The Discipline of a Sinning Elder

By David A. Mappes

[David A. Mappes is Staff Pastor, Bethany Bible Church, Phoenix, Arizona, and Professor of Bible at Southwestern College, Phoenix, Arizona.]

[This is article three in the four-part series “Studies on the Role of the New Testament Elder.”]

In 1 Timothy 5:19–20 Paul described the process of disciplining an elder: “Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning.” Several questions must be addressed in studying this passage. First, should the witnesses personally confirm the fact of the elder’s transgression, or should they simply serve as a group to ensure an equitable trial for the sinning elder? Second, does the participle τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας (“those who continue to sin”) refer to ongoing persistent sin or to the act and associated guilt of the sin? Third, is the rebuke of the sinning elder to be public or private?

In the previous two verses Paul discussed the matters of esteem of elders and remuneration for them. Then in verses 19–20 he suggested ways to protect them from slanderous attacks or unsubstantiated accusations. Timothy was to receive an accusation against an elder only if two or three witnesses were involved. Were they to provide personal accusation against the one accused, or was Timothy to receive an accusation against an elder only in the presence of two or three witnesses?

Huther argued that Paul was regulating only the reception of the accusation.[1] Support for this view that the witnesses were simply to ensure proper trial procedures, thus protecting Timothy against charges of partiality or vindictiveness, is seen in the preposition ἐπί. Huther suggested this means “in the presence of” or “before,” rather than “on the basis of” or “on the evidence of.”

The notion that Timothy must protect himself against unjust accusations certainly has merit, since the false teachers who intensely opposed Timothy were liars and fabricators of strange doctrines. However, protection for Timothy is guaranteed by the other view as well. Furthermore verses 17–20 as a whole describe elders and not personal protection of apostolic delegates, such as Timothy. The supposition that Timothy was not to function as judge but was simply to refer potential cases of discipline to other elders is unfounded. Throughout the epistle Timothy was told to prohibit the actions of false teachers and to regulate eldership according to stated qualifications.

Most commentators therefore understand that the two or three witnesses were to ensure the accuracy of the accusation.[2] “The apostle specifically directs that an accusation against an elder is only to be received when the evidence is most legally clear and satisfactory.”[3] Quoting Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16 includes the phrase “by the mouth [ἐπὶ στόματος] of two or three witnesses.” Also quoting Deuteronomy 19:15, 2 Corinthians 13:1 includes the words “by the testimony [ἐπὶ στόματος] of two or three witnesses.” Hebrews 10:28 also refers to Deuteronomy 19:15, “on [ἐπί] two or three witnesses,” omitting the word “mouth.”[4] In each of these New Testament verses the preposition ἐπὶ carries the meaning of “on the basis of” or “on the evidence of,” not “in the presence of” or “before.”

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 records procedures for resolving disputes within the Israelite community. These criteria preclude a single witness from successfully charging another with an accusation. Van Vliet writes that this precept is designed “to prevent a single person in the circle at the gate from rising up (to utter an accusation) against a person. The bringing of an accusation is only possible, if there are two or three witnesses.”[5] If someone neglected the covenant rules and brought an accusation without other witnesses, then the procedure described in Deuteronomy 19:16–21 would be followed. This single accuser-witness and the accused were to appear before the priests and the judges. The judges would investigate the accusation thoroughly. If the judges discovered additional witnesses to validate the accusation, then presumably the accused would be punished. However, if other witnesses were not found, then the single accuser-witness would himself receive the penalty for the crime of which he accused another. Numbers 35:30 and Deuteronomy 17:6 require more than a single accuser-witness for the punishment of murder.[6] Also false witnesses as well as a witness remaining silent (Exod 20:16; 23:1–6; Lev 5:1) were forbidden.

