwhelming concern for our own good coupled with a lack of faith in God. In Barak’s case, fear was going to impede God’s deliverance of Israel. So God chose another person to be the deliverer. This is also true in our own lives. When we stand as an obstacle in God’s way, He either wears us down or goes around us. Ultimately God accomplishes His will, no matter what.

In a small oasis near Kedesh, a Kenite man had set up camp with his wife and family. Unaware of the army being amassed nearby, Heber was looking for a place to rest from his nomadic life. He knew of the Israelites. He had coexisted in this land with them for many years. In fact, he was actually related to one of their great heroes. Heber was one of the descendants of Hobab, the father-in-law of Moses. Heber had chosen Zaanaim as the perfect place to pitch his tent. There was a mighty oak tree that marked the boundary for the Jewish tribe of Naphtali.

Sometimes God uses situations or people that we never thought of to accomplish his work. We may look back and see that a helpful friend or even a difficult acquaintance made a huge change in our life. At the time, though, we failed to see God at work. Like Barak, we have our own agenda. It is not until things are over with that we recognize the hand of the Creator guiding our life through difficulties.

When Sisera’s men reported that Barak had taken an army up to Mount Tabor, he relished the thought of another Canaanite victory. He knew that if Barak went up to Tabor, the only way out would be through the flat riverbed land in front of the mountain. Here Sisera’s chariots would easily win the day. He knew the pleasure he would have reporting to king Jabin how he once again destroyed the Israelite army. Quickly, he gathered the nine hundred chariots and all the men with him and set out for the river Kishon. He would wait for Barak at the base of Mount Tabor.

Barak’s lookouts saw Sisera’s forces massing along the riverbed at the base of the mountain. They went back to inform Barak that the enemy had arrived ready to do battle. When Barak received this information, he knew it was time to fight. Even though he had heard the stories of Joshua’s great victories since he was a small boy, they did little to quiet the fear in his heart. He was facing a battle with such overwhelming odds that it seemed a certain defeat. As if sensing his anxiety, Deborah spoke saying, “Up! For this is the day in which the Lord has delivered Sisera into your hands. Has not the Lord gone out before you?” Encouraged, Barak gathered his troops, giving them praise as mighty warriors of God. He told them of the Lord’s hand on the battle and with a shout charged down Mount Tabor. All ten thousand men followed him.

The Word of God is a powerful thing. When we cry out in panic to God, He wants to free us from our fears. His Word calls to us like Deborah’s words did to Barak. His Word encourages, convicts, and teaches us. His Word guides us into righteousness.

War is only romantic in poems. For the men of Israel and Canaan it was a brutal and bloody business. But this time the fighting was different. The Israelite soldiers were almost supernatural in their strength. To Sisera it felt as if he were fighting an unseen army of warriors who were side by side with the Jews. Suddenly, his undefeatable chariots were failing. Sisera’s army was being defeated. Hundreds of men were dead and countless chariots destroyed while the Israelite army kept getting stronger and more ferocious.

Sisera had been in many fights. He could read a battle and know the exact time to strike the final blow to crush his enemy. In this battle Sisera saw a different picture. He was losing. The battle had turned against him. He knew that this time the final blow was not his but Israel’s. Seeing his defeat, he jumped from his chariot and ran on foot from the battle. No longer the confident commander, he was just a fearful man trying to avoid the terrible fate of so many of his own soldiers.

Invigorated by the success of his men, Barak encouraged them to fight on. He saw Sisera’s army turning in retreat. He saw the bodies of the dead Canaanites soldiers and their mangled chariots. Deborah was right; God had given them the victory. Barak and his men routed the Canaanite army from the riverbed and pursued them all the way back to their stronghold at Harosheth Hagoyim. Not a man was left standing from the once powerful army of king Jabin.

Flush with victory, Barak had forgotten his fear and the admonition from Deborah. He looked around to find his ultimate trophy, Sisera. He could not find the enemy commander anywhere. He was not dead but his chariot was empty. Where was this prize that Barak wanted as reward for his victory? His men told him that Sisera had run like a coward. So Barak turned from the battle also—not in fear like his enemy but as a hunter pursuing his prey. God, though, had something different in mind.

Sisera was weary. The battle had pulled the life from him. Now he was running on the raw fuel of fear. He needed to rest, to sort out what had happened. He also needed to hide. He knew the Israelites would be trying to find him so they could kill him. As he fled from the battle he could see a large tree on the horizon. Maybe some nomads would give him shelter and refuge. As he got closer, he recognized the pattern of cloth in the tents. This was a Kenite camp and in this area king Jabin had a peace treaty with them. Certainly they would help him.

Out in front of one of the tents there was a woman calling to Sisera. It was Jael, the wife of Heber. “Come aside my lord, come aside and do not be afraid,” she said. Sisera, weary and thirsty from the chase, gladly ran to the tent for shelter. As his eyes adjusted to the dark interior, he let himself relax for the first time that day. The cushions on the floor comforted his tired body and he asked the woman for a drink of water to quench his thirst. Offering more hospitality than she had been asked for, the woman opened a fresh jug of milk and gave Sisera a drink. As he drank the soothing milk, Sisera realized he could go no further for now. Thinking that if he continued his flight after dark he could elude Barak, he chose to sleep for a while until after sundown. He commanded Jael, “Stand at the door of the tent, and if any man comes and inquires of you, and says, ‘Is there any man in here?’ You shall say, ‘No.’” Jael agreed and helped him lay on a mat in the back of the tent. She covered him with a blanket and went to keep watch at the door.

Jael held a secret that was hers alone. She knew what she had to do. The divine hand that guided all things was now leading her to perform an act of deliverance. God was calling on her to be the one who released His people from their oppression. He knew her strength and her righteous life and He was giving her the victory that He would deny His fearful commander.

Sisera could feel himself relax. The day that began as a certain victory had turned terrible and cruel. As he drifted into sleep, he thought of how far he had fallen in just a few hours. Once a great commander of the Canaanite army, he was now hiding in the tent of a shepherdess, afraid for his life.

Jael picked up a tent peg from the floor. It filled her hand completely. The wood was smooth from years of being driven into the earth and its head flattened by countless blows of the hammer. She pulled the tent door aside and peered out. There was no one around; she had to move quickly. With the tent peg in one hand and a hammer in the other, she turned toward the sleeping man. Her heart raced as she moved softly to where Sisera was lying. She watched for a moment as his body gently rose and fell with the rhythmic breathing of deep sleep. She placed the tip of the tent peg at his temple and, raising the hammer high above her head, struck the fatal blow.

