Author: drthomasclothier

“I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth” (Job 19:25).

James Montgomery Boice (July 7, 1938 – June 15, 2000) was an American Reformed Christian theologian, Bible teacher, author, and speaker known for his writing on the authority of Scripture and the defense of Biblical inerrancy. He was also the Senior Minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia from 1968 until his death. Dr. Boice also served as Chairman of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy for over ten years and was a founding member of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

I do not know if you have had the experience of gaining an insight or receiving a revelation so important that you wished it could be preserved forever. If you have, or if you have even experienced that in a partial way, you will understand the tone in which Job spoke his most widely quoted lines, beginning, I know my Redeemer lives.” We hear something said in a particularly vivid way, and we say, “If I could just remember that!” Or we have an insight and say, “If I could just get that written down so I won’t forget it!”

That was the feeling that Job experienced. He had suffered a great deal, first by the loss of his possessions, then by the loss of his ten children and eventually his own health. His friends came to comfort but actually abused him, charging that his misfortunes were the result of some particularly outstanding sin in his life. In the midst of one reply Job gave vent to the insight to which I am referring.

Job perceived that his story was not being told completely in this life and that a later day would vindicate him. In fact, he perceived that there was an individual who would vindicate him, even Jesus Christ, whom Job calls “my Redeemer.” This individual would stand on the earth in some future day, would raise Job from death, and would enable him to see God.

Can you imagine Job’s excitement as he gave expression to this hope? There were many who shared it in Job’s day; few understood it. So, Job said that he wished his words might be preserved. “Oh, that my words were recorded, that they were written on a scroll, that they were inscribed with an iron tool on lead, or engraved in rock forever!” (Job 19:23-24). Fortunately for us, Job’s wish was fulfilled. Not only were his words preserved in a book; they have been preserved in the Book of books, the Bible.

A Kinsman-Redeemer.

“I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth” (Job 19:25).

The first thing we shall look at in Job’s statement is its key word: “Redeemer.” This is a rich and particularly illuminating term. In Hebrew the word is goel, which refers to a relative who performs the office of a redeemer for his kin. We must visualize a situation in which a Hebrew has lost his inheritance through debt. He has mortgaged his estate and, because of a lack of money to meet the debt, is about to lose it. This happened in the case of Naomi and Ruth so that, although they had once possessed the land, they had become impoverished. In such a situation was the goel’s duty, as the next of kin, to buy the inheritance; that is to pay the mortgage and restore the land to his relative. Boaz did that for Ruth.

That custom is what Job refers to in his expression of faith in a divine Redeemer, and it is why this passage must refer to Job’s own resurrection. As Job spoke those words he was in a dire physical condition. He had lost his family and health. He must have imagined that he was about to lose his life, too. He would die. Worms would destroy his body. But that was not the end of the story. For his body, like the land, was his inheritance; and there is one who will redeem it for him. Years may go by, but at the latter day the Redeemer will stand upon the earth and will perform the office of a goel in raising his body. He will bring Job into the presence of God.

I recognize that there are different ways of translating the phrase “Yet in my flesh I will see God” (19:26). Some versions read, “Yet without my flesh.” But those fail to make full sense of the passage. What is redeemed if it is not Job’s body? Not the soul or the spirit certainly, for those are never forfeited. And not Job’s physical possessions, for the passage is not even considering them. It is the body that will be redeemed. Consequently, it is in this body and with his own physical eyes that Job expects to see God.

A second duty of the goel was to redeem by power, if that should be necessary. Abraham performed this duty when Lot had been captured by the four kings who made war against the king of Sodom and his allies. Abraham armed his household, pursued the four kings and their prisoners, and then, attacking by night, recovered both prisoners and spoil. That is what the Lord Jesus Christ did, was it not? He attacked in power—we speak rightly of resurrection power—and broke death’s hold.

Finally, the goel had a duty to avenge a death. Imagine that an Israelite has been attacked and is dying. The goel learns who has struck his relative. He snatches up his own sword and dashes off to avenge his own sword and dashes off to avenge the murder. Our Christ is likewise our avenger. We are dying people, but we have a Redeemer. We read of Him: “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death…Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting? The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 15:25-26, 55-57).

A Living Redeemer.

As we think about his words in greater detail, we discover next that Job took confidence, not only in the fact that he had a Redeemer, but that he had a living Redeemer. That is important, because a redeemer must be living to perform his function.

If Job had been able to say merely that he had a Redeemer, that would have been wonderful. If he could have said further that the Redeemer of whom he was speaking was the Christ, that would have been even more wonderful. To have known such a one, to have been related to him, to have been able to look back to what he had done—all that would have been both pleasant and comforting. But so far as the present need was concerned it would have been inadequate. A person in that position could say, “I had a Redeemer, and I value that.” But he would undoubtedly add, “But I wish I had him now.” A redeemer must be living if he is to buy back the estate, recover the prisoners, and defeat the enemy.

Job does not say that he had a Redeemer. He says that he has a Redeemer and he is living. We too have a living Redeemer, the same Redeemer, who is Jesus.

