Sermon Tone Analysis

“Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.

(No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.)

The sins of some people are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later.

So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden.”

[1]

Paul has been addressing issues related to the relationship of elders and the congregation.

As witnessed in previous studies, the Apostle advocated honour for those who labour among the saints, acknowledging them for their investment in the lives of God’s people.

He also outlined the necessity of protecting the elders against unwarranted assaults on their character.

The Apostle was not unaware of the potential for sin among the elders—they are, after all, mere men capable of base sin.

When elders sin, the Apostle was unhesitating in demanding that they be exposed and removed from their position.

When he writes the verses of our text, it should be obvious that he is continuing to address issues related to the eldership.

He gives Timothy two prohibitions and a charge in the first verse and an explanation in the final two verses.

Some have concluded that the Apostle is simply tying together loose ends of thought.

However, it seems apparent to me that he is doing much more than merely tying up loose ends.

The instructions provided would go far toward eliminating problems related to the appointment of unqualified elders.

*SIN IN HASTE; REPENT AT LEISURE* — “Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor take part in the sins of others; keep yourself pure.”

Let’s be very clear that Paul is not speaking of ordination in the same manner in which we think of ordination in this day.

He speaks of the laying on of hands, and several possibilities could be suggested without appeal to the modern concept of the ceremony that is identified as ordination.

To be certain, the Apostle appears to be cautioning against a hasty elevation of an individual to the eldership.

Perhaps that was what had been done in the case of the sinful elders against whom Paul has been speaking.

This would fit quite well with what Paul had written earlier in the letter concerning qualifications for eldership: “[The potential elder] must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil” [1 TIMOTHY 3:6].

Alternatively, some modern commentators suggest that Paul was warning against extending a hasty welcome to a former elder seeking to assume again the position he once held.

A growing number of churches today are quite prepared to restore elders to holy office once they have received counselling and expressed remorse.

However, this particular suggestion appears to be unlikely on several points.

First, there is no evidence that the early churches restored sinning elders to eldership.

Also, laying on of hands in the New Testament appears to be associated with accepting divine appointment to sacred office and not to a supposed reappointment.

Finally, such an understanding does a disservice to the New Testament teaching concerning forgiveness.

Nowhere in the New Testament are believers urged to use caution in restoring a penitent sinner to fellowship within the congregation.

The laying on of hands as individuals were set apart to holy office is witnessed on several occasions in the New Testament.

The first servants (deacons) of the congregation in Jerusalem were set apart as the Apostles laid hands on them [see ACTS 6:1-6].

This action serves as the model for elders setting apart deacons with prayer and laying on of hands.

The elders act to receive, as it were, the gift of those who are chosen to serve the congregation.

When Paul and Barnabas were appointed by God to launch out on the first missionary journey, the assembled prophets and teachers set them apart for that service by fasting, praying and laying on of hands.

This account reads, “There were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a lifelong friend of Herod the tetrarch and Saul.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’

Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off” [ACTS 13:1-3].

Paul reminds Timothy that the council of elders accepted his appointment by the act of laying their hands on him [see 1 TIMOTHY 4:14].

Similarly, the Apostle will speak on conferring the gift of God through “the laying on of [his] hands” [see 2 TIMOTHY 1:6].

However, laying on of hands is never associated with restoration of a sinning elder.

Though the discussion addresses discipline of sinning elders, there is not a hint of restoration, either after a period of counselling, a time-out or an expression of remorse.

The concept of restoration appears to be a modern invention growing out of a saccharine view of holy orders.

I am likewise appalled that anyone could suggest that a congregation should be cautious in restoring penitent sinners.

Let’s be very clear that the purpose of church discipline is to seek restoration of fellowship.

This is evident from Jesus’ instructions concerning confrontation of those with whom we have a grievance.

Jesus instructed, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.

If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.

If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church.

And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them” [MATTHEW 18:15-20].

Restoration of fellowship is the paramount goal throughout this pericope.

It is fascinating that Peter blurted out his own standard after the Mater had given this instruction.

“Then Peter came up and said to him, ‘Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him?

As many as seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times’” [MATTHEW 18:21, 22].