Barak had chased the Canaanites back to Haroseth Hagoyim but still there was no sign of Sisera. He retraced his route back to the river Kishon. There was a small shepherds' camp there by the great terebinth tree. Maybe they had seen the fleeing commander. He would stop there for refreshment and inquire. As he came into the camp, a woman came out to greet him. Jael shouted to the Israelite warrior, “Come, I will show you the man whom you seek.” Barak was confused. Who was this woman and how did she know he was chasing Sisera? She took him to a tent in the camp and pulled back the door for him to enter. There in the dark lay a body. As Barak moved closer, the ghastly vision came fully into focus. Sisera lay dead on the floor, a tent peg driven through his temple, pinning him to the ground beneath. As he looked at the lifeless body of his enemy, Deborah’s words came back to him. There had been no glory for Barak in the battle. God had delivered Israel as He promised. Not by Barak’s sword but with a tent peg of a Kenite woman.

On that day God had fulfilled his word and subdued the army of king Jabin. Over the course of the next few months, buoyed by the victory over Sisera, Barak continued his assault on the Canaanites. Finally, after several more victories, the Israelites completely destroyed king Jabin and his harsh oppression came to an end.

Ultimately God will always prevail. His will is certain and is accomplished despite our failings. The greatest victory, though, is not in any single battle but in following the plan of God. When we fail, He is there. When we turn from Him, He never turns from us. Even though He may, for a season, discipline us, He will always be faithful and deliver us from our oppressors.

Notes
  1. Editor's note: The author of the following article thoroughly researched the historical, archaeological, exegetical, and theological aspects of the Judges 4 account. However, rather than writing a technical article, he has used his artistic and storytelling skills to render the passage as a story with applications in the way a preacher might recount a biblical narrative in a sermon. While this type of article is out of the ordinary for the CTS Journal, we find it to be a worthy exposition in the tradition of Moses (Deuteronomy 6), Stephen (Acts 7), and Paul (Acts 13). We trust that you will enjoy it as we have.

Corporate Rewards: Does the Church You Attend Matter to God?

By Fred R. Lybrand

Fred R. Lybrand earned his B.A. in English Literature from the University of Alabama and his M.A.B.S. from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is currently pursuing doctorate studies at Phoenix Seminary. Fred is the Founding Executive Director of the newly formed Free Grace Alliance and the senior pastor at Northeast Bible Church in San Antonio, TX. He is the author of three books: Heavenly Citizenship, The Absolute Quickest Way to Help Your Child Change, and About Life and Uganda. Fred’s email address is fredlybrand@yahoo.com.

Introduction

Although eternal life is by faith alone in Christ alone, Christians will gain or lose eternal rewards based on their personal faithfulness (1 Corinthians 9:24–27). But is individual merit the only basis for eternal rewards? Could Christians also receive rewards based on their association with a local church? Before exploring these questions, it is necessary to consider the state of the doctrine of rewards.

The New Testament emphasizes the fact that doctrine (teaching) is essential for every Christian’s walk with God (cf. John 17:17). [1] Religious belief underlies all—even erroneous—religious action. Consider, for example, how much of today’s terrorist activity links to the false doctrine of attaining glory in the afterlife through religious war. If the false promises of reward motivate terrorists, how much more should the truth of rewards inspire Christians? How much has the church’s neglect of this doctrine dissipated Christian action and impact? What might happen if the true teachings of attaining eternal glory reached the masses of Christians?

All is not lost. A number of scholars and pastors such as Radmacher, Lutzer, Wall, Dillow, Hodges, and Wilkin have recently spotlighted the issue of eternal rewards. These thinkers frequently invite criticism for their fresh and honest appraisal of the text, since discussions of eternal rewards suffer from an undercurrent of chronological snobbery—a logical fallacy which asserts that the older the quote, the truer it is. For example, many rely on Jonathan Edwards as the final authority on the subject. Though Edwards was a brilliant thinker, he confused eternal rewards with eternal salvation.
By the merit and righteousness of Christ, such favour of God towards the believer may be obtained, as that God may hereby be already, as it were, disposed to make them perfectly and eternally happy. But yet this does not hinder, but that God in his wisdom may choose to bestow this perfect and eternal happiness in this way, viz. in some respect as a reward of their holiness and obedience. .. . Believers having a title to heaven by faith antecedent to their obedience, or its being absolutely promised to them before, does not hinder but that the actual bestowment of heaven may also be a testimony of God’s regard to their obedience, though performed afterwards. [2]
In this explanation of the relation between rewards, obedience, and justifying faith, Edwards equates salvation (or heaven) with the believer’s eternal reward. He argues that the one who believes in Christ has the final guarantee of “eternal happiness,” which will be preceded (if not produced) by holiness and obedience. In other words, Edwards claims that believers will receive the “just reward” of heaven based on actions resulting from their initial faith in Christ. The impact of Edwards’ understanding of rewards as the believer’s final state may explain the modern confusion over eternal rewards.

Why address this confusion? Simply because if eternity is a reward, then it must be earned; and if it must be earned, then eternal salvation by “grace through faith alone” (Ephesians 2:8–9) cannot mean that one is saved by faith, and faith only. Eternal rewards, by definition, must be deserved or earned. If an individual thinks his eternal reward is merely his eternal state, then he will assume that he must work to gain eternity. The confusion between belonging to the family of God by faith and being rewarded in eternity for faithful Christian service stems from one false assumption: that the believer’s right to be in eternity with Christ is a reward rather than a gift of God.

Individualism: An American Hermeneutical Virus

Some assumptions can be as deadly as viruses. The false assumption that heaven is a reward is equaled only by one other—that the individual is the ultimate priority or, in the case of the Bible student, the individual is the supreme hermeneutic. A driving individualistic assumption tempts the reader to interpret every passage as individualistic in meaning, orientation, or emphasis. This faulty hermeneutical bias results from the trilogy of instinct, culture, and errant theology.