That is the thrust of our testimony on Easter Sunday. And indeed, on every other Lord’s Day. We testify that Jesus rose from the dead and that he ever lives to help all who call upon him. The evidences for this are overwhelming. There is the evidence of the narratives themselves. They are quite evidently four separate and independent accounts, for if they were not, there would not be so many apparent discrepancies—the time at which the women went to the tomb, the number of angels and so on. At the same time, it is also obvious that there is a deep harmony among them—not a superficial harmony but rather a detailed harmony that is increasingly evident as the accounts are analyzed. In fact, the situation is precisely what we would expect if the accounts are four independent records of those who were eyewitnesses.

One writer summarized the evidence like this:

It is plain that these accounts must be either a record of facts that actually occurred, or else fictions. If fictions, they must have been fabricated in one of two ways, either independently of one another, or in collusion with one another. They cannot have been made up independently; the agreements are too marked and too many. They cannot have been made up in collusion…the apparent discrepancies are too numerous and too noticeable. Not made up independently, not made up in collusion, therefore, it is evident they were not made up at all. They are a true relation of facts as they actually occurred (R.A. Torrey, The Bible and Its Christ: Being Noonday Talks with Business Men on Faith and Unbelief, New York: Revell, 1904-1906, pp. 60-61).

The resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ is also proved by the transformed lives of the disciples. Before the resurrection two negative charges could be made against them; and these by their own confession. First, they had failed to understand Jesus’ teaching about the crucifixion and resurrection. Second, they were cowardly. Peter had said that he would defend Jesus to the death and never deny him. But on the night of the arrest he did deny Him. He abandoned Him, as did the other disciples. 

On the day of the resurrection, but before Jesus had appeared to them in the upper room, we find them hiding in fear of the Jews. Yet hours later they were standing up boldly in Jerusalem to denounce the execution of Jesus and call for faith in Him. Moreover, when they were arrested later we do not find them cowering in fear of the future but rather giving full testimony to Christian faith and doctrine. What made the difference? What made cowards bold, a scattering body of individuals a cohesive force, a disillusioned following evangelist? Only one thing accounts for it: the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There are many evidences, but I cannot help but mention a third—the change in the day of worship. Before the resurrection the followers of Christ worshipped, as did all Jews, on Saturday. The need to do this would not even have been questioned—it had been practiced for centuries. Yet from that time on we find the newly formed body of Christians meeting, not on Saturday, but on the first day of the week, Sunday. Clearly it was because of Jesus’ resurrection.

A Personal Redeemer.

There is a third point to Job’s statement. Not only does Job declare that he has a Redeemer, not only does he affirm that He is living Redeemer—he adds, quite properly, that He is his Redeemer. “My” is the word he uses. “I know that my Redeemer lives.” 

Do you know that “my” in relationship to Jesus Christ? It is a reminder of the need for personal religion. This is what we desire, is it not? We are persons, and we desire personal relationships. We are made in God’s image, as persons; so, we desire a personal relationship with God.

In my church I notice that the young people often have a great deal of appreciation for one another. There are young women, for instance, who greatly appreciate certain young men. And there are young men who appreciate certain young women, even though they sometimes fail to say so. That is a wonderful thing. I am glad that virtue and good looks are noticed. But I have observed that in addition there are also many young women who would like to be able to say, not only, “Look at that fellow; how handsome he is!” but also, “Look at my fellow.” And some of the young men would like to say, “Look at my girl.” Admiration is good, but personal involvement is better.

That is our privilege in relation to Christ. It is good to admire Him. He is the risen Lord of glory after all; it would be foolish not to do so. But how much better to know Him personally, as Job did. Jesus came to earth to die for sin and to rise again. Can you say, “My God came as my Redeemer to die for my sin and to rise again for my justification? You give no real evidence of being a Christian until you can.

Do not delay. Do not say, “I’ll do it next year.” I can give no guarantee that you will be here next year. On the contrary, some who read these words will not be. Even tomorrow may be too late. The Bible says, “Now is the time of God’s favor, now is the day of salvation” (2 Corinthians 6:2).

Assurance.

I would also like you to possess Job’s assurance. That is the fourth point. Not only does Job refer to his Redeemer and declare that he is both a living and personal Redeemer, he also says that he knows all these things: “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.”  You should possess such assurance if you are a Christian.

I do not know why some people think that it is meritorious to express doubt in matters of religion. They think that it is somehow vain or impolite to be certain and that it is humble and therefore desirable to say, “I do not know…I hope so…I would like to believe…I think…” Nothing could be faultier. The humble person is the one who bows before God’s revelation and accepts it because of who God is. It is the proud man who thinks he knows enough about anything to doubt God. Besides, God says that doubt is the equivalent of calling Him a liar; it is as much to say that His word is untrustworthy (cf. 1 John 5:10). Jesus lives! Believe it! Declare it! Act upon it! Say with Job, “I know that my Redeemer lives, we shall live. His resurrection is the pledge of our own.