Peter appears to have thought that extending forgiveness to the same individual seven times should be commendable; he was angling for Jesus’ commendation.

However, the Master stunned him—and us—by saying, in effect, that forgiveness is to be unlimited!

We are not to keep count.

So long as a wayward brother or sister expresses contrition and seeks restoration, we are to receive them.

The people of God have no business keeping count!

By this criterion, when an elder is disciplined and removed from office, though that individual may no longer serve as an elder, the church is to receive him, restoring him to fellowship as a member!

Our problem is that we struggle to separate fellowship and function.

We have seized on that famous verse from the Book of Confusion that admonishes us to “forgive and forget,” and we know we can’t forget.

Forgiveness allows restoration of fellowship, but the consequences of choice continue.

Let’s be clear, then—Paul’s concern in the first verse of our text is the prevention of unqualified elders from being elevated to holy office.

The best way to avoid such an error is to move with deliberation and caution before appointment.

Once an elder has been installed in office, the sole remedy for sin is confrontation and removal—and that action is permanent.

Ordination is seemingly distorted in the mind of modern believers.

Ordination is thought to mark the ordinand as an “expert” in religious matters.

The laity of the churches often views it as sort of a certification of proficiency designating the holder as a specialist.

I find it intriguing that some of the most distinguished of God’s spokesmen were without ordination.

As one example, Spurgeon, arguably the most notable Baptist divine produced by Great Britain, served without benefit of ordination.

Spurgeon was quite vocally opposed to ordination as a lingering evidence of Popery among the people of God.

[2] A surprising number of God’s choice servants have been unordained.

It is always a bit of a surprise for Christians to discover there is no mention of what we call ordination in the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, God is said to ordain judgement [3] and He ordains peace.

[4] Likewise, God ordains salvation.

[5] In fairness, Aaron and his sons were said to have been ordained to the priesthood; [6] but Israel ignored the commands of God and ordained whom they willed as priests.

[7] What is obvious is that the word speaks of appointment; and God appoints judgement, peace and salvation.

Moreover, the priests were appointed by God; those appointed by man were never accepted as priests by the righteous.

I am well aware that older translations of the Bible did speak of ordaining elders.

Paul left Titus in Crete to “appoint elders in every town” [TITUS 1:5].

The King James Version, the Authorised Version and the Douay-Rheims Bible all speak of Titus ordaining these individuals.

However, in light of the passages we have considered thus far in the Pastoral Letters and in light of the words employed, it is obvious that the passage speaks of appointment rather than a formal ceremony.

The word focuses more on the appointment than it does on ceremony or the process.

[8]

In the initial centuries of Church History, the concept of ordination was murky at best.

Perhaps as some have argued, there exist faint traces of ordination in the New Testament; but it is almost impossible to demonstrate the act in the early centuries of the Faith.

By the early years of the Third Century a clear divide between clergy and laity had been established—a divide that was absent in the first blush of the Faith.

As the role of the church expanded, the importance of ordination likewise grew, conferring awesome authority over the faithful.

[9]

That is precisely the point of my concern for the churches in this day—we have created a strange ceremony in which the ceremony itself is more important than is the character or qualification of those appointed.

We tend to focus more on the authority we deem to have been conferred than we do on the responsibility that attends the office.

In keeping with modern views, we are prepared to concede authority to those elevated to holy office without attendant responsibility to fulfil the duties of the office.

Paul is prescient in seeking to avoid this problem through giving these instructions to Timothy.

We do well to heed the apostolic advice.

Undoubtedly, the practise of ordination has brought inordinate harm to the churches of our Lord.

Ordination has segregated the people of God into Clergy and Laity.

Ordination as practised during the past century has served as a basis for conferring tax benefits on Christian ministers, opening the door to unqualified individuals to plead for ordination in order to obtain those same benefits.

Consequently, an increasing number of denominations and churches ordain women to ministry—first as chaplains, then as ordinands to specialised ministries and finally as pastors or priests.

Now, other equally unqualified and unsuitable individuals argue they “deserve” the same tax benefits conferred by ordination.

Thus, with the best of intentions, churches have ensured an unholy union of church and state through accepting this handout.