The Instinctive Cause

Biblically, man is innately selfish. Sometimes self-centeredness receives formal indictment, as in Judges 21:25: In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes. Today such thinking appears in clichés like “to each his own.” The Word of God views this human tendency as antithetical to God’s will, since it elevates one’s opinion to the level of God’s truth. Not only does this bias cause misinterpretation, it invites chastisement from Him who has no equal.

However, the Bible does not always indict the individual for a self-oriented bias. Awareness of one’s existence as separate from the Creator and His creation is an obvious part of the divine design for humans. This separateness allows for relationships, and God appeals to it for both salvation and eternal rewards. In these areas it might be called an appropriate self-interest rather than selfishness. Hebrews 12:2 describes Christ as the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Christ Jesus endured the cross for His own joy. Since man is made in the image of God and Christians are to grow in the likeness of Christ, it stands to reason that an appropriate personal self-interest exists by design and the will of God.

Appropriate self-interest has a biblical basis, and always stems from an accountable relationship to God. Instinctive selfishness, however, leads to defending one’s biases rather than discerning God’s truth.

The Cultural Cause

The cultural causes of individualism are speculative. Pluralism—a defining trait of the American society—inherently emphasizes the individual. Merriam-Webster defines pluralism as “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization.” [3]

Our culture battles over whether the individual or the society will rule. It promotes conformity to a social ideal (or “correctness”) but also celebrates the individual in a continual oscillation from one extreme to the other. Despite the pressure to conform socially, an American still feels like the “captain of his ship and master of his fate.”

Robert Wuthnow, in his book Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and America’s New Quest for Community, describes the training Americans receive to think as individuals. His preface begins:
For as long as most Americans can remember, our society has been described to us as being composed of individualists. As children, we were taught to be independent. We learned about rugged pioneers who went off by themselves to seek their fortunes. Later, we learned that our social fabric was breaking down, that families were eroding, that communities were dying, and that more and more people were facing life on their own, heroically insisting on their independence and remaining uncommitted to anybody but themselves. Having learned these lessons so well, many of us are therefore likely to be surprised by the results presented in this book. [4]
Wuthnow then describes the importance of community for the individual’s spiritual health and vibrancy. Community is his antidote to the isolation that accompanies the dominant cultural motif of individualism.

Robert D. Putnam adds his lament over the individualization of America’s culture in Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. A summary of his observations appears on the jacket:
Once we bowled in leagues, usually after work; but no longer. This seemingly small phenomenon symbolizes a significant social change that Robert Putnam has identified and describes.. . . 
Drawing on vast new data from the Roper Social and Political Trends and the DDB Needham Life Style—surveys that report in detail on Americans’ changing behavior over the past twenty-five years—Putnam shows how we have become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and social structures, whether the PTA, church, recreation clubs, political parties, or bowling leagues. Our shrinking access to the “social capital” that is the reward of communal activity and community sharing is a serious threat to our civic and personal health. [5]
Cultural individualism affects one’s thinking and hermeneutics, making interpretations that concern the individual more attractive than those that concern the corporate whole.

The Theological Cause

Individualism’s theological cause stems from the now clichéd observation attributed to Abraham Maslow: “When the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat every problem as a nail.” Scriptures say much about the individual’s standing before God and his relationship with others. Many rewards passages focus on individuals. Matthew 25:1–30, for example, specifically holds each virgin and each steward accountable.

Perhaps the most prominent of the rewards passages, 2 Corinthians 5:10 (For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad), underscores the accountability of the individual Christian for his labors on earth. The phrase each one insists that the individual gains or loses rewards based on his actions.

The individual focus of this summary passage has led some to understand the doctrine of eternal rewards as individual accountability. If one allows a single text to dictate the meaning of all similar passages in the Scriptures, then the analogia fidei becomes the anvil on which to reshape and force-fit a desired meaning without regard to context. Understanding each passage of Scripture must precede the question, How does it fit?

The subject of eternal rewards especially has suffered from an overarching instinctive, cultural, and theological bias toward reading the Bible through the glasses of individualism.

The Individualistic Virus at Work

Example A: John 17

Imposing individualistic biases onto corporate passages has spawned misinterpretation. In corporate reference, the author focuses on a group, not the individuals. For example, in John 17 Christ specifically reveals the object of His prayer: I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours (John 17:9).

Christ stated that He was praying for His disciples whom the Father had given Him, and not for the world. Missing this fact could allow for an interpretation that bypasses the point of the passage. Knowing that Jesus was praying for His disciples, and not for the world, clears a path for accuracy in interpretation. Christ further said, I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me (John 17:20–21).

He expanded the object of His prayer further to include those who would soon believe through the testimony of the disciples. Once again, He contrasted this group of believers with the world. Clearly dividing the “world” from “believers” leaves no room for misunderstanding. In the same way, ignoring the referents increases the probability of error.

Example B: Philippians 1:6
Being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ.
People often argue from this passage that God guarantees that He will bear individual believers along toward maturity. But is this an individual reference? One needs no commentary, no knowledge of Greek, and no guru to answer this question. The English Bible is more than sufficient. The following are the referents in the context of Philippians 1:6:
To ALL THE SAINTS in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the BISHOPS AND DEACONS (1:1); Grace to YOU. .. (1:2); I thank my God upon every remembrance of YOU (1:3); Always in every prayer of mine making request for YOU ALL with joy (1:4); for YOUR fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now (1:5) [emphasis added].
Paul addresses the entire church in Philippi along with its leaders. In verses 7 and 8, which follow the passage (1:6), Paul adds the following corporate references:. .. it is right for me to think this of YOU ALL, because I have YOU in my heart. .. YOU ALL are partakers with me of grace;. .. YOU ALL with the affection of Jesus Christ [emphasis added].

The passage does not support the idea that God completes the good work in them as individuals. Paul addressed the local church in Philippi. Any further inquiry into this epistle will quickly unveil both his commendations and concerns for the church as a whole.

Example C: 1 Corinthians 3:16–17
Do you not know that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.
This is the most telling example of mistaking an individual reference for a corporate one. If this passage addresses the individual, then it insists that God will destroy the believer for mistreating his physical body. Many use this passage to explain suicide as a sin of unpardonable dimensions, a sin that assigns one to eternal destruction, thus making eternal salvation an issue of works rather than faith.