Then, too, we shall see God. This is the second benefit. We shall live again and in that living form shall see God. What a wonderful thought. And how much more wonderful than anything else that might be said. Notice that Job did not say, “I shall see heaven.” That was true, but it was relatively unimportant compared to the fact that he would see God. Spurgeon wrote, “He does not say, ‘I shall see the pearly gates, I shall see the walls of jasper, I shall see the crowns of gold and the harps of harmony,’ but ‘I shall see God’; as if that were the sub and substance of heaven” (Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “I know that My Redeemer Lives,” in the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol.9, Pasadena, Tex.: Pilgrim, Tex.: Pilgrim Publications, 1969, 214.). 

Nor does he say, “I shall see the holy angels.” That would have been a magnificent sight, at least it seems so to us we look through the eyes of John the evangelist, who wrote the book of Revelation. I find few scenes more thrilling than John’s description. But that too pales beside the gaze of the soul on God. Notice, finally, that Job did not even say, “I shall see those of this world who have gone before me,” even though that would be a great joy and his departed children would be among them. Job would see all these things: the pearly gates, the holy angels, and his children. But over and above and infinitely more glorious than any of those, he would see God.

Do not think that this is a narrow vista, wonderful but small, like looking at one of those old-fashioned pastoral scenes within a candy egg. God is infinite. To see God is to experience perfect contentment and to be satisfied in all one’s faculties.

 Living Memorials.

Our conclusion is this: If Job, who lived at the dawn of recorded history, centuries before the time of the Lord Jesus Christ—if Job knew these things, how much more should we know them, we who are aware of Christ’s resurrection and have witnessed his power in our lives. 

Job lived in a dark and misty time, before the dawning of the Lord Jesus Christ, that sun of righteousness. Job lived in an age before Jesus brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. If he had failed to understand about the resurrection and had failed to believe in it, who could blame him? Nobody. Yet he believed. How much more than should we?

Can you say with Job, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God”? If so, then live in that assurance. Do not fear death. During the next twelve months death will certainly come for some, but there will also be a resurrection. Besides, Jesus is also coming; and if that should happen soon, He will receive us all.

I add one more thought. We believe these truths, yes. But let us not only believe them; let us pass them on so that others may share in this resurrection faith also. What was Job’s desire after all? It was that his words might be preserved and that his faith in the resurrection might be saved for coming generations. 

The resurrection hope has come down to us through many centuries of church history. Let it pass to our children and to our children’s children until the living Lord Jesus Christ returns in His glory. Jesus Christ lives. He lives! Then let us tell others, and let us shout with Job, “I know that my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth.”

Excerpt from James Boice, The Christ of the Empty Tomb. 

 “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19 (ESV)

The following devotional is by Pastor J. Ligon Duncan. Dr. Duncan serves as the Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, Miss. This excerpt is taken from a sermon he preached in 2004 entitled Accountable Leadership from I Timothy 5:17-25.

No unsubstantiated accusations are to be entertained against pastor/elders. It’s
a directive for due process in charges against the minister, or the
ministers or elders, of the church. His point is that uncorroborated charges
against a pastor/elder should not be entertained. “Do not receive an accusation
against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses.”

Now again, this comes right out of the Old Testament civil law. One of the protections of justice in Israel was that you couldn’t simply make an anonymous charge, or a charge that could only be corroborated by the person bringing the charge, and have it entertained before a judge in Israel. You had to have witnesses. There had to be some proof of the reality of the charge that was being brought against a person.

Paul is appealing to that same principle. He’s saying, “If that’s the case in the nation-state of Israel, certainly it ought to be the case in the church. We shouldn’t allow unsubstantiated charges.” Obviously, ministers and elders are put into circumstances where it would be rather easy to make an unsubstantiated charge against them, and here Paul says only corroborated accusations are to be considered in the process of discipline.

Now, what do we learn from this? Well, obviously we learn how we are to proceed in cases of charges against ministers. But we also learn something else, friends. You know, so often we say, “Oh, if it could only be in our church like it was in the days of the early Church.” You know, we think of all the problems that are in the Church today. Back then, everything was wonderful.

Well, look. Here’s Paul writing to a congregation thirty years
after the ascension of Christ; less than thirty years after Pentecost and the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And what’s he writing to them about? He’s
writing about how to handle charges against elders; how to handle discipline of
elders; how to find out when elders have actually seriously sinned publicly.
He’s talking about a church that has problems! Its officers are being accused of
serious sins.

There has never been a perfect local church on earth, and there never will be. We’ll never be in a perfect church until the age to come is here; until we are in glory, we’ll never see a perfect church. Now, that’s so important, because very often in the Christian life we are deeply disappointed by the shortcomings of our local church in various ways. And very often the reason for that is we have unrealistic expectations about how it is going to be to live and minister together.

We think that Christians are always going to act like Christians in the local church. And isn’t it beautifully freeing to realize that Paul envisages a circumstance where even serious charges can be brought against the leaders of the church, and it does not compromise the reality of the gospel preached or of the work of Christ in the midst of this body. It’s a real encouraging thing, if you’ll think about it. We need to be realistic about the church.

