Rebuke not an Elder. 1 Timothy 5:1

 Let's start off this study into chapter five of 1 Timothy with a version I try to stay away from, the KJV.

1 Timothy 5:1 KJV Rebuke not an elder but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren;

The KJV version has an air of respect as it speaks of an elder. The presumed idea is that older citizens should be thought of as elders. We would assume that this means someone with wisdom and qualifications coming from a life lived by a moral standard.

While this seems like a valid concept, we need to do our homework and look up words and their meanings.

Elder is the Greek word presbuteros. The meanings range from someone who is older, a title of dignity, and one of the classes of members to which the chief priest and the scribes and the elders belonged.

With the Christian church coming on the scene the word elder was applied to those “who were committed the direction and government of individual churches.”

I have to read 1 Timothy 5:1 in light of the entirety of Paul's letter to Timothy. It was written to instruct a young man on how to be a good pastor and church leader. So, my perception of an elder, in regards to this letter, is to see this person as someone within this body of believers, who is, in all likelihood, carrying the responsibility of being a church elder.

Now let's look at another translation, one I use frequently.

1 Timothy 5:1 NASB Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers,

The NASB changed the terminology to simply read, an older man. While it would be appropriate to treat older people with respect, the change in language removes the idea that this person is an elder within the church. This, in my mind, ignores the context and ignores the Greek word presbuteros which speaks of a leadership position. Most of the translations refer to older men, almost as if they are excluding presbuteros and the context of church leadership.

Let's consider a couple more words: appeal and entreat.

Both of these examples is the Greek word parakaleō which Strong's tells me, means to call near, that is, invite, invoke (by imploration, hortation or consolation): - beseech, call for, (be of good) comfort, desire, (give) exhort (-ation), intreat, pray.

I have never heard the word hortation intentionally used before. Because it is unfamiliar to me I looked it up in Webster's dictionary. It means the act of exhorting or giving advice.

Thayer's definitions of the word entreat, simply say, to call to one's side.

What I do with this information?

First, let's address this from the standpoint of a person having to be rebuked, whether they are an elder or merely an older person.

What have they done to deserve such a sharp rebuke?

As we see from 2 Timothy that the potential for being in opposition, to the teachings Paul left for Timothy to preach, is one answer. In the church, we call those teachings church doctrine. These doctrines are the foundation on which we build.

And in this way, I desire to preach where Christ has not been named, so as not to build on another person's foundation, (Romans 15:20 NET.)

Build, Do you mean that we can make it higher, cover it in gold, and promote the worship of the temple over God?

No, for the only thing being built is the body of Christ, based upon Jesus' work on the cross; and, even then the building only takes place as people are drawn to the Word the God, the life we are living – in love, and they themselves become established in the hope we have.

If someone is holding another viewpoint about these doctrines (although I am not sure that is theologically possible,) is it necessary to go nuclear on them?

“The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB)

The definition of entreat, as we saw above, indicates that we are to call this person to our side. I think the obvious fact is that, in the process of trying to correct or straighten this person out, it is done with a heart of love. Now, the complete stranger; that person who will NOT listen to you, you might have to handle differently. I have frequently said, especially when dealing with the grandchildren, why can't they simply respond when I calmly said stop, but since you have refused to comply we have now come to harsh actions.

My most recent experience came when a brother-in-Christ attempted to give an emotionally charged word to the church body I was attending. This speech was a failure from the moment that he had to announce to the crowd that he was worthy of listening to; everything he must have pictured in his mind floated away in anger and frustration, and he was asked to return to his seat, primarily because his word was inappropriate. Since the brother refused to listen and comply he ended up being escorted out of the church that day. He has never come back.

Paul, in 1 Timothy instructs the young pastor in these things in order to prevent the teaching of strange doctrines.

As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, (1 Timothy 1:3 NASB)

The word strange is the same as the Greek word used for doctrines. Thayer's Greek Definitions tells us that it can be seen as: to teach other doctrines; different doctrine; or, simply deviating from the established doctrine.

What do we have that confirms this?

Galatians 1:6-8 NASB

“I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”

“To be accursed!” sounds rather serious, and is quite probably the impetus behind Paul's having to speak to Timothy about correcting a church leader.

If the church leader in question is a younger man, do you think Timothy has more freedom to speak aggressively?

I am not sure this is the answer, as it leans toward aggression.

“As we have said before, so I say again now if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!” (Galatians 1:9 NASB)

Accursed is the Greek anathema and according to the Word Study Dictionary means given up, or devoted to destruction for God's sake; given up to the curse and destruction.

In 1 Corinthians 5, though Paul does not mention the man's name, clearly the man has committed egregious sins, which are spelled out in the Torah. I think it is obvious that multiple attempts to confront and curtail this man's activities have failed; and that is where Paul comes into the story, as he has decided it is time to turn this man over to Satan so that his flesh may be destroyed but not his spirit.

