Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. 1Tim 5:20-21
Clearly these verses deal with the matter of the rebuke of sin in a public manner. They are the words of Paul the Apostle to Timothy, pastor of the church at Ephesus. This epistle is one of those which are described as the Pastoral epistles since it contains instruction given to Timothy specifically related to his role as a gospel minister. These verses form part of the pastoral duty. The words are not addressed to an Apostle! Had that been the case it might have been argued that this was no longer the duty of the gospel minister, but part of the work exclusively belonging previously to an Apostle. No such argument can be made. The Apostle Paul did issue such public rebuke, Gal 2:11; as did the Saviour Himself, Matt 16:23. Yet such action was not the exclusive domain of the Apostle or of the Lord Jesus. The fact that this command is issued to Timothy indicates that discharging the duties of a Pastor in compliance with the Scriptures, requires the public rebuke of sin, after the example of the Apostle and the Saviour.
Sin is to be rebuked.
It is a matter for emphasis here: ….them that sin, rebuke… This is a very important matter. It is a question of sin against God and not merely a matter of personal grievance oe offence. Such rebukes are to be issued when actual sin has really occurred. It is not a response to a trifling matter of human preference or tradition, but actual sin in the eyes of God.
The Bible does deal elsewhere with the issue of personal grievance and offence caused among Christians. This is what Matthew 18:15-18 is dealing with. In that passage, a different approach is taken initially. A personal, private approach is made by the offended brother to the one who has caused the offence. The different nature of the offence is the reason for the different approach. The offence in Matthew 18 is against an individual, a personal matter. This may be readily observed in the words …against thee…, Matt 18:15. While in 1Tim 5:20-21, Gal 2:11-14, Matt 16:23, where public rebuke occurs, it is a sin of a different order. It is clearly an offence against God and committed publicly. Note the words of Gal 2:14….they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel… Here was behaviour against the gospel, against the truth of God.
Public offence against God warrants a public rebuke
That which is truly an offence against God, rather than merely against man, is to be rebuked publicly. There is only one measure of such sin as requires this rebuke – the written word of God. It is not a question of personal preferences or sensibilities, but the absolute standard of right defined by God’s truth. When Paul rebuked Peter publicly in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14) it was because he and others walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel. In other words, they had offended against the gospel of God and the nature of that offence warranted a public rebuke rather than a private one. Paul did not follow the pattern of Matthew 18:15-18! He did not adopt a private, personal approach. When he stood against Peter to his face, v11, he did so before them all, v14. When the Saviour rebuked Peter publicly in Matt 16:23 it was because Peter spoke against the doctrine of the gospel and the Saviour’s death on the cross. The seriousness of this sin is seen in the Saviour’s comparison between Peter and Satan. He was acting as an enemy of the gospel.
Paul instructs Timothy that the rebuke of sin is to be administered publicly by the Pastor. It is unquestionable a part of the preacher’s Biblically defined duty to issue such a rebuke.
The nature of this rebuke is indicated by the greek term employed here. It is an ‘admonition’. That term implies that it is an exposure of sin with the exhortation to repent and turn from it.
It is to be noted that the sin thus rebuked was evidently committed in public. The wording of 1Tim 5:19 confirms that the offence occurred in the presence of at least two witnesses who are later able to confirm that the action did occur, and that the rebuke was warranted. It is not a private matter. There is a simple principle laid down here: public sin requires a public rebuke.
The rebuke is to be given without prejudice or favouritism, 1Tim 5:21. Paul couches his instruction here in the most serious terms! It is a solemn charge that he presents Timothy with. Before God, before Christ, before the angels of God, he is to observe – or, ‘carefully guard’ – the discharge of this duty to rebuke sin before all. Clearly, Paul is implying that there will be attempts made to steal away or nullify this aspect of his work, so Paul puts Timothy on his guard to continue to rebuke in this public fashion. More than this, he is to voice that rebuke as one acting in the place of God and in the spirit of a fear of God, as if in the very presence of God. The rebuke is to be given carefully, deliberately and in the fear of the Lord who knows the hearts of all men.
The persons rebuked.
The context of these words indicate that they apply to the elders, and by extension consequently, to ministers who are teaching elders, v19. These were men that Timothy or Paul, or both of them, may even have had a hand in ordaining to their office! The men in view were also addressed by Paul himself in Acts 20:28ff. He warned that though elders, called by the Spirit of God to their office, they were liable to sin. In Acts 20:30 Paul’s words of warning are recorded: Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. They were likely to be regarded as friends and fellow servants in the work of God, yet such men are to be rebuked publicly when they sin! Putting the two passages together it is not unlikely that Timothy would have been called to rebuke some of these elders for the very sins Paul had warned them of, that is, advancing false doctrine and practices which led saints away from what they had previously believed and practiced.