When an accuser lodged a complaint, one or two more witnesses must validate that the wrongdoing occurred.7 This regulation would protect the falsely accused and would also provide public awareness that the accused was cleared of the charges. Punishing a false accuser would help deter would-be accusers.[8]

The no-single-witness interpretation of 1 Timothy 5:19 is consistent throughout the New Testament’s quotations and allusions to Deuteronomy 19:15.[9] Thus in 1 Timothy 5:19 Paul intended to protect elders from unjust accusations by utilizing the no-single-witness law. “In Deut 19:15 it is clear that they are to be eye-witnesses of the original offense committed. The same seems to be implied in the Qumran writings…and in 2 Cor 13 and 1 Tim 5:19.”[10] Calvin wrote,

He now tells Timothy not to let them [elders] be exposed to slanderous attacks or burdened with unsubstantiated and unsupported accusations…. For none are more to guard against malice of men in this way. For none are more exposed to slander and insults than godly teachers…. It is indeed a trick of Satan to estrange men from their ministers so as gradually to bring their teaching into contempt.[11]

The word κατηγορία, “accusation,” suggests an official complaint or charge.[12] This judicial sense of κατηγορία, along with the context of 1 Timothy 5:17–20 and the allusion to Deuteronomy 19:15, strongly suggests that the accusation should be understood in a public sense, that is, the church community is aware of the substantiated or even unsubstantiated accusation. This is further supported by the fact that the accusation must be accompanied with at least two witness-accusers. Clearly the accusation would not have been a strictly confidential charge between Timothy and the accuser; it would have been public. If an elder is unjustly charged with sin, the unjust accusation could very well impede the elder’s ministry. This potential impediment would exist only if the accusation is public or at least occurred with public attention. The accused though innocent elder would no longer be regarded as blameless.

If the accusation could not be substantiated by at least two witness-accusers, then Timothy was not to receive it. His rejection of the accusation would confirm its inaccuracy to the local community of believers. This confirmation of the inaccuracy is further indication that the accusation would at least be open to public awareness. The pleonastic expression ἐκτὸς εἰ μή (“except”) stresses that the allegation is to be received only if it is accompanied by more than one eyewitness.[13]

Does τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας Mean Persistent Sin or a Single Act of Sin?

After Paul stated the procedure for protecting elders against unjust accusation (1 Tim 5:19), he then prescribed a discipline process for those who are confirmed guilty of the accusation (5:20). Assuming τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας is referring to elders, the question is whether the present tense participle should be translated “those who continue to sin” or “those who sin.”

The translation “those who continue to sin” suggests that the sinning elder is to be rebuked only if he is guilty of persistent, ongoing sin. If he repents, then no rebuke is to be given. On the other hand the rendering “those who sin” normally emphasizes the articular construction of τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας, so that Paul was contrasting those found innocent with those found guilty of an accusation. This second translation contends that the participle depicts the guilt of those who are justly accused.

Brown, Earle, Fee, Hunson, and Lock agree that τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας refers to elders who are found in a present sinful state, though only Hanson and Brown (and possibly Lock) explicitly say it refers to those elders who persistently sin.[14] It is unclear what these commentators mean by persistent sin. Do they mean persistent, ongoing sin in spite of accusations having been formally presented, or do they mean that the accusation of the particular sin at that present time was verified as true? The only support to which these commentators appeal is the present tense of the participle. Many commentators are ambiguous about the actual meaning of τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας. For example Huther writes that τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας refers to “those presbyters who, in their official work or general walk, do not conduct themselves in a manner worthy of their office.”[15]

It seems preferable to see the participle τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας as simply referring to elders who have been legitimately accused of sin and found guilty. It describes those who are guilty of the accusation of a past or present sin, and not just those who are presently persisting in a sin. In other words the focus is on the present position of guilt associated with the substantiated accusation.

To argue that the participle refers only to ongoing persistent sin is to introduce a foreign idea into the progression of the passage. As Kelly observes, “Some lay stress on the present participle…and explain it as meaning ‘those who persist in wrong-doing’, presumably after an initial private remonstrance (Mt. xviii. 15); but this introduces an entirely fresh idea.”[16] Paul’s thought progresses from protecting elders against unjust accusation to rebuking those elders who are found guilty of a sin. The present tense denotes the present guilt of the accused.[17] In some cases present guilt could refer to a past sin.