“I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” (1 Corinthians 5:5 NASB)

You would think that turning someone over to Satan would be the absolute end of them. If that were the case, then one could argue that judgment was put into our hands. I happen to think handing judgment off to us would be a foolish decision, as we, regardless of the cross, are still broken people and will be so until Christ collects us back to Himself, changed.

“all judgment has been given to the Son” (John 5:22b).

There is no doubt that the man's flesh dies in this story, but there is also no doubt that the man has the opportunity to be saved in the day of the Lord. I use the term opportunity because Paul suggests that he may be saved. That word may is rather open-ended and can be taken two ways; one is said with affirmation, but we don't exactly get that sense here. The other is an opportunity extended, and whether it is accepted or not is not known to us.

Consider these verses.

“But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.” (Jude 1:20-23 NASB)

“If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make a request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death. We know that no one who is born of God sins, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.” (1 John 5:16-18 NASB)

“My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”
(James 5:19-20 NASB)

One of the struggles I have with this subject of dealing with an elder is how entrenched they can be within the church, often to the degree that others will quickly come in agreement and side with this person to protect them. I watched it happen repeatedly on Monday mornings.

Previously, I told you that I had left just such a Bible Study. I left because I rarely learned anything while there (It was definitely more a relational gathering of men,) for as the speaker would begin, my heart would scream out, that is wrong and I would begin to search out scriptures that refuted the speakers topic, or his interpretation of what he was preaching that day. I think that addressing leaders like this is either a bravery issue, or it's a skillset; and I feel like I have neither.

I appreciate what Paul told Timothy to do when he said,

“Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. (14) Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. (15) Give your complete attention to these matters(NLT,) so that your progress will be evident to all. (16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.” 1 Timothy 4:13-16 NASB

To simplify this I will turn it into bullet points.

• Give attention to the public reading of Scripture.
• Give attention: to exhortation and teaching.
• Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you.

So Paul is telling Timothy, no matter what, keep this information I have given you, alive.

Now if we are talking about an elder in the church, or we are talking about an older man, that has spent his life in the Word of God, you are NOT to crush the man's spirit as you address some error he may be spreading. (That is easier said than done.)

As we see from 2 Timothy, the potential for being in opposition, to the teachings Paul left for Timothy to preach, is one answer. Secondly, in the church, we call those teachings church doctrine. These doctrines are the foundation on which we build.

“The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Timothy 2:24-26 NASB)

See, I have to look at this from a context point of view. In chapter four of this letter to Timothy, Paul addresses how some will leave the faith, but return with false teaching. These teachings might sound right, but they are not. Having spent some time in the faith movement, there was a push to get God to bring you monetary and physical gain. God is not interested in your gains, He is interested in your heart. So, is it possible that this was demonic teaching that crept in? Possibly.

We are not quite done.

Do not address an older man harshly but appeal to him as a father. Speak to younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters -- with complete purity. (1 Timothy 5:1-2 NET.)

Notice how this version says, appeal to him as a father. Hopefully, you had a great father-son relationship and can understand this. Additionally, it does speak to the pastor addressing younger men as brothers and, older women as mothers, whom you would probably, like mine, never cuss in front of. And lastly, even though the context of the message is to straighten out twisted and false teachings, your approach with younger women is with the same respect you would give a sister. Not necessarily a sibling, for many would confess that they don't treat their siblings well. Paul, in this translation, says your relationship is to be with complete purity.

When Peter came to Antioch. Galatians 2:11

When those of us who did not go Seminary, read the Bible, we tend to glaze over passages like the one we see here in Galatians 2:11. I think we do that because there are aspects of it that make little sense to us, and, it is difficult at times to find the events that explain why Paul is so angry with Peter, and when this all happened.

As a visual learner, I have become quite obsessive when it comes to studying the Word of God. I have to be able to visualize the event or chronology for things to make sense to me, and this passage is one that frustrates me. Thank God for perseverance and the freedom of time to keep digging, because I have been looking as intently as one might hunt for gold.

So allow me to point out some approximations. The letter written to those in the region of Galatia was written from Rome about 68 A.D., about the same time as the letter written to the Hebrews (Jews in general.) The book of Acts is the second part of a two-part set beginning with the publication of Luke's gospel. It is understood that these two books were written about two years after Paul's imprisonment in Rome, around 62 A.D. At this point and with this information you cannot make any assessment as to the timing of Peter's actions that caused Paul to become so hostile toward Peter.

Other events that may give us clues about Peter's infraction(s).

• In Acts 9:10 we find Ananias baptizing Saul, and Saul, then stays for some days in Damascus with the disciples (Jewish followers of the way) there. Acts 9:31 demonstrates that with Saul now a changed man, the church began, once again, to have peace and be built up.

