Paul makes it clear that there must not be any partiality, “I charge you before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels that you observe these things without prejudice, doing nothing with partiality.” Partiality has many faces. Sometimes it expresses itself when there is a very gifted elder and because of his charisma, persuasiveness and position, people actually hold him to a lower standard when they should be holding him to a higher one. It may be manifested in a desire to continue seeing the benefit of his life. We may think that he has done so much good, and that it will all be lost. Sometimes partiality is promoted by thinking that “Many people will be hurt so I will not say anything.” Or, “It will be so hard on his family, it’s better to keep it quiet.” Some people may even fear reprisal, rejection, or a forever broken relationship. They often feel that the worst thing that can happen is that their relationship with the elder is broken. This kind of partiality often occurs when church members have a low view of sin, a high view of themselves and an unhealthy affection for outward appearance. They feel that it would be too damaging to expose the sin, when in fact the worse thing that could happen is to be disobedient to the Word of God so that the sin continues to grow in the darkness, unconfronted. Partiality is one of the great dangers to the proper fulfilling of Paul’s commands because it is one of the sins in the church that facilitates elders who continue in their sin.

5. Accountability for what happened

Paul is advocating accountability for the sin, in the phrase, “Those who are sinning rebuke…’ This phrase presents an exegetical challenge. As William Mounce observes, “What appears initially to be a straightforward verse actually has many exegetical problems.”1 There are some who maintain that an elder should only be rebuked if he persists in the sin. The use of the present active participle “sinning” (tous hamartanontas) is used to advance this view. This Greek participle does, in fact, indicate continuing action. In other words, the argument is this: an elder must be rebuked only when he continues in a particular sin (or sins); but if he has stopped that sin there is no need for rebuke. While this interpretation is possible, it appears to be at odds with the purpose of the command. Further, this interpretation renders a rebuke, an extremely rare occurrence when an elder sins. It makes the command nearly pointless for its lack of usefulness, and almost unemployable as a command except in the most rare cases. In the case of sins of a financial or moral nature, for instance, the very act of getting caught almost always brings these sins to an immediate stop.

For example, if an elder is caught embezzling funds from his church, the ability to embezzle is taken away the moment he is found out. He is therefore no longer continuing in his sin. Does this mean that he should not be rebuked? Or if a man is caught in adultery, he usually stops. Does this mean there is no need to rebuke him? To maintain that rebuke is only in order when the sin persists renders Paul’s command almost irrelevant. In order to avoid a rebuke, all an elder has to do is to stop the sin for a while. In his commentary on 1 Timothy 5:20, George Knight explains it this way: “Although the note of persistence may be intended by Paul, the more probable understanding is that the accusation is found to be true and the present tense is used to designate present guilt (TEV and NEB: “those who commit sins”). It is the committing of sin that is at issue”2 (emphasis added). In order for there to be a public rebuke, there must be the act of biblically defined sin regarding morality or doctrine. The elder must truly be guilty of the sin. The issue is not if he is continuing in the sin, or whether he is sorrowful over the sin, but rather that he is guilty of sinning. In doing so he is no longer above reproach, as Paul requires (1 Timothy 3:2).

What if the man says he repents: does he then escape the rebuke? This passage gives no indication that repentance suspends rebuke. In fact, there is no mention of repentance in the text. Paul’s instructions are very clear. The purpose of this rebuke is not to produce repentance in the elder—important as that may be—but to cause all “to fear.” The issue here is not excommunication (whether that happens or not). The issue is the public exposure and reproof of one who holds a high office. No one gets a pass in Christ’s churches when it comes to sin, especially not its elders. While true repentance is a critical matter in the elder’s relationship with the Lord and His church, it is important to remember - the explicitly stated purpose of the rebuke is not repentance, but the causing of fear.

There is also a practical reality that must be considered. In almost every case, when men are caught in serious sin, they confess to what can be proven and profess to be repentant. Most often, they weep and sorrow for their sin. They will almost always ask to be forgiven, apologize, and go to great lengths to communicate how profoundly they regret their sin. As a pastor I have been witness to many tearful confessions, only to find out later that there was no true repentance as evidenced by a changed life (see 2 Co. 7:11; Psa. 51). If repentance suspends the need for rebuke, then the command would be very rarely put into practice. It would mean that the command to rebuke would only be applicable if the elder was wanton, belligerent and willfully continuing in public sin. But if he was living an immoral life or embezzling, even in the recent past, and was found out, and stopped, the sin would be covered up.

This is most likely why Paul does not figure repentance in to the equation of rebuke when an elder is guilty. This perspective is carried out every day in our courts of law. Because many of our laws here in America are based on the Bible, we use this same principle applied in the civil realm. When someone steals, they are held accountable regardless of their repentance. This is the same treatment Paul is prescribing for an elder.

However, if the elder is hard hearted and/or willfully continuing in his sin, then he is a candidate for excommunication, a discipline far more severe when compared to a simple rebuke. Paul’s point then is this: when an elder’s sin is discovered and verified by witnesses, he must be publicly rebuked in order to produce in the hearts of his fellow elder(s) and his congregation, a holy fear of sinning against Christ (which may or may not bring the sinning elder to repentance).

6. A rebuke

If the accusation brought by multiple witnesses establishes that the sin is real, a rebuke is required. The investigation process must reveal that the sin was not trivial. It must verify that the accusation was for serious sin, not the result of pickiness, harshness, personal vendetta, envy, or a critical spirit in the hearts of the accusers.