Those who say that τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας refers only to an elder’s ongoing persistent sin imply that if an elder repents in the discipline process, no further action is to be taken regarding the elder, that is, he is not to be rebuked. Paul clearly stated, however, that if there is substantiated accusation, the elder is to be rebuked.

The present participle, “those who are sinning,” is set in contrast with “the elders who rule well” (5:17). Those who rule well are to be doubly honored. Those who default in their duties, bringing dishonor to the name of Christ by their sinful actions, are to be publicly rebuked.[18]

Certainly the severity of the rebuke would reflect the elder’s attitude and the nature of the sin in which he was involved. The basis for not rebuking an elder is usually attributed to a forced harmonization between 1 Timothy 5:20 and Matthew 18:15–20. Since the goal of Matthew 18:15–20 is the immediate restoration of a sinning believer that may preclude public rebuke, the supposition surfaces that the elder discipline process need continue only until repentance occurs.[19]

Though possible, it is unlikely that Paul assumed Timothy would have initiated the first two steps of discipline according to Matthew 18:15–20 before a public rebuking of the guilty elder occurred. Paul seems to have set aside these preliminary steps of Matthean discipline when he publicly refuted Peter at Antioch (Gal 2:14) and when he delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander over to Satan (1 Tim 1:20).

In Matthew 18 the additional brethren are to accompany the individual to assist in restoration. If they are unsuccessful, then they become witnesses. But in 1 Timothy 5:20 the accusation is not even to be accepted unless witness-accusers are present. This difference becomes noteworthy in light of Deuteronomy 19:16–21. In 19:16 the accusation warrants investigation even in the absence of witness-accusers. However, Paul explicitly forbade any form of official inquisition unless the accusation is accompanied by two or more witness-accusers. This difference exists because Paul’s intent was to protect the leader as an individual Christian and also to protect the integrity of the office of ministry. Moreover, the consequence of the rebuke in 1 Timothy 5:20 (“so that the rest also may be fearful”) differs from the Matthean account.

A guilty elder who repents during or after the process of discipline must then be restored to fellowship with Christ and should be forgiven by the church community. However, the nature of the sin may disqualify the leader from functioning as an elder, even though he has been forgiven. Even if the sin is of a less severe nature, the rebuke (presumably public) must take place, since the accusation (presumably with some public awareness) would impede the elder from functioning as an elder.

Some commentators suggest that τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας refers to sin of a less severe nature since a gross sin would automatically disqualify an elder from his office.

Paul is not thinking of those grave cases when elders sin so seriously as to require expulsion from their holy office…. The participle does not mean, “those who steadily keep on sinning”; nor does ἁμαρτάνω refer to the gravest kind of sinning “like fornication, drunkenness, and the like.” That such elders should be allowed to retain their office is rather incredible.[20] 

Gealy agrees. “What constitutes sin in the mind of the author is not indicated. There is apparently no thought of anything serious enough to warrant expulsion from office, or worse.”[21]

While it can be assuredly stated that τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας refers to elders guilty of some sin, the exact nature of that sin is difficult to assert. “The most general word for sin is hamartia, which with its cognates designate offenses against morals, laws, men or gods.”[22] Since τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας does not refer to a particular vice that can be ascertained, τοὺς ἁμαρτάνοντας should be understood as referring to those guilty of violations of specific elder qualifications[23] or simply of the more general qualification of blamelessness. In either case the Greek phrase suggests a serious sin or sins that would violate an elder’s integrity and thus impede him from functioning properly as an elder.

Is the Rebuke of a Sinning Elder to Be Private or Public?

In 1 Timothy 5:20 Paul wrote that the elders are to be rebuked in the presence of all (ἐνώπιον πάντων) so that the rest (οἱ λοιποί) also may be fearful (φόβον ἔχωσιν). Does πάντων refer only to the elders (a private rebuke) or to the entire local community of believers (a public rebuke)?