• The interaction with Cornelius comes about in chapter 10 of the book of Acts.

In my Chronological Bible, the authors show us a "time capsule." In this time capsule, they indicate that Peter's meeting with Cornelius (Acts 10:25,) happened in 35 A.D. It was this same year that Saul begins preaching Christ as the risen Messiah in Damascus.

• Herod, on the other hand, becomes prominent in our story in chapter 12 of the book of Acts.

Josephus places Herod in the time range of 37 A.D. - 44 A.D. During which time he has James killed, and Peter arrested, with the intent of killing him also.

The Bible Knowledge Commentary explains Acts 12:20 in this manner, “On the appointed day when Herod was delivering a speech, the people honored him as a god, and the Lord God judged him with death, in A.D. 44. This account parallels that given by Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (19. 8. 2).”

Why would this information be important to us? With Herod gone, those who want Peter killed are effectively gone. Peter then could return to Jerusalem, if he so chose to. That information alone still does not answer the question as to when Peter acted so hypocritical.

It was Paul who told us that he did not interact with others, with the exceptions of spending some time with the local disciples; three years in Damascus, and, after finally going to Jerusalem he spent 15 days with Cephas (Peter), and some brief interaction with James. All of this provided ample time for Peter to tell Paul of his indiscretion, and yet, that apparently did not happen.

Galatians chapter 2 opens with,

Galatians 2:1-2 NASB Then after an interval of fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along also. 2) It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.

If Paul is holding to a chronological timeline, then up to this point he does not indicate that Peter acted hypocritically. When I think about how information transferred from person to person, then I can't exclude Barnabas as one of the messengers. Regardless of how Paul learned of what Peter did, he was not going to let it go, and hence we see Paul confronting Peter about something which Peter probably has to be reminded.

Galatians 2:11 NET. But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong.

This passage makes me uncomfortable on several levels.

• First, there is Paul's aggressive and point-blank approach with someone we assume should be given respect.

Peter might deserve respect only because he seems to be part of the Jerusalem council; if not for that reason, one might think he commands a bit of respect simply because he walked so closely with Jesus; apparently, this means very little to Paul.

• The other aspect that makes this difficult is that I was not raised to be disrespectful to people in authority. Lying in bed, not sleeping, I was thinking about this scenario. The Holy Spirit reminded me to consider the Jewish culture; a culture that still pervades their communities today. They, love to debate. To me, this looks like people on the edge of a fist fight, but to them, it is just another day. I have to force myself to set aside assumption frequently, and one of those assumptions has to do with, how long has it been since Peter has done this wrong? With what I perceive as fury on Paul's part, I assumed this event just happened yesterday. The reality is that it may have been 14+ years ago.

Because life takes you on unexpected paths, you can develop a gruff persona as a defense mechanism. Sadly, that persona impacts the way you react to people in your life. I have described my persona as being bear-like. Add to this rough imagery the peculiar gift of being a prophet (I say peculiar because after all these years I have no real definition of what a prophet does; I just know that I admired the Prophet Samuel and he hacked up king Agag.) The combination can be rather explosive at times, as I frequently find myself fighting the desire to call fire down from heaven on people. NO, that has never happened, it's just how I feel, and it comes on especially strong when my pastor unjustly attacks me and then demonstrates how human he is through some false teaching. 

While you may not be able to relate to what I am saying here, I can see this type of behavior in Paul. Keep in mind that Paul told us that he had this continuing thorn in the flesh, a person or thing that continued to keep him humble. Do you think a man that went around zealously trying to kill those who chose to set aside the traditional ways of Judaism, could have anger issues and hence a thorn in his flesh? I think we can see this in his interaction with Peter.

Try to find any other allusions to Peter/Cephas coming to Antioch; you won't.

There is only one reference, and it is Paul that gives it to us. In my pursuit of answers, I searched for significant words such as Peter; believer; Gentiles, and finally, Antioch. As a side note, the word Antioch, using the NET translation, located only 18 references to the name in the New Testament (This is where our focus is centered.) The first occurrence is in Acts 6:5.

Since I already pointed out, from the Chronological Bible, that there were established timelines, and how that in some cases they paralleled Saul/Paul's life with Peter's. And, I have given you that information above. 

Lacking someone else to do a timeline for us, all we have is scripture.

Where is the scriptural proof of this happening? The only place in scripture where this possibility arises is in Acts chapter 10, where Peter goes to the house of the Roman Centurion Cornelius (A Gentile; but an oddity appears in the description of the man, for it calls him devout. Devout could imply he had quietly become a Jewish convert. Practicality says no, but then how would one be able to make an assessment of a man like this, a man said to be devout?)

