Honoring the aged in distinction from Honoring Church Officers (Resources)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Afterthought

Puritan Board Senior
Thomas Boston in his sermons on the Shorter Catechism writes concerning the Fifth Commandment,

"THIRDLY, I come now to consider the duties of the particular relations wherein we severally stand; and they are two in general; those of superiors and inferiors, and that of equals. The former is of two sorts. There are some relations where one of the relatives has power and authority over the other; and those that import a mere preference. The first of these we may consider with respect to the family, the church, the commonwealth.
....
There are other relations that import a mere preference; as, betwixt the aged and the younger, the weaker in gifts and the stronger, and between equals.
First, As to the relation betwixt the aged and the younger,

1. I shall consider very briefly the duties of the younger to the aged, for these are fathers and mothers in scripture-language, 1 Tim. 5.1.

(1.) They ought to submit to them, so as to follow their wise advice, and not to stand upon points with them, but be ready to yield to them, where lawfully it may be done, 1 Pet. 5.5.

(2.) They ought to honour them, and carry respectfully to them.

The Ancient of days, commands us to honour old age, Lev. 19.32.

2. The aged ought, (1.) To be ready to profit the younger sort by their good advice, to tutor them, as Eli did young Samuel, 1 Sam. 3.9. (2.) To give them the example of a virtuous and holy life, Tit. 2.2."

There is obviously a different measure of honor and set of duties that the younger owe to the aged and that church members owe to their Elders (church office). How exactly ought they to be distinguished? Thomas Boston helpfully distinguishes between "power and authority" and "mere preference." But what does "mere preference" mean?

Two questions in relation to this.

1) What resources discuss the difference in honor and duties shown? It would seem that expositions on the Fifth Commandment in general might, but not all of them do (Fisher does not). Perhaps people know of some expositions or other writings that helpfully unpack the question (If I have time, I'll start looking through expositions and posting here the one's that discuss the matter)?

2) Perhaps some of you all can helpfully unpack what Thomas Boston is getting at, along with the Scriptures he cites (or perhaps you all can think of other useful Scriptures for this purpose)? My guess would be that "mere preference" means to prefer their opinion to one's own. Such could be done without them having authority and power (although how would one distinguish this from the preference shown between equals?).
 
"Preference" here (I believe) has to do with what is today largely forgotten considerations of social rank. We've retained some relics of this, but often reduce them to ideas of "politeness."

If I am in a hierarchical order, such as a family, there are definite relationships of power and authority there. The same sorts of vertical, connecting lines are integral to many organizations, like businesses and military units. Whence we have plain superior/peer/inferior relations.

"The aged" in a general sense are owed deference from the younger by acknowledged convention, or preference. There's a natural component to that relation, and not merely a habit. But this has also been extended in many complex societies to other designations of rank. So, a young man in ancient Rome may be identified as a patrician rather than a plebian; and by this established relation superseding (though we might object) the natural relation, the elderly man bows to the younger.

There is no vertical line-of-authority connecting the two; but just as in your own circle, you horizontally connect your parent and another person of equal age and give the second comparable respect or preference, so the social rank is shared and the preference is equalized outside and beyond the internal corporation. A peer (equal) may "prefer" another of the same station, by letting him go through the door ahead of him. That's a clear case of voluntary grant.

In today's western militaries, there is a kind of "negotiation" that takes place; but priority is placed on rank, not experience, when it comes to honor. So, the newly minted officer and platoon leader fresh out of the military academy is saluted and called "sir" out of preference for his rank. And this is owed him by professional soldiers, non-commissioned officers, usually much older with far more practical value to the institution. They may not be men who report directly to this individual, but they acknowledge his rank regardless.

The negotiation of which I speak has to do with the fact there are subtle, cultural concessions that people make to the more natural hierarchy. If the young officer is a fool, always pulling rank when he should be listening to the voice of wisdom (age), ways will be found to bring him down. The rank held is not "absolute" in every sense.

But, there are societies where no such negotiation is conceivable. The people are stuck with a youth and fool for a king, for instance (cf. Ecc.10:5-7, 16; Prv.30:21-22). But also, the nations beside this one are stuck. Why? Because it takes God (above the kings) to deal with this preferential arrangement that tolerates no violations.
 
How does the submission shown to the aged differ from the submission shown to those with "authority and power" (Elders especially, in this case)?