The church, the local church, is never going to be perfect. There are always going to be issues and problems, and even serious sins. That doesn’t mean that we become complacent about those sins, but it does mean we live in a fallen world, and the fall has impacted the church as well. And so, Paul gives us a reality check here, even as he tells us not to accept uncorroborated charges against a pastor or elder.

May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

 “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19 (ESV)

The following essay appeared in the August, 2009 issue of TableTalk Magazine by Ligonier Ministries. The devotional is entitled In the Presence of the Court.

Timothy faced a monumental task in working to remove the false teachers in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3) precisely because many of these teachers were also church elders there. So pervasive were the errors that he would have likely been tempted to get rid of all of the leaders and start afresh. Yet to do this would have been the wrong move, for not every elder there was doing a bad job. Some fulfilled their tasks so admirably that they were worthy of “double honor” (5:17–18).

All of this explains why Paul cautions Timothy against defrocking elders too quickly, telling him not to countenance charges against an elder without two or three witnesses (v. 19). In cleaning house at Ephesus there was the danger that people, seeing elders being removed from office, would falsely accuse others whom they disliked in order to see them defrocked. The apostle’s application of Deuteronomy 19:15–20 to the discipline of elders in 1 Timothy 5:19 served to prevent such things from happening in his day, and it ought to continue to ensure that church leaders receive due process today.

But when the testimony of several witnesses reveals the accused elder to be in violation of God’s law, he must be publicly rebuked (v. 20). This does not apply to each and every sin but, as John Calvin writes, to “crimes or glaring transgressions, which are attended by public scandal; for, if any of the elders shall have committed a fault, not of a public nature, it is certain that he ought to be privately admonished and not openly reproved.”

Minor faults should be overlooked (1 Peter 4:8) as well as personal offenses over which the elder has expressed repentance (Matt. 18:15–20). When the normal process of church discipline fails to produce contrition, however, the elder must be admonished before all “so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). The apostle applies Deuteronomy 13:11 here, knowing that people will be less likely to indulge in sins for which even their leaders can be disciplined, making the church more holy.

Elders are not subject to different standards by virtue of being leaders. No person is above the law, not even the king (17:14–20), and to be partial to any sinner is to deny the Lord who judges impartially (2 Chron. 19:7; 1 Tim. 5:21).

John Chrysostom says, “As it is wrong to condemn hastily and rashly, so not to punish manifest offenses is to open the way to others, and embolden them to offend. The threatening’s of hell show the care of God for us no less than the promises of heaven” (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, NT vol. 9, p. 205; hereafter, ACCNT).

To excuse anyone’s sin is neither loving nor gracious but falsely implies that Jesus can be Savior without being Lord.

May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Take time today to pray for, and encourage, your pastor.

Soli deo Gloria!

“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19 (ESV)

The following excerpted essay is by Dr. Tom Ascol. Pastor Ascol is an evangelical Christian pastor, author, and president of Founders Ministries. He is the founding Editor of the Founders Journal, President of the Institute of Public Theology, founding Chancellor of Founders Seminary, as well as the senior pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida, where he has served since June 1, 1986.

His article, entitled A Solemn Discharge of Duty, appeared in the August 2009 issue ot TableTalk Magazine.

Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses” (v. 19). There is a wrong way and a right way to handle accusations against a pastor. No pastor should ever be dismissed based on rumor and innuendo. In fact, if Paul’s prohibition is heeded, then no unsubstantiated accusation against a minister should even be accepted.

A man should consistently display Christian character and conduct before he is placed in the office of pastor. That is what Paul emphasizes in his list of qualifications for an overseer in 1 Timothy 3:1–7. If a church takes these qualifications seriously before installing a man as pastor, then it should not be difficult to give him the benefit of the doubt if a rumor about him emerges.

Anyone can make an unsubstantiated charge against an individual and gain a hearing, particularly if that individual is in a leadership position. Because they are often called to engage people on very personal level, pastors are easy targets for false accusations and gossip. For the sake of the man as well as the gospel that he preaches, a church must guard against even giving credence to an isolated accusation against their pastor, much less moving to dismiss him on such flimsy evidence.

This does not mean that pastors are above criticism or that they cannot be held accountable for their actions. There is simply a right way to do it. Before any charge is received it should be brought by “two or three witnesses.” The appropriate church leaders, who are responsible for guiding and protecting the church according to God’s Word, should then conduct a careful investigation.

If the charge cannot be proved, the matter should be resolved without repercussions for the minister. However, the fact that it was made at all indicates a problem exists somewhere. Perhaps it is a simple misunderstanding or miscommunication, or it could be something more serious. This should be sorted out as clearly as possible in order to prevent future difficulties.

If the charge can be proved and the pastor is judged guilty of serious sin, then the matter is not to be dealt with lightly: “As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). By letting the matter get to this point, the pastor has “persisted” in his sin. Because of this he should be addressed and rebuked publicly in the presence of either the whole congregation or their appointed leaders.