But does this passage refer to an individual? An individual defiling the temple is in view in the context of gain or loss of reward in the Day of evaluation before God. But the crucial word here is temple, which verse 9 equates with the Body of Christ rather than with one’s physical body. Individuals collectively build this temple with good (gold, silver, and precious stones) or bad (wood, hay, and straw) (3:10–12). Destroying or defiling the temple is an explicit reference to how individuals will suffer for destroying the church—in this instance, the local church in Corinth. Understanding the word temple as a corporate reference causes the entire chapter’s concern with disunity and partisanship to burst into clarity. If temple is misunderstood as a reference to one’s physical body, then Paul appears to give a sudden, and strangely random, warning to the individual about taking care of himself.

Example D: Ephesians 5:18
And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit.
Perhaps no verse has been more popularized for Spirit-led living than this one. If taken as an individual reference, it does not help understand the passage. But if it is a corporate reference, then the “filling of the Spirit” speaks of something believers do together, most likely when gathered for worship. The cultural parallel with alcohol in pagan worship also illuminates the meaning if this is a corporate reference. [6] Greeks in biblical times commonly worshipped Baccus (Dionysus) through drunken “enthusiasm.” Enthusiasm, or εν θεος (“god within”), occurred through a drunken state as a proof of the “gods’” attendance at the worship-feast. Paul’s instruction not [to] be drunk with wine makes sense when the pagan practice is contrasted with how God’s Spirit leads in worship.

Does the context treat this as a corporate reference? Ephesians 5:19 says, Speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord. The reference to the heart is individual, but the expression as a whole concerns togetherness. The passage certainly does not imply that one believer, when filled, is to telephone another believer (or dash to his home) and serenade him with a heartfelt rendition of “Amazing Grace.” No, the result of being filled, or allowing the Spirit to dominate and permeate the worship gathering, is a true corporate sharing in song. Sadly, this insight for worship is instantly overlooked if an interpreter fixates on his individualistic assumptions when he considers the passage. [7]

Corporate Rewards

Can an individual believer in Christ be rewarded simply because of his corporate association? Does the church one attends matter to God? Logically, and biblically, the answer is “yes” because one’s associations affect the individual. The Bible affirms the impact of others on the individual: Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Corinthians 15:33); As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens the countenance of his friend (Proverbs 27:17); Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. A threefold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:12).

It is easy enough to prove that Christians are influenced by their companions. It stands to reason that those who affect a believer will affect his rewards. If a Christian associates with those who slight God and His word, what is the long-term probability that he will stay the course? Unfaithfulness is contagious. The issue of corporate rewards, however, looks beyond influence. It concerns what believers accomplish or fail to accomplish together.

By way of analogy, the National Football League each year “crowns” a team the Super Bowl Champions. All team members receive, among other things, a ring commemorating their participation on the championship team. Whether or not they actually played in the last game (or any game), all are rewarded. All that matters is that each player was on the team. Of course, it is hard to imagine a player who does not contribute in some way to a championship team, especially as the whole group embraces its quest together. Corporate rewards, as a possibility at the Judgment Seat of Christ, will mean that some of the believers’ rewards (or loss of rewards) will be based on the corporate faithfulness and works they all accomplished (or neglected) together. This in no way compromises individual responsibility. Indeed, a “most valuable player” exists in the Super Bowl analogy. Individuals can be rewarded for both their own efforts and the entire team’s results.

This understanding of corporate rewards faces two challenges. First, since the doctrine of rewards in general has been neglected by the church, it can boast few ancient supportive references. Thus, chronological snobbery, [8] rather than biblical interaction, is a common response to it. Second, the individualistic hermeneutical virus hinders exegetes from seeing the text objectively. The Scriptures need thoughtful reconsideration. If the idea of corporate rewards is biblical, then believers should reclaim the balance of corporate efforts as the context for individual labors.

Do corporate rewards have a basis in the Scripture? Since this view offers a new aspect concerning eternal rewards, there is admittedly further thought and study required. Two passages, however, stand out as prime support for corporate rewards.

Support A: Philippians 4:14–19
Nevertheless you have done well that you shared in my distress.Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only. For even in Thessalonica you sent aid once and again for my necessities. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. Indeed I have all and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things sent from you, a sweet-smelling aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well pleasing to God. And my God shall supply all your need according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus. (Philippians 4:14–19)
Paul wrote to the church in Philippi as a group. At the very least, this passage demonstrates Paul’s conviction that God would bless the Philippians corporately in this life. God often blesses and rewards groups of people for their faithfulness in this life; Israel is the most obvious example. But why would death remove God’s inclination to bless all those in a specific faithful group, and especially in light of the promise of future eternal rewards (2 Corinthians 5:10)?

First, Paul made it clear that he was speaking to the church membership as a whole: YOU Philippians know also. .. no CHURCH shared with me. .. but YOU only (4:15); for even in Thessalonica YOU sent aid once and again (4:16) [emphasis added]. It is such an obvious point that it is easy to overlook. Paul refers to the individuals who made up a corporate group: the Philippian church. He uses the second person plural form of you, thanking them as a unique group of supporters. Paul states that these collections or gifts were from the entire church. He uses endearing terms toward the whole group. He says nothing about who in the church gave most or least. Rather, Paul joyfully accepted the gifts from the whole church and commended them all.

Even today, believers do the same by giving toward missions or community needs. Uganda now has six new churches because of the efforts of the author’s previous home church, Midland Bible Church. As it is impossible to name all of the participants (about eighty Midlanders have gone to Uganda over the past four years), it is inaccurate to say that they alone established these new assemblies. The great majority of the members of Midland Bible Church have in various ways contributed to the effort. Planting these African churches involved the entire local church, not just a few members. The energy, funds, and faithfulness must be declared a successful effort of the whole church. Do all participate? Not equally. Do all share in the effort? In some way, the entire membership is affected by their collective labor.

First Corinthians 12:26 says, And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. The connection Christians share with one another is the New Testament norm for local churches. The efforts, successes, and failings all have a corporate emphasis. Christianity at its biblical core is both a collective and an individual endeavor. Displacing one emphasis with the other misses the point and promotes a limited and unscriptural paradigm for Christian life and impact.