Several writers say that the rebuke should occur only before the elders.[24] Hanson states that since the context of 1 Timothy 5:17–25 concerns elder discipline and not ordinary church community discipline, πάντων and οἱ λοιποί refer only to elders.[25] Oosterzee denies the need for a public rebuke when he writes that it “might easily lead to a depreciation of the clerical office.”[26]

Augustine advocated that the nature of the rebuke depends on the nature of the sin. He reasoned that if the sin is a public sin then a public rebuke should follow, and if the sin is private then the rebuke should be private.[27] Yet elsewhere he reasoned that if the rebuke of 1 Timothy 5:20 is only private, it conflicts with Matthew 18:15–20.[28] However, as already noted, since elder discipline operates outside the Matthean command, harmonization of the two passages is not required.

A number of commentators, on the other hand, hold that the rebuke should occur before the local church community.[29] Several reasons support this view. First, when the sin is open to public awareness (at least to two witnesses) and since the elder holds a public office, the rebuke should be public. Second, a public rebuke vindicates the church from complicity with the sinning elder. Third, a public rebuke more effectively helps deter others from sin. “The public position of the offenders made their sin public and there was, therefore, the [greater] danger of its infecting others. A public rebuke in such cases would at once vindicate the church from complicity with the sin, and deter others from falling into it.”[30] Clarke suggests that πάντων (“all”) and οἱ λοιποί (“the rest”) refer to the believing community because public rebuking was the custom of the Jewish synagogues.[31]

The nature of the public or semipublic accusation against elders, the intended consequence of the public rebuke alluded to in Deuteronomy, and the elders’ serving as a prototype of the godly life all suggest the rebuke in 1 Timothy 5:20 should be public.

Since an elder is formally charged with a sin that brings into question his blameless character, a public rebuke is required to inform the believing community of his status. Without public resolution, the believing community would remain somewhat suspicious of the elder’s character. This type of public suspicion is precisely what Paul wanted to eliminate, as evidenced by disallowing a single witness-accuser. If Paul did not intend a public rebuke (or at least making the results known to the public), he was creating the very type of elder impediment he attempted to prevent by employing the no-single-accuser-witness regulation. Since elders are to serve as examples to the local believing community, so also ought their discipline to serve as an example to the entire local church. As Calvin wrote, “For just as presbyters show the way to an example of an honourable life, so, if they go wrong, it is right that severe discipline should be exercised against them as an example to all.”[32]

What Is the Desired Result of the Rebuke?

In 1 Timothy 5:20 Paul concluded his comments on the sinning elder with the words, “so that the rest may be fearful” (ἵνα καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ φόβον ἔχωσιν, literally, “so that the rest may have fear”). The word φόβος, which occurs only here in the Pastoral Epistles, can mean apprehension, alarm, fright, or reverence and respect. In John 7:13 and 19:38 fear kept the disciples from speaking openly of Jesus. Fear came on all those who heard how God punished Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:5, 11), thus motivating those believers to avoid the same mistake. Similarly the rebuke of a sinning elder should be a deterrent to believers in a congregation.

As discussed, Deuteronomy 19:15–19 addresses the subject of evidence being provided by two or three witnesses. If it turned out that a single witness had accused someone falsely, the accuser was to be punished. Knowing of this punishment, “the rest will hear and be afraid” (v. 20). This fear would have an instructive preventive purpose. This too supports the view that all were to know of the rebuke. Those who informed of this discipline were not a select group but were the community of Israel.

A similar use of this motivational aspect of fear is recorded in Deuteronomy 13:1–11. Disciplining false prophets by stoning would instill a sense of fear in Israel that would dissuade others from prophesying falsely. “Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you” (v. 11).

