Mar 1958 - Editorial

(NOTES ON 1 TIMOTHY 5. 20)

We have had an American magazine entitled "Words in Season" handed to us, so that we might read an article therein under the title, "The Needed Truth movement " (November, 1957, pages 204-206), especially that part on page 205 in which there is a criticism of what we wrote in " Bible Studies" of July 1957 page 111. The above verse as given in the R.V. reads as follows

"Them that sin reprove in the sight of all that the rest also maybe in fear"

It is clear enough that Paul is giving instructions to Timothy as to elders in this paragraph (verses 17 - 21) and not as to saints in general. Two classes of elders shall we say are in view (1) the elders that ruled well, who were to be counted worthy of double honour, especially such as laboured in the word and in teaching, and (2) the elders that sinned, who were to be reproved, but no accusation was to he received against an elder, except it was sustained by two or three witnesses. Them that sinned must be elders, according to the context, and not saints (what I mean by saints is, saints who are not elders). Reprove before all " ; as saints or the church are not in the picture in this paragraph, "all" here must be all the elders. "That the rest," or "others" A.V., not the rest of the saints, for as we have said, the saints are not in view in the passage, but the rest of the elders also may be in fear. The whole passage is blurred and destroyed if we introduce the discipline of elders before the church or by the church. The sin in view is not one that called for the church taking action arid expelling one from its communion, as in 1 Corinthians 5, but was sin of the nature that could be justly met by reproof before elders.

Of course where there is no recognized oversight or circle of elders, such a course as Paul outlines could not be taken.

The criticism referred to above apparently implies that "all" and "the rest" are the saints in the assembly, and that an elder or elders could be rebuked by other elders (or is it by the saints ?) before the saints. The impropriety of such a course should be evident even to a person with a meagre understanding of God's will and the godly order that His will produces.

I quote some wise words by Mr. William Kelly, from the "Christian Annotator" of January 5, 1856, page 9, at a time when eldership was denied by most of the outstanding men amongst "Brethren"

"I Timothy 5.17. It is evident that the verse affords no ground for referring the officials in question to those of cities or districts i.e. the bishops of a later date. Plurality is everywhere assumed. It is clear that labouring in the word and doctrine was not necessary to these elders. No elders are spoken of in Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12 for it must be remembered that while elders were to rule or preside, there were others besides who ruled and even in a higher way and larger sphere. "

Mr. William Kelly with his profound knowledge could see beyond many of his time, that those who ruled were not all on the same level and with the same weight of responsibility. This we too have seen many years ago.

We do not consider that our critic is at all justified in his reference to a society of elders (who ever heard of such a thing?) in contrast to the word of God. Elders should ever seek to rule by God's word and not by their own thoughts. Such is what we believe the Scriptures to teach.

We forbear to follow the writer of this criticism in his use of the common expression "parrot-talk." Glib expressions of this kind do not enhance either a publication or a writer.

As to the High Priesthood of Christ, it is not ours to deny the Lord's Priesthood to any; we have no authority over the Lord. But surely the Lord's Priesthood and the house of God are correlated matters. Can this be denied ? It was so in the days of Israel, that the priesthood of Aaron and his sons was connected with the house of God, and Aaron and his sons could not function in the priests' office apart from God's house. The Place of the Name was ever vital to their service. It would be well if our critic set himself the task of finding out what the house of God is and who are in it. We know that many brethren (not with us) teach that all the children of God are in God's house, and this, carried to its logical conclusion, would mean that they are in the house of God even if they are in the Roman Catholic church. We believe that the house of God is conditional, as Hebrews 3.6 clearly shows. "Holding fast" is not a condition to continue to be a child of God.

Complete confusion exists amongst" Brethren "as to the scriptural terms; "The Church and Churches of God," "The Church which is His (Christ's) Body," "Temple of God," "House of God " ; indeed in all Christian literature (so called) the greatest confusion exists as to these divinely given definitions. We have tried as well as we can, in some small way, over many years to set out clearly our understanding of the meaning of these terms. We would say that unless we are clear in our terms we shall be wrong in our results, in our exposition of the Word of God, and that is a' serious matter.

We wish to say definitely that we believe that a Church of God should be ruled by a plurality of elders, and that the elders of such Churches should be joined together as truly as the Churches are to be joined together in one Fellowship.

If any of the friends of our critic wish to know who we are and why we separated from " Open Brethren " (so called), they will find it explained in a small book which we issued a few years ago, entitled "A Search for the Truth of God."

unknown | Mar 1958
Editorial