16

Modeling

George J. Zemek

An often neglected part of leading a local church is the element of providing an exemplary life-style for the flock to follow. Modeling had its origin in the creation of man in God’s image, but through the fall and new creation of man in Christ, it has assumed a renewed importance. New Testament usage of the (tupos, “type”) and (mimētēs, “imitator”) word-groups provides a good idea of the responsibility of church leaders to live as good moral examples before those whom they lead. Only when they do so can pastoral ministry fulfill the biblical standards of that office.

Reportedly, a pastor once said, “Do as I say; not as I do.” This frank adage has unfortunately characterized numerous past and present preachers, many of whom have reputations as great teachers of God’s Word. However, when measured by the Bible’s qualifications for communication and character, such ministers come up woefully short.

Saying but not doing in its multiplied forms and settings has always been particularly detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Jesus spoke to the crowd about the scribes and Pharisees, telling them to follow their instructions from Moses but not to follow their personal example, because “they keep on saying and yet are not doing” (Matt. 23:3, author’s translation, note Greek present tenses). His indictment ultimately embraced a whole lineage of dark examples of hypocrisy throughout fallen mankind’s history.

All men are accountable to God for profession without practice (James 1:22–27); yet certain ones by virtue of their office are responsible at the highest level of divine accountability for prescription without practice (3:1). Therefore, it is no wonder Paul emphasized to Timothy and to Titus God’s mandate not only for exhortation but also for exemplification (1 Tim. 4:12–16; Titus 2:7). Similarly, Peter, in his directives to elders, spotlighted the showing dimension of shepherding (1 Pet. 5:1–4).

What the Scriptures say on spiritual leadership is intimidating to contemporary ministers of the gospel. How can we who are not yet perfect hold ourselves up as ethical examples? How can we whose practice does not yet match our position say, “Do as I do”? A consideration of the macro-and micro-theological contexts on modeling will bring some relief from intimidation, but God designs all theological tensions to be constructive. As in the cases of other equally powerful biblical magnets, the poles of this one—that is, the revealed reality that we are not yet glorified and the inescapably clear mandate for modeling—should first develop in us genuine humility and then a renewed dependence upon God and His resources.

THE MACRO-THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF MODELING

This context of modeling is exceedingly broad. It entails some of the most panoramic issues of theology: Christ as the image of God, man’s creation in the image of God, commensurate issues of Adam theology, salvation history with a special emphasis upon moral re-creation in the image and likeness of God, and the ethical significance of the Lord’s operations of sovereign grace primarily through His efficient means of the Word and the Spirit.

The Importance of Image

A theological priority rather than a logical one is the best starting point. When viewed from a historical perspective, traditional theologies usually begin with the creation of mankind/humanity (originally Adam, or from a theological vantage point, the first Adam) “in”/“according to” the “image”/ “likeness” of God.¹ However, the theological archetype, Christ Himself, furnishes the better beginning place. Since He is uniquely the effulgence of God’s glory and the exact impress of His being or essence (Heb. 1:3), and since He alone perfectly displays the Godhead (John 1:18; see 14:9), the Lord is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:15). Consequently, He fully manifests and represents God and concretely stands ethically as the ultimate and perfect Exemplar (1 Cor. 11:1).

Christ is uniquely the image of God, but in a derived sense God “made” or “created”² mankind in His own image and likeness. Although “the Bible does not define for us the precise content of the original imago,”³ generally it appears to be “cohesive unity of interrelated components that interact with and condition each other.”⁴ This vague conclusion is exegetically credible but does not consider some of the major extrapolations about the imago Dei. In the history of systematic theology, three basic views relating to the image of God in man have surfaced: the substantive, the relational, and the functional.⁵ Historically, these views relate to (1) analogy of being, (2) analogy of relation, and (3) dominion, respectively.⁶ Erickson described the general characteristic(s) of each camp:

[1] The substantive view has been dominant during most of the history of Christian theology. The common element in the several varieties of this view is that the image is identified as some definite characteristic or quality within the makeup of the human. . . .

[2] Many modern theologians do not conceive of the image of God as something resident within man’s nature. Indeed, they do not ordinarily ask what man is, or what sort of a nature he may have. Rather, they think of the image of God as the experience of a relationship. Man is said to be in the image or to display the image when he stands in a particular relationship. In fact, that relationship is the image. . . .

[3] We come now to a third type of view of the image, which has had quite a long history and has recently enjoyed an increase in popularity. This is the idea that the image is not something present in the makeup of man, nor is it the experiencing of relationship with God or with fellow man. Rather, the image consists in something man does. It is a function which man performs, the most frequently mentioned being the exercise of dominion over the creation.⁷

The basic shortcoming of both the second and third views is that they are the consequences of the imago Dei. They are valid functions, but do not answer the apparently ontological implications of key scriptural texts.⁸ It is difficult to eliminate some sort of analogy in man’s image-bearing. Yet, as historically expressed, problems have plagued the first view, especially in light of the catastrophic effects of the fall of man. Erickson seemed to be on the right analogical track when he suggested “the attributes of God sometimes referred to as communicable attributes constitute the image of God.”⁹ Indeed, the moral attributes of God constitute a significantly large dimension of His image in man, a fact that is acutely relevant in a consideration of the issue of modeling.