Suppose one of the aged used his or her authority to command someone not under their "authority" to do something. Or suppose one of the aged took it upon him or herself to take charge of a situation over people not under their "authority." How does submission to the aged in these instances differ from submission to those with "authority," like Elders? Is it merely the sphere of authority (e.g., the sphere of the Elders' authority concerns the church's spiritual welfare and its government; the sphere of the aged...something else?)?
 
Usurpation of power and authority, on the pretended base of simple preferment, is sufficient reason to tell such (with all due respect) to go jump in the lake.

It's a matter of overreaching authority. If a deputy stops by my house, and tells me to wash his car while he grabs lunch from my fridge--because he's, you know, the law--in the USA as of today I'm not obliged to service him. It was different in Jesus day (Mt.5:41), and some places today probably. That's the nature of cultural variability.

Mechanisms for redress are also bound to be variable. What constitutes "insubordination" is not something you are going to be able to define chapter and verse, in all situations. When there are clear lines of authority, one has to follow the rules/law of obedience. When the lines aren't so clear, the guidance is fuzzy. It requires wisdom.
 
Mechanisms for redress are also bound to be variable. What constitutes "insubordination" is not something you are going to be able to define chapter and verse, in all situations. When there are clear lines of authority, one has to follow the rules/law of obedience. When the lines aren't so clear, the guidance is fuzzy. It requires wisdom.
I'm having difficulty coming up with an example where the aged have authority that is not already covered by other authorities (parental, ecclesiastical, or civil). Perhaps this is cultural. Can you come up with an example? Perhaps our culture (or maybe your culture is different) is one where the aged do not have any preference except for respect for their position as aged?


Also, I notice Thomas Boston also gives other examples of those who have "mere preference," e.g., those with greater gifts. And it seems (?) he also includes "equals" within that category (we are to prefer others to ourselves). Should we be submitting to those with greater gifts and/or just others generally because they have "preference"? That is, it seems that these may provide a counter-example to the understanding of "preference" that you have given. Do they? If not, how do these fit into the account that you have given?
 
Consider the example of Rehoboam, 1K.12. He had two sets of counselors, an older set and a younger. The "elders" (v6) should have had his preference; their authority was comparatively greater than the young men to whom the king listened. He gave comparative preference to the latter, which was folly.

The king is the highest authority, but he's not God; he's not even the oldest "father" in the room, even though he is head and father to the whole nation, hence to everyone in the room. But he should heed the authority of true age, experience, and wisdom. Of course, being an elder is no guarantee that the advice he gives is necessarily sage.

As to the other examples, this is what I said before about the need for wisdom. People with greater gifts have a natural preference; i.e. if you have a choice between a pot made by a potter, and one made by a kindergartener. Same pot, different makers. Your preference of one over the other is a relative display of honor. If you choose for the sake of honoring your own child, don't be disappointed if you try holding water in the cup and it doesn't work; but if you put it on display, it is family honor put before nature. If you choose for the sake of quality and the use demanded of the item, you honor the gifted artisan by a natural preference for his authority in things clay.

Joseph (second youngest son of Jacob) was a "son of wisdom" to his father (true rendering of Gen.37:3); he was known not by his birth-order, but by his demonstration of the Spirit, and his brothers' comparative lack of such demonstration. It is a case of preference related to a particular need, based on the best criteria for answering the need.
 
As to the other examples, this is what I said before about the need for wisdom. People with greater gifts have a natural preference; i.e. if you have a choice between a pot made by a potter, and one made by a kindergartener. Same pot, different makers. Your preference of one over the other is a relative display of honor. If you choose for the sake of honoring your own child, don't be disappointed if you try holding water in the cup and it doesn't work; but if you put it on display, it is family honor put before nature. If you choose for the sake of quality and the use demanded of the item, you honor the gifted artisan by a natural preference for his authority in things clay.
How does one explain a preference among equals then (preferring others above oneself)? I'm having difficulty seeing how an authoritative relationship can be established among equals.
 
Posting some quotations, since this was also supposed to be a resource thread.

Thomas Watson

"[2] There is the grave ANCIENT father, who is venerable for old age; whose grey hairs are resembled to the white flowers of the almond-tree. Eccl 12:5. There are fathers for seniority, on whose wrinkled brows, and in the furrows of whose cheeks is pictured the map of old age. These fathers are to be honored. "You shall rise up before the hoary head, and honor the face of the old man." Lev 19:32. Especially those are to be honored, who are fathers not only for their seniority—but for their piety; whose souls are flourishing when their bodies are decaying. It is a blessed sight to see springs of grace in the winter of old age; to see men stooping towards the grave—yet going up the hill of God; to see them lose their color—yet keep their savor. Those whose silver hairs are crowned with righteousness, are worthy of double honor; they are to be honored, not only as pieces of antiquity—but aspatterns of virtue. If you see an old man fearing God, whose grace shines brightest when the sun of his life is setting—O honor him as a father, by reverencing and imitating him.