The church must then decide if the pastor has disqualified himself from the office of elder. If he has, they must humbly, sorrowfully, and soberly remove him from his responsibilities remembering that their actions are taken before God (v. 21). The protection that God has given for men in the office of elder must not be misused to allow them to get away with scandalous sin.

No church ever wants to go through the sorrow of dismissing a pastor. But if it must be done, for the honor of Jesus Christ, let the Word of God guide the process.

May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Take time today to pray for, and encourage, your pastor.

Soli deo Gloria!

 “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19 (ESV)

The pastor sat uncomfortably in the large church classroom surrounded by the church elders. The mood was not jovial but somber. The reason for the quiet atmosphere was because of the couple sitting opposite the minister.

Their baseless accusations against him, and his wife, stung with the pain of betrayal. The couple were not strangers to him. He and his wife had been in their home, they in theirs. They once served together in close, mutual fellowship. They now sat a few feet apart, but the distance felt like miles. The elder board were stuck in the middle not sure what to do and when to do it.

Pastor Tom Ascol writes, “It is estimated that in the United States over fifteen hundred ministers are dismissed from their positions each month. In some denominations it is almost epidemic.”

“The relationship between churches and pastors is vitally important because Christ has ordained that His sheep are cared for by qualified, called, and equipped under shepherds. The dissolution of that relationship should never be regarded lightly or pursued haphazardly.”

Untold harm has been done to the reputation of Christ’s kingdom by the improper firing of pastors. Yet there are, sadly, occasions when such a step should be taken for the glory of God and the welfare of the church. When faced with this course of action, however, a church is not free simply to ignore biblical teachings while taking the path of expediency.”

What guidelines does Scripture provide church elders when a pastor faces criticism and personal attacks? Today’s text provides church leaders with some discernment and direction.

The context of today’s text refers to accusations against a church elder; perhaps a pastor. The word admit (παραδέχου; paradechou) means to accept or receive. A charge (κατηγορίαν; kategorian) refers to an accusation of wrongdoing. Church elders are not to accept any and all accusations against an elder.

The Apostle Paul then provides an exception clause. Any and all accusation of improper behavior, or unbiblical preaching and teaching, should be verified with evidence provided by at least two or three witnesses.

“Greek culture also recognized the value of witnesses for legal decisions, but the testimony of two or three was one of the most crucial requirements of Jewish law (based on Deut 17:6; 19:15). For Paul, it is the other side of being “above reproach” (I Tim. 3:2): accusations must be properly examined and not uncritically accepted, explains commentator Craig Keener.^[1]

Dr. William Hendriksen writes, “An accusation against an elder must be upon—that is, must be based upon the oral testimony of—two or three witnesses. Note that though of old any Israelite was safeguarded against indictment and sentencing unless two or three reliable witnesses testified against him (cf. Deut. 17:6; cf. Num. 35:30; John 5:31; 8:14), here (1 Tim. 5:19) presbyters are safeguarded even against having to answer a charge (cf. Ex. 23:1 in LXX), unless it be at once supported by two or three witnesses. Lacking such support, the accusation must not even be taken up or entertained. The reputation of the elder must not be unnecessarily damaged, and his work must not suffer unnecessary interruption.”^[2]

The pastor referred to in today’s devotional introduction was unjustly accused by the collusion of one married couple. The elders unbiblically placed the pastor, and his family, on an enforced sabbatical. The elders demanded professional counseling be required before the pastor could return, if possible, to the church and his responsibilities. The minister and his family were isolated and felt alone. No one reached out to them, except for a few individuals. However, the faithful presence of the Lord was their ever guide and stay.  

“Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses” (v. 19). There is a wrong way and a right way to handle accusations against a pastor. No pastor should ever be dismissed based on rumor and innuendo. In fact, if Paul’s prohibition is heeded, then no unsubstantiated accusation against a minister should even be accepted,” concludes Pastor Ascol.

May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Take time today to pray for, and encourage, your pastor.

Soli deo Gloria!

---

^[1] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 1 Ti 5:19.

^[2] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, vol. 4, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 182.

¹⁷ “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ¹⁸ For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:17–18 (ESV)

The church is to honor biblical widows (I Tim. 5:9-16). The church is also to honor biblical elders (I Tim. 3:1-7). These are men who rule the church well. To rule (προεστῶτες; proestotes) means to lead, to guide and to manage. To do so well (καλῶς; kalos) refers to excellence, rightness, and goodness. See I Peter 5:1-4.

The Apostle Paul wrote double honor concerned an honorarium or weekly financial compensation for elders. This is certainly applicable to elders who labor in preaching and teaching. To labor (orκοπιῶντες; kopiontes) means to presently, actively and collectively work hard in preaching and teaching. Preaching (λόγῳ; logo) means to proclaim God’s Word. Teaching (διδασκαλίᾳ; didaskalia) means to instruct from God’s Word.

Paul then quoted from Deuteronomy 25:4: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” Whether it be a beast of burden or a common laborer, both deserve (Ἄξιος; Axios) and are worthy of compensation of comparative value.