Philippians 4:17 is crucial: Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. If the context refers to the whole church in Philippi, then the phrase your account (singular) must refer to the whole church as well. If Paul was seeking fruit, or benefit, for the church as a whole, then the benefit here cannot be individualistic. The faithful care for Paul by the Philippian church resulted in benefits or credits accruing in that church’s account. Given Paul’s emphasis on eternal rewards (e.g. Romans 12:10–12; 1 Corinthians 3:5–15, 9:24–27; 2 Corinthians 5:9–10; 1 Timothy 6:17–19; 2 Timothy 4:6–8, etc.), this account is a future benefit for those who partnered in the work at Philippi. The epistle itself shows that Paul had eternal rewards in view, since the context of his final comments in Philippians 3:12–21 speaks specifically of eternal existence and rewards. References to the prize, our heavenly citizenship, and the transformation of our lowly [earthly] body underscore this. Paul’s reference to the Philippian church in 4:1 as his joy and crown is another potent hint that eternity and rewards were uppermost in Paul’s mind.

Perhaps Paul had only a temporal reward, such as certain immediate blessings on the Philippian church and its membership, in view. However, even if this were true, the basic fact of a corporate reward remains intact. In either case, the reward is for the church from God and is based on their corporate faithfulness.

Support B: Revelation 3

The letters to the seven churches in Revelation also support the doctrine of corporate rewards. However, most overlook this evidence. Clearly, these letters address separate churches. Revelation 1:4 defines the audience: John, to the seven churches which are in Asia. Church or churches appears seventeen additional times in these three chapters.

John carefully distinguishes between you (singular) and you (plural). When he addresses an individual church (whether it be in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, or Laodicea), you (singular) refers to an individual church. On the other hand, you (plural) refers to all of these churches. On occasion you (plural) may also refer to a group of individuals within a church as in Revelation 2:10 (the devil is about to throw some of you into prison); however, the singular consistently points to each church and its attending “angel.” The fact that each church is addressed as the singular you demands that some of the rewards be corporate, or collective.

The letter to the church in Ephesus (Revelation 2:1–7), with its famous declaration that the Ephesian Church had left its first love, warrants consideration. The Lord then explains that repentance and a return to their first works is the remedy. How do we know that He addresses the church rather than just individuals? First, to address the church is to speak to the individuals, though the emphasis is on the church as a unit. Were there no church members in Ephesus who still maintained their first love? Likely there were, though most had abandoned their first love. Second, John’s use of the pronoun you throughout chapters 1–3 treats each church as a collective whole (and Revelation 2:1 and 2:7 explicitly state that the audience is the church). Revelation 1:4 uses the second person plural pronoun: Grace to you and peace. Again, Revelation 1:9 uses the second person plural: I, John, both your brother and companion. In these instances, you refers to the many, since he was addressing all seven churches (1:4). Of course, if John had written to a single church, he would have been expected to address that church with a second person singular pronoun, which is exactly what he does.
Revelation 2:2 begins, I know your [singular] works, your labor, your patience. In fact, John refers to every church in these chapters with the singular form, addressing each church as a single unit. A notable exception is Revelation 2:24, where he shifts to the plural you to address all the individuals in the church of Thyatira.

Does not Christ, in warning each church as a unit, indicate that an individual may receive (or forfeit) reward based on his association with a particular church? In Revelation 2:5 the Lord states that He will remove the church’s lampstand unless there is repentance. Clearly, the lampstand is the possession of the church and not of an individual. The consequence must therefore fall on the whole church, not just upon those individuals who fail to repent. Further, if the church as a whole repents, then the lampstand will remain. Revelation 2:14 shows this corporate accountability, since Christ holds all in the church responsible because some hold the teaching of Balaam.

In Revelation 3:10–11 the Lord states:
Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth. Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.
Christ again uses the singular form to refer to the church in Philadelphia. The church corporately was called to persevere, or perhaps more accurately, was commended for already persevering [9] and was promised to be kept from the hour of trial. This church also had a crown (singular) which could possibly be removed.

Finally, in Revelation 3:15–18 the Lord says to the Laodicean church:
I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish that you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, “I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.
The grammar and common sense support the view that the Lord speaks to this church as a whole. Lukewarmness is a corporate disease with a consequence even more severe than the removal of a lampstand: namely, being vomited or spit out of the Lord’s mouth. The warning is to the church, not simply to individuals. The situation comes alive, however, when one sees the Lord’s advice: I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed. . . (3:18).

Again, in this context the counsel is given to a specific local church. The pronouns are singular, and every you points to the corporate whole. The idea of corporate eternal rewards is evident here, since John has stated a few verses earlier that these garments are rewards to be received after this life.

Revelation 3:4–5 states:
You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
Interpreters almost universally affirm that the overcomers will be rewarded in the next life and describe the white garments as a reward for being an overcomer. But applying the meaning of overcomer to individuals ignores the context and reads a subjective opinion into a passage about the church.

Instruction in this passage were given to a specific church, which was rebuked as an entirety and was further instructed to seek a reward. A reward delivered at the Judgment Seat based on one’s affiliation with a church is justly named a corporate reward. Will Christians be rewarded or suffer loss because of the “team” they were on or the affiliations they had? The text strongly suggests it, and it is hoped that the church will rethink the implications of believers’ collective, as well as individual, labors.

Conclusion

The church has mistakenly ignored rewards as a doctrine, largely because it has defined eternal rewards as nothing but eternal existence earned through obedience and holiness (caused by faith). Today’s dominant bias toward individualism tempts readers to infuse every passage with an individualistic meaning, orientation, emphasis, or application.