Paul indicates the conditions in which an accusation against an elder is to be entertained: when it is supported by the evidence of two witnesses. When this condition is met, the accused elder is to be rebuked or admonished in public fashion. This prerequisite may be satisfied instantly or very quickly after the offence. Paul’s rebuke of Peter and the Lord’s rebuke of Peter illustrate how quickly the condition is satisifed and acted upon and the rebuke is issued. In both those circumstances the public rebuke followed immediately upon the offence. The elders of 1Tim 5:19 – and by extension, the teaching elders, or, ministers of the church – are not exempt on account of their office from such rebuke.
A necessary response to sin.
The public rebuke of sin by faithful servants of God is warranted every where in scripture. In 1Tim 5:20 it is the command of the Spirit of God to the Pastor! There is no higher authority or warrant for doing thus. Rebuke is seen to be warranted in reference to those in positions of power, authority and influence among God’s people. The elders in 1Tim 5:19-21 were the rulers of the local church and their position required a public rebuke of their public sin. The fact that they held office in the congregation meant that the rebuke was required to be given, and was not a reason to bury their sin and be silent.
The Bible is full of the public rebuke of sin. From the first example of God’s rebuke of Adam’s sin all the way through the Scriptures, the prophets of God, Christ Himself and His Apostles, all rebuked the sins of men in a public fashion. It was in every case which is recorded in the pages of Scripture, the rebuke was done so publicly as to remain public for all time and eternity! Hananiah’s rebuke of King Asa in 1Chron 16:9, was given to the face of the King in the presence of the people and will stand forever in the Biblical record. It is to be noted that Asa resented that rebuke in the same bitterness of spirit that caused him to oppress the people of God at the same time. His resentment of the rebuke was evidence of an arrogant, tyrannical spirit. The same permaently public testimony is seen in the case of the Saviour’s rebuke of Peter in Matt 16:23; and in the rebuke given by Paul to the same Apostle in Gal 2:11. There is no question about the public nature of these rebukes, nor of the fact that it was a significant part of the ministry of God’s servants to make such public denouncements of sin.
The purpose of such rebuke.
Why is such stern and forthright action required? The Apostle appends the reason directly to his command. It is so that others may fear. This procedure is purposefully engaged in to create alarm in the hearts of God’s people. It is meant to disturb and agitate those who hear it! The rebuke of one is the sound of an alarm to all. They are to learn to fear God, fear sin, fear the consequences of sin and so strive to avoid the sin that occasioned the rebuke. The lesson of the rebuke may be stated in the words of Moses, …behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out, Num 32:23
Conversely, there is a cost to not following the divine requirement for rebuke. The fear of God is to be learned by His people. It is a life-long education process. Part of that learning process involves being exposed to the public rebuke of public sin which has entered the lives of others. This action of rebuking sin thus becomes a means of grace to all! If it is not administered, and the Pastor remains silent in the face of public sins that ought to be rebuked, there will be corresponding lack of the fear of God, a lack of understanding about sin and its consequences, in the experience of many others.
Another obvious reason for rebuke is to produce repentance and restoration in the offender. Such rebuke is therefore an act of Christian love. This is exactly what is implied in the words of Peter in 1Peter 4:8: …. charity shall cover the multitude of sins. Sin is only covered, when it is atoned for and pardoned, which occurs when it is confessed and repented of. See 1John 1:9. Confession is the product of the exposure of sin by rebuke. Christian love rebukes sin so that confession and repentance may secure pardon. The Pastor must rebuke sin publicly in love so that sin is covered and forgiven. The covering of sin that is effected by an ignoring of it, is an abomination in God’s eyes! As stated in Prov 28:13, He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. The public rebuke of sin is a necessary part of confessing and forsaking it.
Public rebuke is a necessary part of a Biblical ministry
If the public pastoral rebuke of public sin is biblical, then it is unquestionably a necessary part of the function of those servants who would be faithful to their heavenly Master. Only in this way may a pastor align with the prophets, apostles of former times and with Christ Himself.
For a Pastor not to engage in such rebuke is to shirk Divinely given duty! To strip out this duty from the pastoral duty is to countermand the command of God. No Presbytery, or any other church governmental body, has the authority to forbid the faithful Pastor from this God-given duty. To reclassify the public rebuke of sin as being itself a sinful action to be silenced and prevented, is an egregious overthrow of the rule of Scripture which is to be the only rule of the Pastor’s doctrine and practice.