“Paul argues his case both from the Old Testament (Deut 25:4) and from the sayings of Jesus (cf. Lk 10:7). Citations from authoritative or classical texts were used to prove one’s point not only in Jewish but also in other Greco-Roman literature,” explains commentator Craig Keener.”.^[1]

“To support his point—that elders should be paid, and certain ones paid double—Paul quoted two Scripture passages: (1) Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain (Deut. 25:4; cf. also 1 Cor. 9:9). (2) The worker deserves his wages probably refers to passages such as Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15, or perhaps to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Himself (cf. Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7). Though Paul reserved the right not to receive support from a congregation (cf. 1 Cor. 9:15–23; 1 Thes. 2:9), he clearly believed and repeatedly taught that a congregation did not have the right not to offer it (cf. Gal. 6:6; 1 Cor. 9:14).”^[2]

May each and every local church provide double honor to their elder(s) who labor in preaching and teaching. May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

---

^[1] Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 1 Ti 5:18.

^[2] A. Duane Litfin, “1 Timothy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 744.

¹⁷ “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. ¹⁸ For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:17–18 (ESV)

The church is to honor biblical widows (I Tim. 5:9-16). The church is also to honor biblical elders (I Tim. 3:1-7). These are men who rule the church well. To rule (προεστῶτες; proestotes) means to lead, to guide and to manage. To do so well (καλῶς; kalos) refers to excellence, rightness, and goodness. See I Peter 5:1-4.

The noun elders (πρεσβύτεροι; presbyteroi) is plural. In this context, it is not referring to older men but rather to a plurality of godly, spiritual men of biblical character, knowledge, and maturity. These are they who are to lead a church. These men are considered worthy (ἀξιούσθωσαν; axiousthosan) of double honor (διπλῆς τιμῆς; diples times) meaning to regard as valuable, honorable and respectable.

Double honor many also refer to an honorarium or weekly financial compensation. This is certainly applicable to elders who labor in preaching and teaching. To labor (orκοπιῶντες; kopiontes) means to presently, actively and collectively work hard in preaching and teaching. Preaching (λόγῳ; logo) means to proclaim God’s Word. Teaching (διδασκαλίᾳ; didaskalia) means to instruct from God’s Word.

Dr. William Hendriksen writes, “It is worthy of note that Timothy is here instructed to see to it that “the excellently ruling elders” (thus literally) are honored by the congregation. The apostle must have been aware of the fact that in many cases church-members are apt to forget this. They are prone to believe that the overseers are living on Easy Street, “especially those who labor in preaching and teaching,” or that if any honor is to be bestowed it should be by means of the funeral-sermon! Is it surprising that so many ministers suffer nervous breakdowns? And that among them there are several who were doing their work conscientiously?”^[1]  

“The words “especially those who labor in preaching (literally in word) and teaching” show that already in Paul’s days a distinction began to be made between those whom today we call “ministers” and those whom we still call “elders.” All rule, and to a certain extent all teach, but some (in addition to ruling) labor in preaching (expounding the Word to the assembled congregation), and teaching (imparting instruction to the youth, to enquirers, and to all who stand in need of it). They specialize in it, working hard at it. It requires much of their time and effort: preaching, teaching, and preparing for it.” ^[2]

“The elders (presbyteroi) refer here, not merely to elderly men (cf. v. 1), but to those who occupy official positions of leadership in the church (cf. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; Acts 20:17–38). The task of the elders is to direct the affairs of the church. Elders have the oversight of the affairs of the congregation, with the deacons providing their helpful support wherever appropriate. For their oversight all elders received a stipend; but those who excelled in this ministry of leadership were to be considered worthy of double honor, or twice the remuneration as the rest. Especially was this true of those who labored in preaching and teaching. While the leadership needs of a congregation extend far beyond the preaching and teaching of the truth, these are at the core of the ministry and are perhaps most important, which should be reflected by the double value given them by the congregation.^[3]

May each and every local church provide double honor to their elder(s) who labor in preaching and teaching. May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

---

^[1] William Hendriksen and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles, vol. 4, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953–2001), 179–180.

^[2] Ibid., 180.

^[3] A. Duane Litfin, “1 Timothy,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 2 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 744.

¹ The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. ² Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. (Psalm 19:1–2 (ESV)

Not only is there evidence for God’s existence from biblical revelation but there are also the philosophical arguments supporting the concept of God’s existence. Admittedly, these arguments may not convince those antagonistic to the Christian faith of its validity. However, they do provide a thought-provoking response to those who contend that Christianity does not contain any assemblage of reasoning or logical thought. 

What then are the philosophical arguments for God’s existence? They include the ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, the anthropological argument, the religious experience argument and the argument from the existence of miracles: most notably Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead.

The Moral Argument is the argument from the existence or nature of morality to the existence of God. Two forms of moral arguments are distinguished: formal and perfectionist.

The Formal Moral Argument takes the form of morality to imply that it has a divine origin: morality consists of an ultimately authoritative set of commands. Where can these commands have come from but from a commander that has ultimate authority?