Others are to be reminded by the public rebuke of the seriousness, shamefulness, and disciplinary consequences of sin. Since Paul is influenced by Deuteronomy’s demand for two witnesses, it is likely that in his remark he is also influenced by Dt. 13:11, which indicates the result of an act of discipline.[33]

What would a believing community fear as a result of publicly seeing a sinning elder rebuked? Apparently they would fear being disciplined for similar sinful actions on their part. Balz writes, “1 Tim 5:20 refers to the fear of the community at the conviction of sinners, thus strengthening the hortatory character of φόβος, which constantly confronts believers with the seriousness of the divine judgment.”[34]

Since πάντων (“all”) is identified as the local community of believers, οἱ λοιποί is usually understood as referring to the same group, which of course would include other elders. They would certainly take note when one of their fellow workers was publicly rebuked.

The word for rebuke (ἔλεγχε) would convey a severe corrective measure of discipline, thus functioning as a warning to dissuade others from following the same course. At the same time, the rebuke would publicly identify the sinning elder as no longer worthy of the office of eldership. Thus Paul’s words about an elder rightfully accused of sin point to a serious situation—a situation demanding careful investigation and public rebuke, resulting in others being persuaded to avoid such dishonoring conduct. In today’s morally decadent society these words are highly relevant.

Notes

1. Johann Eduard Huther, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, ed. H. A. W. Meyer, trans. David Hunter (Edinburgh: Clark, 1861), 209.
2. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, rev. ed. (reprint, Chicago: Moody, 1958), 3:353; Patrick Fairbairn, The Pastoral Epistles (1874; reprint, Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, 1980), 220; Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 118; George W. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 234; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 683–84; Walter Lock, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1924), 63; J. J. von Oosterzee, “The Two Epistles of Paul to Timothy,” in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical (reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 23:64; and Newport J. D. White, “The Epistle to Titus,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), 4:135–36.
3. Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 2d ed. (Andover, MA: Draper, 1884), 94.
4. White and Robertson claim that ἐπὶ…μαρτύρων is an abbreviation or idiomatic phrase for ἐπί στόματος μαρτύρων (White, “The Epistle to Titus,” 4:136; and A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament [Nashville: Broadman, 1933], 4:588).
5. Hendrik Van Vliet, No Single Testimony: A Study on the Adoption of the Law of Deut 19:15 par. into the New Testament (Utrecht: Drukkerij Kemink en Zoon, 1958), 64.
6. “No person is to be judicially condemned on the testimony of a single witness; and a malicious witness is to be punished in accordance with the lex talionis” (S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, International Critical Commentary, 3d ed. [Edinburgh: Clark, 1895], 235).
7. Van Vliet, No Single Testimony, 67.
8. Ian Cairns, Word and Presence: A Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 182.
9. The no-single-witness principle in Matthew 18:15–20 is somewhat complicated by the textual problem of εἰς σὲ and the actual function of the witnesses. Are the witnesses who substantiate the evidence of wrongdoing to help convince and restore the sinning brother, or are they to bear witness to the sinning brother’s intransigence if he refuses to repent? Gundry incorrectly argues that the witnesses, assuming the truth of the original charge, are simply to strengthen the reproof and do not serve as witnesses before the church. He says the witnesses provide verbal testimony to the erring member’s refusal to repent, not testimony to the fact of the erring member’s initial sin (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 368).
10. Victor Pfitzner, “Purified Community-Purified Sinner: Expulsion from the Community according to Matthew 18:15–18 and 1 Corinthians 5:1–5, ” Australian Biblical Review 30 (October 1982): 39.
11. John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, vol. 10: The Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthiansand the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. David Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. T. A. Small (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 263. “By the law of Moses, a private person might be cited, but could not be condemned by the evidence of the one witness: Paul orders that an elder be not even cited; for his innocence is less questionable, and he is more exposed to envy and calumny” (W. L. Blackley and James Hawes, eds., The Critical English Testament: Being an Adaptation of Bengel’s Gnomon, with Numerous Notes, Showing the Precise Results of Modern Criticism and Exegesis, 3d ed. [London: Daldy, Isbister, 1877], 3:29).
12. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2d ed., rev. F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 423; and Friedrich Büchsel, “κατηγορέω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:637.
13. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 94; and A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, 3d ed. (Nashville: Broadman, 1934), 640. “Paul cautions Timothy not to ‘accept’ or ‘acknowledge’ as correct (BAGD s.v. παραδέχομαι) an ‘accusation/charge (κατηγορία) against (κατά) an elder unless’ there are the requisite witnesses. ἐκτὸς εἰ μή (a combination of ἐκτὸς and εἰ μή: 1 Cor 14:5; 15:2) is a double (pleonastic) form of negation in postclassical Greek (BAGD s.v. ἐκτὸς) and means ‘unless’ or ‘except’“ (Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 235).
14. Ernest Faulkner Brown, The Pastoral Epistles (London: Methuen, 1917), 45; Ralph Earle, “1 Timothy,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 11:380–81; Gordon Fee, 1and 2 Timothy, Titus, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1984), 130; Lock, The Pastoral Epistles, 63; and Anthony T. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 102.
15. Huther, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, 211.
16. J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (1963; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 127.
17. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 236-37.
18. J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1985), 119.
19. After referring to the discipline procedure in Matthew 18:15–17, Fincher writes, “The same procedures of course are to be followed when the sin involves members of the Presbytery, Synod, or General Assembly” (C. Tom Fincher, “Corporate Responsibility,” Banner of Truth 190 [June 1980]: 1-5).
20. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, 685.
21. Fred D. Gealy, “The First and Second Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus,” in The Interpreter’s Bible, ed. George Arthur Buttrick (Nashville: Abingdon, 1957), 11:443.
22. Walther Günther, “Sin,” in New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 3:573.
23. N. J. Holtzmann, Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Mohr, 1889), 244.
24. Earle, “1 Timothy,” 11:381; Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 102-3; Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to Philemon, 685; Lock, The Pastoral Epistles, 63; and Oosterzee, “The Two Epistles of Paul to Timothy,” 64.
25. Hanson, The Pastoral Epistles, 102-3.
26. Oosterzee, “The Two Epistles of Paul to Timothy,” 64.
27. “If the sin be in secret, rebuke it in secret. If the sin be public and open, rebuke it in public” (Augustine, “Sermon 34,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, ed. Philip Schaff [reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979], 6:365).
28. Augustine, “Anti-Pelagian Writings,” in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 5:491.
29. Alford, The Greek Testament, 3:352–53; Calvin, The SecondEpistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians, and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 264; Fee, 1and 2 Timothy, Titus, 130; Robert G. Gromacki, Stand True to the Charge: An Exposition of 1 Timothy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1982), 148; Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles, 119; Hezekiah Harvey, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Firstand SecondTimothy and Titus, and the Epistle to Philemon (Philadelphia: American Baptist, 1890), 67; Gottfried Holtz, “Die Pastoralbriefe,” in Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, 13:129; Kelly, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 127; Homer A. Kent, The Pastoral Epistles, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 178–79; Victor Hasler, Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus (Zurich: Theologische Verlag, 1978), 42–43; Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 236-37; Bernardine Piconio, “The First Epistle to Timothy ,” in An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, Catholic Standard Library (London: Hodges, 1890), 162; Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 4:589; Ernest Findlay Scott, The Pastoral Epistles (New York: Harper, n.d.), 66; E. K. Simpson, The Pastoral Epistles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (London: Tyndale, 1954), 78; and Edmund Wolf, Annotations on the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews (New York: Christian Literature, 1897), 91.
30. Harvey, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, Firstand SecondTimothy and Titus, and the Epistle to Philemon, 67.
31. Adam Clarke, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ with a Commentary and Critical Notes (New York: Abraham Paul, 1823), note on 1 Timothy 5:20.
32. Calvin, The SecondEpistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, 263-64.
33. Knight, The Pastoral Epistles, 237.
34. Horst Balz, “φοβέω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 9:216.