[3] There are SPIRITUAL fathers, as pastors and ministers. These are instruments of the new birth. "Though you have ten thousand instructors—yet have you not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel." 1 Cor 4:15. The spiritual fathers are to be honored, in respect of their office. Whatever their persons are, their office is honorable; they are the messengers of the Lord Almighty. Mal 2:7. They represent no less than God himself. "Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ." 2 Cor 5:20. Jesus Christ was of this calling; he had his mission and sanction from heaven, and this crowns the ministerial vocation with honor. John 8:18.

These spiritual fathers are to be honored "for their work's sake." They come, like the dove, with an olive branch of peace in the mouth; they preach glad tidings of peace; their work is "to save souls." Other vocations have only to do with men's bodies or estates—but the minister's vocation is employed about the souls of men. Their work is to redeem spiritual captives, and turn men "from the power of Satan unto God." Acts 26:18. Their work is "to enlighten those who sit in the region of darkness," and make them "shine as stars in the kingdom of heaven." These spiritual fathers are to be "honored for their work's sake;" and this honor is to be shown three ways:

(1) By giving them respect. "Know those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord, and esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake." 1 Thess 5:12, 13. I confess the scandalous lives of some ministers have been a great reproach, and have made the "offering of the Lord to be abhorred" in some places of the land. The leper in the law was to have his lip covered; so such as are angels by office—but lepers in their lives, ought to have their lips covered, and to be silenced. But though some deserve "no honor"—yet such as are faithful, and make it their work to bring souls to Christ, are to be reverenced as spiritual fathers. Obadiah honored the prophet Elijah. 1 Kings 18:7. Why did God appoint that the prince should ask counsel of God by the priest, Num 27:21; why did the Lord show, by that miracle of Aaron's rod flourishing, that he had chosen the tribe of "Levi to minister before him," Num 17; why does Christ call his apostles "the lights of the world"; why does he say to all his ministers, "Lo, I am with you to the end of the world;" but because he would have these spiritual fathers reverenced?

In ancient times the Egyptians chose their kings out of their priests. They are far from showing this respect and honor to their spiritual fathers, who have slight thoughts of such as have the charge of the sanctuary, and minister before the Lord. "Know them," says the apostle, "who labor among you." Many can be content to know their ministers in their infirmities, and are glad when they have anything against them—but do not know them in the apostle's sense, so as to give them "double honor." Surely, were it not for the ministry, you would not be a vineyard—but a desert! Were it not for the ministry, you would be destitute of the two seals of the covenant, baptism and the Lord's Supper; you would be infidels; "for faith comes by hearing; and how shall they hear without a preacher?" Rom 10:14.

(2) Honor these spiritual fathers, by becoming advocates for them, and wiping off those slanders and calumnies which are unjustly cast upon them. 1 Tim 5:19. Constantine was a great honorer of the ministry; he vindicated them; he would not read the envious accusations brought against them—but burnt them. Do the ministers open their mouths to God for you in prayer, and will not you open your mouths in their behalf? Surely, if they labor to preserve you from hell, you should preserve them from slander! If they labor to save your souls, you ought to save their credit.

(3) Honor them by conforming to their doctrine. The greatest honor you can put upon your spiritual fathers, is to believe and obey their doctrine. He is an honorer of the ministry, who is not only a hearer—but a follower of the Word. As disobedience reproaches the ministry, so obedience honors it. The apostle calls the Thessalonians his crown. "What is our crown of rejoicing? Is it not you?" 1 Thess 2:19. A thriving people are a minister's crown. When there is a metamorphosis, a change wrought; when people come to the Word proud—but go away humble; when they come earthly—but they go away heavenly; when they come, as Naaman to Jordan, lepers—but they go away healed; then the ministry is honored. "Do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation?" 2 Cor 3:1. Though other ministers might need letters of commendation—yet Paul needed none; for, when men heard of the obedience wrought in these Corinthians by Paul's preaching, it would be a sufficient certificate that God had blessed his labors. The Corinthians were a sufficient honor to him; they were his testimonial letters. You cannot honor your spiritual fathers more, than by thriving under their ministry, and living upon the sermons which they preach."