The Perfectionist Moral Argument sets up a problem: how can it be that morality requires perfection of us, that morality cannot require of us more than we can give, but that we cannot be perfect? The only way to resolve this paradox, the argument suggests, is to conceive the existence of God. The Bible sets forth this truth in succinctly in Micah 6:6-8:

With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before God on high? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:6-8, ESV)

The Moral Argument is unconsciously set forth by the “so-called” mainstream media each and every time a random shooting occurs at a school or other social setting. Especially when children are victims of violence, media commentators will state that the actions of the perpetrator were evil. The question then is how can anything be called evil if there is no contrasting standard which we recognize as the ultimate good, right or non-evil?

In order to call anything evil implies a righteous standard by which any act can be defined as evil. The righteous standard which defines, and is in contrast to evil, is God and His righteousness. Therefore, whenever society calls something good or evil, it implies an objective standard which can define something as either good or evil. This inherent sense of right and wrong comes from God. Scripture sets forth this truth.

Then Pharaoh sent and called Moses and Aaron and said to them, “This time I have sinned; the Lord is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong.” (Exodus 9:27 ESV)

Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, “The LORD is righteous. (2 Chronicles 12:6 ESV)

The LORD judges the peoples; judge me, O LORD, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me. Oh, let the evil of the wicked come to an end, and may you establish the righteous—you who test the minds and hearts, O righteous God! My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart. God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. (Psalm 7:8-11 ESV)

Gracious is the Lord, and righteous; our God is merciful. (Psalm 116:5 ESV)

The LORD is righteous; he has cut the cords of the wicked. (Psalm 129:4 ESV)

The LORD is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works. (Psalm 145:17 ESV).

The LORD is in the right, for I have rebelled against his word; but hear, all you peoples, and see my suffering; my young women and my young men have gone into captivity. (Lamentations 1:18 ESV)

To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you. (Daniel 9:7 ESV)

Therefore the LORD has kept ready the calamity and has brought it upon us, for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works that he has done, and we have not obeyed his voice. (Daniel 9:14 ESV)

Pray for nations which have cast off the moral righteousness of God for the immoral unrighteousness of sin.

Soli deo Gloria!

¹⁶”If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.” (1 Timothy 5:16 (ESV)

The following excerpt is by Dr. and Pastor J. Ligon Duncan. It is entitled Caring for the Church. He preached this message September 29, 2004.

The Christian life is never a
matter of merely taking, getting or receiving — it is a display of giving.

Finally, look at verses nine to sixteen. Here Paul
makes it clear…it’s fascinating…hat those who are supported by the church
are to give back to the church’s ministry. And at the same time, he makes it
clear that those who minister alongside the elders and the deacons of the church
are to be held to the highest standards of Christian living. You see, the
Christian life is never a matter of merely taking or giving, or receiving; it is
always a display of giving, even if we have very little, materially speaking, to
give.

He speaks in verse nine of a widow being put on “the
list.” Now, what in the world does that mean? Well, it’s clear from this
passage that “the list” involves a widow who is in the situation of material
need described in verses three through eight. She is a widow indeed. She has no
one else to care for her. But this widow indeed is also one who performs
spiritual and charitable functions for the church. In other words, she assists
the deacons and the elders in the ministry of the church. She’s over sixty
years old. She pledges herself that she will serve the church for the rest of
her life, and she will assist in the ways that the church deems best. She will
be an intercessor for the church. She will pray. She will give counsel to
younger women. She will visit the sick. She will prepare women for baptism and
communion. She will give guidance and direction to other widows and orphans
supported by the church. She will serve in all these ways.

Isn’t it interesting…this woman, who has had no
means for material support of herself, is supported by the church. And yet, she
is viewed as a person who has something to give back to the church. She’s not
simply the recipient of welfare. She, in receiving the outpouring of the
church’s support for her in time of need, will turn around and do what? Give
back to the church, of herself.

And so, in this passage Paul establishes a
principle that the Christian life is never merely a matter of receiving, of
taking, of getting; but it always entails giving back that which we have
received. Paul gives some strict warnings about putting younger widows on this
list. You can see the obvious difficulties of a younger woman making a pledge
to serve the church in exchange for the church’s support of her in her time of
need, and then deciding later on that she’d rather re-marry. And so, Paul gives
again the very practical, common-sensical advice: “Younger widows, don’t make
this pledge. Instead, re-marry. Have a family. Be involved in the normal
trends and stations of life. Don’t make this extraordinary commitment to the
church.”

Again, do you see the wisdom of Paul here? Paul
isn’t just looking to fill a slot of ministry. He’s always thinking about the
well-being of those who are ministering. And so, he says to the younger widows,
‘Don’t do this to yourself. If God be pleased, re-marry, and you go ahead and
have a family and a life that would have been normal.’

And he says, of course, that those who are
going to serve on the widows list must not simply be widows in need, but they
must be those who have practiced hospitality, who reared children and rendered
service to traveling ministers, and assisted the afflicted, and been devoted to
every kind of good work. So those who are going to serve the church are going
to meet qualifications.