What would including corporate rewards in today’s teaching and preaching offer Christianity? First, it would offer truth and insight as the saints begin to see the corporate nature of many texts. Second, one’s choice of a church would become a decision of paramount importance for one’s eternal impact and standing. Third, church leaders and members alike could begin to take stock of their church’s anemic condition and renew themselves to follow the Lord’s will with the hope of hearing “well done” together, as well as individually. If rewards matter to Christians personally, they can also matter to Christians corporately. Corporate rewards could be a warning signal and a new motivation to stem the tide Wuthnow describes so well:
Observers of American religion also believe the turn inward has been encouraged by the pluralism and relativism so widely evident in our culture. With a thousand and one different denominations to choose from, it has been easy for many people to conclude that all churches must be alike. Just going to one that you like is the important criterion. But it is an easy step from there, once you become dissatisfied at that church, to say that it doesn’t make much difference whether you attend at all. [10]
Notes
  1. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1997).
  2. Jonathan Edwards, “Justification by Faith Alone,” in The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 4, ed. C. Goen (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1972) [article on-line]; available from http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/justification.htm (accessed March 3, 2005).
  3. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed. (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Wesbster, 1996).
  4. Robert Wuthnow, Sharing the Journey: Support Groups and America’s New Quest for Community (New York: Free, 1994), ix.
  5. Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000), jacket.
  6. Cleon Rogers, Jr., “The Dionysian Background of Ephesians 5:18, ” BSac 136 (July 1979): 249–57.
  7. Editor’s Note: An alternate understanding of the passage is that the filling by the Holy Spirit is individual, just as the singing and making melody in the believer’s heart are individual. However, this individual filling also results in quality corporate worship and mutual submission.
  8. The definition of chronological snobbery is given on p. 13.
  9. For an alternative view of Revelation 3:10, see John Niemelä, “For You Have Kept My Word: The Grammar of Revelation 3:10 (Part 1),” CTS Journal 6 (January–March 2000): 1–25.
  10. Wuthnow, Sharing, 39.

Wednesday 28 August 2019

Especially Those who Labor in the Word: 1 Timothy 5:17 and the Plurality of Elders

By John H. Niemelä

Dr. John H. Niemelä is Professor of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at Chafer Theological Seminary. He received a B.A. from University of Minnesota and a Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees in New Testament Literature and Exegesis from Dallas Theological Seminary. He has defended the Two-Gospel Hypothesis in Three Views on the Origin of the Synoptic Gospels, ed. Robert Thomas (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002). His e-mail address is langprof@verizon.net

Introduction

Over the years, several forms of church government have arisen. Within non-denominational American churches three models seem predominate:
  1. One elder (pastor), plural deacons [1]
  2. Plural elders (pastors), plural deacons [2]
  3. One teaching / ruling elder, plural ruling elders, plural deacons [3]
These models translate into four leadership structures, because the third appears in two versions. Specifically, model 3A depicts a three-tier structure, while 3B conceives of the teaching / ruling elder as a first among equals in relation to the ruling elders.

Model 1
Model 2
Model 3A
Model 3B
Pastor
(Teaching / Ruling Elder)
Pastors
(Teaching / Ruling Elders)
Pastor
(Teaching / Ruling Elder)
Pastor
(Teaching / Ruling Elder)
Deacons
Deacons
Ruling Elders
Ruling Elders


Deacons
Deacons

Many seem willing to fight to the death for their view of church leadership. Furthermore, some students, close friends, and associates of the author differ with him on this issue. So, why raise this controversy?

This is an issue where the biblical evidence consists of inferences from Scripture (rather than direct statements). [4] In such cases, believers should graciously allow the Word to work in others and let each be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5b). [5] Although the New Testament does not specify the number of elders in each congregation, no one would doubt that Paul would have a definite answer to the question, Should each local congregation have more than one elder? Twenty-first century expositors would like to know his answer. After dealing with a few important preliminaries, this article will explore an avenue that may clarify Paul’s thinking on this issue.

Preliminary Issues

Understanding the relationship between the offices of overseer and elder is prerequisite to discussion of models. It is also important to determine whether the requirement that an overseer be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2) precludes any of the models.

Overseers and Elders

Overseer (bishop) [6] is a functional equivalent of elder, because Acts, Titus, and 1 Peter regard elders as overseers. The office of bishop is not higher than that of elder, contrary to the opinion of various liturgical denominations.

Able to Teach

Many assume that possessing the spiritual gift of teaching is prerequisite to being able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2). This understanding would yield the following syllogism:
Major Premise: Overseers must be able to teach 
Minor Premise: Ability to teach requires having the spiritual gift of teaching 
Conclusion: Overseers must possess the spiritual gift of teaching
Although the foregoing syllogism has an internal self-consistency, it starts with an incorrect premise. The word didaktikós (“able to teach”) does not require possession of the spiritual gift of teaching. Does this term equate with possessing the spiritual gift of teaching? The following chart summarizes the four possibilities:


 Gifted to teach
 Not gifted to teach
 Able to teach
 Case 1
 Case 3
 Not able to teach
 Case 2
 Case 4

Cases 1 and 4 need no further explanation. It is easy to conceive of one with the spiritual gift of teaching possessing aptitude for teaching or of one lacking such a gift also lacking teaching ability.

The example of Paul helps determine whether case 3 is a legitimate option. Yes, Paul identified his gift as apostleship, not specifically as teaching. Even so, teaching seems to have been an integral component of the gift of apostleship. Acts often speaks of Paul teaching (e.g., Acts 11:26; 15:35; 18:11; 20:20; and 28:31). Apostleship involved teaching, whether orally or in the writing of Scripture. Yet Ananias (rather than Paul) is the one who was able to teach in Acts 9. The neophyte apostle needed to grow in the Lord before he was able to teach anyone. Ability to teach does not bear a one-for-one correspondence with possession of a communication spiritual gift.

Case 3 describes a person who does not possess the spiritual gift of teaching but has teaching ability, nonetheless. Titus 2:3–5 focuses on spiritual maturity rather than on the spiritual gift of teaching as the basis for older women teaching younger women. [7]
the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things—that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
Titus was to encourage older women to carry out appropriate ministries. Nothing here suggests that Paul speaks of the possession of specific gifts as prerequisite. Rather, older women who exhibit spiritual maturity are to teach and admonish younger women (including their own daughters). Would it not be appropriate to classify such women as able to teach? Likewise, would it not be appropriate to say that Christians who teach their own children or Sunday school classes ought to be able to teach? [8]

The foregoing consideration of four cases shows that it is unwise to equate the term able to teach with possession of the gift of teaching. Therefore, the use of didaktikós as a qualification for overseers (elders) in 1 Timothy 3:2 does not necessitate acceptance of the idea that only men with the gift of teaching should be elders. Neither does it dictate accepting the one-elder-per-congregation model.

Summary of Preliminaries

This section has argued that overseers are equivalent to elders and that the requirement that elders be able to teach (1 Timothy 3:2) does not stipulate that every overseer (elder) must possess the spiritual gift of teaching. All of the models mentioned in the introduction to this article have survived the preliminary investigations. The next test case is 1 Timothy 5:17.