Scriptural evidence, or proof, is the one thing we should always have when trying to present an informative, intelligent study or Apologetic (A defense.) And, we have a mandate that nothing should be judged without two or more witnesses. In our case, the witnesses are scripture. Well, the answers are out there (as Mulder and Scully used to say on the X-Files television show,) and I thought for a moment that I had found some evidence of Peter in Antioch, but alas, the majority of translations and commentators indicate that Acts 12:17 is speaking of Herod going to Caesarea, not Peter.

Acts 12:17 NASB But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had led him out of the prison. And he said, "Report these things to James and the brethren." Then he left and went to another place.

Although many have commented on this verse, it still brings some confusion because of what Peter says in his instructions to those gathered at the house of Mary. Mary is John Mark's mother, and, according to commentator John Gill, John Mark is the nephew of Barnabas (That makes sense as Barnabas is a significant promoter of John Mark to be on the missionary trips.) Peter tells those gathered at the home that night, that they were to report these things to James and the brethren. Why, because Peter was getting out of town quickly.

Acts 12:17, as I noted above, tells us that, “he left and went to another place.” The obvious question is, where did he go? We are not told that he shared this location with any of the others, quite probably because it could cost them their lives. I would think that in time it would become apparent that Peter had left town.

I thought for a moment that I had found Peter going North as I followed verses 18, 19. However, this is where grammar comes into play, as Herod, not Peter, is the focus of attention.

Acts 12:18-19 NASB Now when day came, there was no small disturbance among the soldiers as to what could have become of Peter. 19) When Herod had searched for him and had not found him, he examined the guards and ordered that they be led away to execution. Then he went down from Judea to Caesarea and was spending time there.

Note how it says, “When Herod had searched for him and had not found him, he examined the guards and ordered that they be led away to execution.” Those Roman soldiers had clues as to where Peter might be found, and I imagine they brutishly questioned and challenged all they spoke with. If Peter was still there, they would have found him. Not obtaining Peter would surely mean their deaths. So the guards had a strong motivation to do a thorough search, and yet, not a trace of Peter was found. What do I make of that? Peter was no longer in Jerusalem.

Still, presuming I have no timeline, then I have only circumstantial evidence. Since the book of Acts is somewhat chronological, then it makes sense to have Peter moving quickly North toward Damascus, where we are about to find a young man named Saul. But, if you were paying attention, you would have noticed that this Herod episode and Peter fleeing, happened in chapter 12, and here I am in Acts chapter 11, where Jewish followers are verbally accosting Peter for eating with Gentiles. 

This verbal attack has some similar properties to Paul's criticism of Peter, which we see in Galatians 2.

Acts 11:1-3 CEV The apostles and the followers in Judea heard that Gentiles had accepted God's message. 2) So when Peter came to Jerusalem, some of the Jewish followers started arguing with him. They wanted Gentile followers to be circumcised, and 3) they said, "You stayed in the homes of Gentiles, and you even ate with them!"

From the viewpoint of a former Gentile; now grafted into the vine. I desire to understand these relatively new Jewish roots of mine. Maybe that is why I find the conversation the Jewish followers are having with Peter so offensive.

Peter explained his actions and this attack against him in Acts 11:4-17.

Acts 11:4-17 CEV Then Peter told them exactly what had happened: 5) I was in the town of Joppa and was praying when I fell sound asleep and had a vision. I saw heaven open, and something like a huge sheet held by its four corners came down to me. 6) When I looked in it, I saw animals, wild beasts, snakes, and birds. 7) I heard a voice saying to me, "Peter, get up! Kill these and eat them." 8) But I said, "Lord, I can't do that! I've never taken a bite of anything that is unclean and not fit to eat." 9) The voice from heaven spoke to me again, "When God says that something can be used for food, don't say it isn't fit to eat." 10) This happened three times before it was all taken back into heaven. 11) Suddenly three men from Caesarea stood in front of the house where I was staying. 12) The Holy Spirit told me to go with them and not to worry. Then six of the Lord's followers went with me to the home of a man 13) who told us that an angel had appeared to him. The angel had ordered him to send to Joppa for someone named Simon Peter. 14) Then Peter would tell him how he and everyone in his house could be saved. 15) After I started speaking, the Holy Spirit was given to them, just as the Spirit had been given to us at the beginning. 16) I remembered that the Lord had said, "John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." 17) God gave those Gentiles the same gift that he gave us when we put our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. So how could I have gone against God?

This vision was a green light to freedom in God's grace, and Peter's call to be a missionary to the Gentiles. Having had this rather enlightening experience Peter passed on the opportunity. Why? Because of peer pressure? 

In summary, Peter's hypocrisy may well have happened at the home of Cornelius where for several days Peter enjoyed the freedoms of grace. How and when Paul found out about it is unknown. But, even with the improbabilities of Paul maintaining an intense anger over Peter's actions for as much as 18 years, it is clear that Paul still dealt with his thorn, which may well be anger.