How wise this is. In our day and time, we tend to
think of volunteers in terms of what they have to offer to us, and apart from
their character. And Paul says look at the character of all those who are
volunteering in the church, and unless they meet these marks of character, don’t
allow them to minister.

And secondly, care about them. Don’t just use them.Care about their station in life. If this is a younger widow, don’t let her
do this to herself. Let her have the opportunity to re-marry, and to serve in
the normal courses of life. Paul’s words of wisdom give us principles for how we
ought to operate today. And as we operate in these ways, we manifest the
tangible love of Christ for His people to a watching world.

Let’s pray.

Our heavenly Father, You have promised that You
will provide for us in time of need. And in this passage, You have shown how the
church itself is to show Your provision. When we provide for one another in
time of need, we show that You are indeed the Lord who provides. We pray,
heavenly Father, that as a congregation we would become more tangibly loving in
this way; that everyone in this community would say ‘Look how they care for one
another. Look how they look out for one another in times of need, and even of
destitution.’ We pray as well that we would show this same kind of love
increasingly towards many other Christians in this community, and that the
Christian churches of Jackson would become this kind of local church; that we
would manifest the love of Christ actually and really, in ways that one can
sense not only in the hearts of those who are around them, but can see in their
deeds. We pray, O God, that You would change us to be like this through the
workings of Your Holy Spirit. We ask it in Jesus’ name. Amen.

May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!

¹⁶”If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows.” (1 Timothy 5:16 (ESV)

The following excerpt is by Dr. and Pastor J. Ligon Duncan. It is entitled Caring for the Church. He preached this message September 29, 2004.

First of all, a “widow indeed” for Paul is a woman
who truly, having been widowed, has no one else to help her in life. She has
no children who are there, part of that congregation who will care for her in
her time of need. She has no brothers or sisters in that congregation who will
care for her. She has predeceased her parents. Her parents are not there in
that congregation to help her. That is, she has no family relations to come and
be her safety net in a time of particular vulnerability, and so she is a person
who is truly alone. She’s not a person who has several children who are there
and are perfectly capable of caring for her. She is a person who is truly alone.

And notice also, she is a person who has truly
manifested her commitment to Jesus Christ in the life of this congregation.
This is not someone who is living a profligate life; this is not someone who
professes to be a believer, but who in their deeds reveals that she is not a
believer: this is someone who has lived the Christian life. You see his
description of her in verses five and six.

Now this is important, because Paul is perfectly
aware of the phenomenon of children who refuse to take responsibility for caring
for their parents. You remember the old Dutch proverb: “It seems easier for
one poor father to rear ten children than for ten rich children to care for one
poor father.” Paul knew this reality even two thousand years ago, before the
days of Medicare and Medicaid and modern healthcare and nursing homes, and all
the problems that have come with extended life expectancy. Paul knew that
problem of families refusing to take responsibility for the care of their own
family members, and Paul has some very strong words for those who refuse to do
so.

Notice verse eight: “If anyone does not provide for
his own, and especially for those of his own household, he has denied the faith,
and is worse than an infidel.” Worse than an unbeliever, worse than one who is
not a disciple of Jesus Christ. Paul takes very seriously the family
responsibility in the care of elderly parents and of those who are in the
situation of being widowed.

It’s very interesting. You may have noticed in
today’s newspaper an article about homelessness, on the very first page. When
Glen Knecht arrived in Columbia, South Carolina, as pastor of the First
Presbyterian Church of Columbia, the church was involved in a downtown soup
kitchen that ministered to homeless people. Glen had a heart for ministering to
the needy, but he was also a person who wanted to be very practical and wise
about the ministry to the needy, and so in the first few weeks that he was at
the church he made it his business to go down to the soup kitchen and to
interview all the homeless people who were making regular use of the soup
kitchen. He asked them questions about their lives, and about their families,
and about what they did, and about what they thought. And one of the things
that he found out in the case of almost every person who was taking part in the
soup kitchen’s ministry to the homeless was this: the reason that they were on
the street stretched back to a break that they had had with family members.
Almost all of them had family members who could have taken them in, but because
of either their sin against the family or the family’s sin against them, there
had been a break in family relations, and therefore they had fallen through the
safety net.

Glen then went to those who were managing the soup
kitchen, and he said, “Do you realize by continuing to provide uniformly this
ministry to these people, you are in fact in many cases keeping them from doing
the very thing they need to do in order to get back on their feet?”

Now it’s interesting to me that Paul is saying here,
don’t pre-empt the family responsibility in ministering to those in need in the
church. How wise is that! That’s not unloving. It’s the most loving thing that
you can do, because ultimately the family first bears the responsibility for
those in need. As we enlarge our hearts–and we should enlarge our hearts in our
congregation–to care for those in need, we must take care that our heart is
enlarged wisely, and that we show care to those who need it most without
pre-empting the mechanisms that God has implanted in the very fabric of society
to provide for those who are in need. Paul is calling the church to love
tangibly those who are in need, but not pre-empt family responsibilities.

May the Lord’s truth and grace be found here. Have a blessed day in the Lord.

Soli deo Gloria!