Especially Those Who Labor

The word especially has particular significance in this verse. Although a superlative adverb, its function approximates that of a conjunction. Logically, it requires a repetition of the verb, as the following addition of bracketed words indicates:
Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, [9] especially [let] those [elders who rule well] who [also] labor in the word and teaching [be counted worthy of double honor]. [10]
Paul clearly differentiates those elders who labor in the word and teaching from those who do not (i.e., those whose focus is ruling). Naturally, he urges congregations to be especially generous in providing for elders who labor to exhaustion in studying and proclaiming the Word. See the following chart.


Elders who Rule Well
Elders who labor in the Word
They are especially worthy of double honorarium
Elders who do not labor in the Word
They are worthy of double honorarium

Many regard the foregoing chart as a sufficient exposition of the passage. However, it could only be comprehensive under one assumption: that Paul did not conceive of elders who do not rule well. That hardly seems possible, since the same context allows receiving accusations against elders from two or three witnesses (1 Timothy 5:19). Furthermore, Paul’s warning against ordaining any man too quickly (1 Timothy 5:22) implies the possibility that an unworthy man may become an elder.

The following chart allows for the possibility of finding elders who do not rule well.

Thrust of 1 Timothy 5:17


Rule Well
Do Not Rule Well
Labor in Word
Especially worthy of double honorarium
Not worthy of double honorarium
Do not labor in Word

Also worthy of double honorarium
Not worthy of double honorarium

This translates into the following ranking of these classes of elders.

Implication of 1 Timothy 5:17


Rule well
Do not rule well
Labor in Word
First
Third
Do not labor in Word
Second
Fourth

Another way of depicting this is in a list:
First group: rule well and labor in the Word 
Second group: rule well, but do not labor in the Word 
Third group: do not rule well, but labor in the Word 
Fourth group: do not rule well and do not labor in the Word
Everyone can understand why Paul places the first rank first. Elders who both rule well and labor in the word and teaching definitely deserve the double honorarium. The group with the fourth rank is also self-evident. They neither rule well nor labor in the word and teaching, so Paul does not urge the church to give them the double honorarium. Perhaps, they should cease being elders. [11]

The second and third ranks deserve closer attention. Paul’s wording raises a question: Is ruling more important than studying and communicating scriptural truth? If pay is based on ruling, does this mean that an elder should spend more time ruling than studying or teaching? The following chart highlights the issue in question:

Dilemma Faced by the Single-Elder Model


Actual
Expected
Rules well and labors (esp. double honor)
1
1
Rules well; does not labor (double honor)
2
3
Does not rule well; labors (no double honor)
3
2
Neither rules well nor labors (no double honor)
4
4

Paul indicates that ruling well, not laboring in the Word, is what determines whether an elder is worthy of the double honorarium. This creates a difficulty for the single-elder model. Paul seems to deem ruling well as more important for an elder than laboring in the Word and teaching. Despite the incomprehensibility of such a conclusion it seems to be inescapable for the single-elder model. That model would not face such a dilemma if Paul had written:
Let the elders who labor in the word and teaching be counted worthy of double honor, especially [let] those [elders who labor in the word and teaching] who [also] rule well [be counted worthy of double honor].
Rewriting the verse in this way would yield the following chart, elevating studying and teaching over ruling.

What the Single-Elder Model Would Prefer

Rules well and labors (esp. double honor)
1
Does not rule well; labors (double honor)
2
Rules well; does not labor (no double honor)
3
Neither rules well nor labors (no double honor)
4

However, the verse does not read in a way that favors the single-elder model, unless the reader assumes that Paul devalues the importance of study and teaching. This realization about 1 Timothy 5:17 caused the present author to switch from favoring the single-elder model.

Solving the Dilemma

The single-elder-per-congregation model views Paul as having a two-fold expectation of each elder:
  1. ruling well
  2. laboring in the word and teaching
Under these assumptions, Paul would indicate that ruling well is more important than laboring in the word and in doctrine (as the prior section argues).

The plural-elders-per-congregation approach sees Paul as expecting all elders to rule well. He recognizes that some elders (the teaching elders) will also labor to exhaustion in the word and teaching.

Under this approach to the passage, Paul does not rebuke the ruling elders for not laboring in the word and teaching. This is the key. The single-elder model must see not laboring in the word and teaching as a rebuke, because it expects all elders both to rule and teach. However, if the fact that some elders who rule well do not labor in the word and doctrine deserved a rebuke, why does Paul still regard such elders worthy of the double honorarium?

The word kopiá (“labor”) is not a generic term for doing something. It includes the idea of wearisome effort. Consider the following illustrations: the first applies under each model, while the second applies only under plurality models.

Illustration 1: A Teaching / Ruling Elder

This elder devotes forty-five hours per week to studying, five hours to teaching, five to administrative responsibilities (singly and in conjunction with the other elders), and five to hospital visitation and other ministries to his flock on an individual basis. His sixty-hour work week focuses heavily on the word and teaching. He labors to exhaustion in the word and teaching. He does not have time for a part-time job on the side. His congregation needs to take care of the double honorarium, or his finances will soon be in shambles. If this elder needed to seek outside employment, the church would suffer loss.

Illustration 2: A Ruling Elder

This elder works fifty hours each week in a highly compensated secular profession. He attends church faithfully and studies the Word on his own. He also devotes several hours a week to elder meetings, carrying out church administrative responsibilities, teaching a Bible class, [12] and personal ministry. Assume for the purposes of illustration that Paul commended him for carrying out his elder responsibilities.

1 Timothy 5:17 urges the church to provide the double honorarium to both elders because they rule well. However, the first labors to exhaustion in the word and teaching. The second labors to exhaustion in his secular profession. The passage does not rebuke the second elder for not putting in long days studying and teaching. Paul, a tentmaker, was quite familiar with the situation facing the second elder.

How might a church pay a double honorarium to both elders? The first elder serves the church in vocational ministry that includes ruling well and laboring in the word and doctrine. This service may well be a full-time vocational ministry. The second elder rules well and is able to teach, but his is not a vocational ministry. His vocational employment is elsewhere, so that he rules well avocationally. The double honorarium for the elder whose ministry is vocational must be adequate to enable him to devote time to study and teaching. A double honorarium for the ruling elder who ministers avocationally will not yield the same size salary as that for the teaching elder. Nevertheless, the goal is to treat the ruling elder fairly.