Thomas Vincent

"Q. 11. What are the duties of the people to their ministers?
A. The duties of people to their ministers are— 1. High estimation of them, and endeared love to them, for their work's sake. "And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord; and to esteem them very highly, in love for their work's sake."— 1 Thess. 5:12, 13. "Ye received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. For I bear you record, that if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me."— Gal. 4:14, 15. 2. Diligent attendance upon the word preached, and other ordinances administered by them. "He that heareth you, heareth me."— Luke 10:16. 3 Meek and patient suffering the word of reproof, and ready obedience unto the word of command, which ministers shall, from the Scriptures, make known unto them, together with submission unto the discipline intrusted with them by the Lord. "Receive with meekness the ingrafted word," &c. James 1:21. "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls."— Heb. 13:17. 4. Communicating to them of their temporals. "The Lord hath ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel."— 1 Cor. 9:14. "Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things."— Gal. 6:6. 5. Prayer for them. "Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me."— Rom. 15:30. "Brethren, pray for us."— 1 Thess. 5:25. 6. Shutting their ear against reproaches and slanders, believing nothing without proof; and standing up in their defence against an ungodly world, and many false brethren, and rotten-hearted hypocrites, who are made use of by the devil to cast dirt upon them, that thereby people receiving prejudices against them, might be kept either from hearing them, or receiving benefit by their doctrine, and so be either drawn to ways of error, or hardened in ways of profaneness. "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses."— Tim. 5:19.

Q. 12. What are the duties of ministers to their people?
A. The duties of ministers to their people are — 1. Dear and tender love to their souls. "We were gentle among you, as a nurse cherisheth her children: being so affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted to you, not the gospel only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us."— 1 Thess. 2:7, 8. 2. Diligent, sincere, and frequent preaching of the word unto them, with administration of all ordinances. "For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor in guile; but as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts."— 1 Thess. 2:3, 4. "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all long-suffering and doctrine."— 2 Tim. 4:2. 3. Watchfulness over them, with willingness and cheerfulness. "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind."— 1 Pet. 5:2. 4. Prayer for them, and praise for the grace of God which is in them. "Wherefore, I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers." — Eph. 1:15, 16. 5. Showing themselves an example of holiness and good works unto them. "In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works."— Tit. 2:7. "Be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity."— 1 Tim. 4:12.


Q.15. What are the duties of the younger and inferior in gifts and graces. to the aged and superior?
A. The duties of the younger and inferior in gifts and graces, to the elder and superior, are — 1. To rise up before them, and give place to them, with reverence and respect. "Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God."— Lev. 19:32. 2. Humble submission to them, so as to follow their wise counsels. "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder."— 1 Pet. 5:5. 3. Imitation of them in their graces and holy conversation. "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ."— 1 Cor. 11:1.

Q.16. What are the duties of the aged and superior in gifts and graces unto the younger and inferior?
A. The duties of the aged and superior in gifts and graces, unto the younger and inferior, are— To adorn their old age, and show forth the power of their grace in a holy and exemplary conversation. "That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience: the aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, teachers of good things." — Tit. 2:2, 3."


Still have to look into Ames and Perkins. Maybe I'll type up some of John Brown of Haddington's thoughts too.
 
How does one explain a preference among equals then
It's but a relative preference. If I bow to you, and beg you go through the door before me, I am granting you the "authority" to go before me, as if you had the right to go through before me.

As I before intimated, this is a way of looking at the world which we have greatly forgotten. In a country that knows very little among the common men of the noble ranks once ordinary in the old country, who are addressed by their Declaration of Independence as men of fundamental equality, all these preferential notions grounded in historic convention are quite alien.

Who thinks of allowing the person through the door ahead of you as a measure of "authority" any more? We only think in terms of "politeness." But I am quite sure, that those of the previous era were adept at relating this sort of deference between equals to their manners with those who were above and below them.
 
As I before intimated, this is a way of looking at the world which we have greatly forgotten. In a country that knows very little among the common men of the noble ranks once ordinary in the old country, who are addressed by their Declaration of Independence as men of fundamental equality, all these preferential notions grounded in historic convention are quite alien.

Who thinks of allowing the person through the door ahead of you as a measure of "authority" any more? We only think in terms of "politeness." But I am quite sure, that those of the previous era were adept at relating this sort of deference between equals to their manners with those who were above and below them.
Thank you. These are some interesting points. I know that **I** don't think of letting someone through the door first as a measure of "authority" (confirming your point). Most interesting indeed!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top