Furthermore, the term especially in 1 Timothy 5:17 indicates that the priority is to provide an appropriate compensation to the elder who not only rules well but labors to exhaustion in the Word and teaching. In other words, if the budget does not allow for providing a double honorarium to all elders, the church should make sure that it appropriately compensates the teaching elder.

A congregation of 100 people in New Testament times would have been exceptionally large. First-century congregations met in homes, [13] rather than in single-purpose church buildings (which tend to be larger than homes). For small congregations (consisting predominantly of small numbers of non-affluent people), the double honorarium often could have constituted an economic hardship. Paul’s words allow for that possibility. 1 Timothy 5:17 says, Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor. Some churches may lack the means for providing a full double honorarium. Such churches should be as generous as possible in paying their elders. The very fact that Paul needed to make tents testifies to the possibility that churches may have sufficient financial resources. Congregations that find themselves struggling to fulfill 1 Timothy 5:17 in the long run will benefit from doing what they can to free their teaching elder to labor in the Word and teaching rather than pursue outside employment.

Summary

The single-elder model faces a tension in 1 Timothy 5:17. If Paul’s underlying assumption were that a church has only one elder, the passage (as written) emphasizes compensating elders for ruling well (i.e., for carrying out administrative tasks), not for their teaching. If so, studying and teaching becomes secondary to ruling. It is inconceivable that Paul would emphasize ruling over studying and teaching. Nevertheless, that is the logical bottom line under this model.

On the other hand, multiple-elder models view this passage as saying that ruling is a function that all elders share. However, not all congregations can afford more than one full-time teaching elder, and some cannot fully support even one. Under the multiple-elder model, a congregation is to consider all of its ruling elders worthy of a double honorarium, but should especially focus on freeing the teaching elder from the need for outside employment. Upon attaining this, the church should aim at avoiding the muzzling of any of its oxen, including the ruling elders (1 Timothy 5:18).

The interpretive advantage of a plurality of elders view is that it does not see Paul as emphasizing ruling (administration) over studying and teaching. This agrees with Paul’s focus on understanding and using Scripture in life.

This article has not sought to argue for one plurality model over another because 1 Timothy 5:17 is not the place for resolving some of the finer points. Paul could have easily explained the model that underlies what he wrote, but he is not explicit. Thus, modern interpreters must seek out any clues contained in verses such as 1 Timothy 5:17. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5b).

Notes
  1. This model is common in Baptist churches.
  2. Plymouth Brethren assemblies employ this model, but often purposely limit compensation for elders, believing that outside employment is desirable.
  3. Presbyterians favor this model. Presbúteroi is the Greek word for elders.
  4. First Timothy 5:17 is the central passage for the present author, but that is not the only passage he would cite. Those who favor the single-elder per congregation model often assert that any given city may have contained many congregations, so the phrase “the church of _____ [city name]” may refer to a number of autonomous house-churches. While passages exist, where this is a real possibility, Acts 14:23 speaks of elders (plural) according to the church (singular). Of course, proponents of the single-elder per congregation model suggest that many congregations may have existed in those cities. This is based on an assumption that Paul and Barnabas planted multiple congregations in Perga, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe in Acts 13–14. However, riots forced them to leave several of these cities after short ministries. It is easier to conceive of Paul and Barnabas planting a single congregation in each of these cities. Acts 14:23 weighs against the single-elder-per-congregation view.
  5. Scripture citations are from The New King James Version (Nashville: Nelson, 1982), unless noted otherwise. First Timothy 5:17 is always the author’s own translation.
  6. Acts 20:28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1–2; Titus 1:7; and 1 Peter 5:2 speak of the office of epískopos (“overseer,” “bishop”). This term serves as a functional equivalent to elder, since Acts 20:17 and 28 show that elders are men whom the Holy Spirit has made overseers (cf. Titus 1:5–7 and 1 Peter 5:1–2).
  7. For a male writer to assign an age to the terms older woman and younger woman is a risky proposition. The following makes the necessary point without entering into that controversy. By definition, a mother is an older woman in comparison to her daughter. Certainly, Paul would not say, “The only mothers allowed to teach their daughters are those who possess the spiritual gift of teaching.” Readers will hold one of two positions regarding women possessing the spiritual gift of teaching: (1) no women have the spiritual gift of teaching or (2) some women have the spiritual gift of teaching. Those holding the former position must conclude that Paul regarded some who lack the spiritual gift of teaching as indeed able to teach. Certainly, those holding the latter position would not imagine Paul viewing mothers without the spiritual gift of teaching as unable to teach their own daughters.
  8. Similarly, most would differentiate the spiritual gift of evangelism from doing evangelism (2 Timothy 4:5 does not imply that Timothy possessed the spiritual gift of evangelism).
  9. 1 Timothy 5:18 explains verse 17 in terms of the need to compensate workers. Thus, the double-honorarium in verse 17 is financial. In addition, the paragraph preceding this passage includes 1 Timothy 5:3: Honor widows who are really widows. Honor is a financial concept here. Paul is concerned that elderly women who lacked a husband, children, and grandchildren would be destitute. Thus, verse 3 urges financial assistance for qualifying widows, but verse 4 withholds it from widows whose children or grandchildren could support them.
  10. Translation by author. The word for teaching (or doctrine) is didaskalía, which has the same root as didásk (“to teach”). The term teaching elder arose under the multiple-elder models from this word in this verse. Thus, translating the verse with teaching rather than doctrine preserves the link between the teaching-elder models and this verse.
  11. Such a man is not making a contribution because he fails to rule well. On the other hand, Paul did not necessarily expect all ruling elders to labor to exhaustion in the word and in doctrine.
  12. Although this elder does study and teach, he labors to exhaustion in secular employment (i.e., tentmaking). While diligent and worthy of double honorarium, he does not labor to exhaustion in the word and teaching. Paul does not rebuke a ruling elder for tentmaking. Furthermore, budgetary realities may require the teaching elder of a small congregation to find outside employment. Nonetheless, Paul would encourage congregations to seek to minimize the time any teaching elder would devote to tentmaking.
  13. The following Pauline passages mention churches meeting in homes: Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19; Colossians 4:15; Philemon 1:2. Possibly, 2 John 1:10, “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house nor greet him,” does so as well. If a local congregation was meeting in the home of the recipient of 2 John, the word home could have had a double meaning: (1) home and (2) the church assembled in that home.