The Retention of the Image: Devastated but Not Destroyed

After deciding for the analogy-of-being view, the haunting question remains: What about the effects of the fall? Once again, the biblicist must endure the poles of another scriptural tension. On the one hand,

the fall of man was a catastrophic personality shock; it fractured human existence with a devastating fault. Ever since, man’s worship and contemplation of the living God have been broken, his devotion to the divine will shattered. Man’s revolt against God therefore affects his entire being. . . . His revolt against God is at the same time a revolt against truth and the good.¹⁰

On the other hand, however, “there is some sense in which the image of God must persist even in fallen man.”¹¹ The potential for the communication and sovereign application of the Word of grace, a restored relationship, and moral renovation remains. Avoiding endless pursuits through logical labyrinths, Kidner wisely made the soteriological transition with his brief synopsis: “After the Fall, man is still said to be in God’s image (Gen. 9:6) and likeness (James 3:9); nonetheless he requires to be ‘renewed . . . after the image of him that created him’ (Col. 3:10; see Eph. 4:24).”¹²

The Re-Creation of Image

By original creation man bore the image of God, including its significantly moral dimension. His fall¹³ radically perverted the whole image, so much so that no hope for any kind of self-reformation remained. Yet the Word of God says that the image and likeness continue even with man in this horrible condition. By God’s grace, men redeemed in Christ have embarked on an upward and onward journey of moral restoration (2 Pet. 3:18). Their destination is moral perfection or Christlikeness. Consequently, the overarching challenge to all genuine disciples is still, “Be ye holy; for I am holy” (see Lev. 11:44–45; 19:2; 1 Pet. 1:16 KJV).

The primary means of grace in moving the saved along that highway of sanctification is the Word of God attested by the Spirit of God, and a vital constituent of this divine testimony is the incarnate example of Christ. Indeed, He abides as God’s perfect moral manifestation.

THE MICRO-THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT OF MODELING

Because of Christ’s pattern, the attitude and actions of His people should mature in integrity and consistency of Christlikeness (Phil. 1:27–30; 2:5–18; 1 John 2:6). As they mature morally, some more rapidly than others, they themselves are to become reflections of His moral model (1 Thess. 1:7). Growth should characterize all His “saints,”¹⁴ but the New Testament holds those recognized as church leaders especially responsible to be examples. They are visible and derived moral models for the Exemplar’s (ekklēsia, “church”). This awesome responsibility is the focus of the rest of this study.

The Vocabulary of Modeling

The Old Testament is replete with commands and implicit obligations concerning the holiness of God’s people, but it contains no transparent teaching about following the example of God or His chosen leaders.¹⁵ However, the New Testament abounds with this concept. As a matter of fact, a whole arsenal of modeling terms surfaces.¹⁶ Of these, the (typos, “example”) and (mimētēs, “imitator”) word-groups are the most important.

In ancient secular Greek, typos exhibited the following usage categories: “a. ‘what is stamped,’ ‘mark,’ . . . ‘impress’ . . . ‘stamp,’ ” (such as, of letters engraved in stone, images, or painted images); “b. ‘Mould,’ ‘hollow form’ which leaves an impress,” . . . and in a transferred sense “ethical ‘example’ ” . . .; and “c. . . . ‘outline,’ ‘figure,’ ” (that is of the stamp or impress).¹⁷ “In the LXX typos occurs in only four places”:¹⁸ for the model or pattern for the tabernacle and its furnishings in Exodus 25:40; for idols or images in Amos 5:26; for the “ ‘wording,’ ‘text,’ of a decree” in 3 Maccabees 3:30; and for “(determinative) ‘example’ ” in 4 Maccabees 6:19.¹⁹

In the New Testament its full range of semantical usages include:²⁰

1. visible impressions of a stroke or pressure, mark, trace (such as, John 20:25)
2. that which is formed, an image or statue (such as, Acts 7:43)
3. form, figure, pattern (such as, Rom. 6:17)
4. historically as (arche)type, pattern, model (such as, Acts 7:44; Heb. 8:5); and ethically as example, pattern (such as, 1 Tim. 4:12)
5. in reference to divinely ordained types, whether things, events, or persons (such as, Rom. 5:14)

Of the fourteen occurrences of the noun typos in the New Testament, half relate to modeling, either implicitly as a negative illustration (such as, the adverb [tupikōs, “typically,”], 1 Cor. 10:6) or explicitly as positive patterns (Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 4:12; Titus 2:7; 1 Pet. 5:3). Further, one other occurrence has a tangential theological relation: “In Romans 6:17 [ refers to] the context, the expressions of the doctrine. . . . However, the original meaning of the form which stamps can still be strongly felt. As previously sin, so now the new teaching, i.e. the message of Christ, is the factor which stamps and determines the life of the Christian.”²¹ The efficient means of the Word of God is seen here as a press and die that leaves an amazing mark on the people of God.

Though the data relating to modeling are quite conspicuous, contemporary scholarship is reluctant to attribute to the concept a fully ethical significance. For example, Goppelt refused to allow that a disciple’s life is “an example which can be imitated.”²² His emphases on the primacy of the Word of God and the priority of an ultimate reference to faith are commendable, but as subsequent treatments of the key texts will reveal, the inescapable overtones are patterns from people. In his discussion of this issue, Mu'ller is not quite as one-sided. For example, he asserted that the crucial texts “are not simply admonitions to a morally exemplary life. . . . The shaping power of a life lived under the Word has in turn an effect on the community (1 Thess. 1:6), causing it to become a formative example.”²³ He carefully interrelated the effectual means of the Word with a derived means consisting of ethical examples.

The mimētēs word-group, the source of the English word mime,²⁴ furnishes a rich semantical heritage also. Generally speaking, “the word group etc., . . . arose in the 6th cent. [B.C.], and came into common use in both prose and poetry. has the sense ‘to imitate,’ ‘to mimic,’ i.e. to do what is seen to be done by someone else.”²⁵

Bauder subclassified the classical Greek usages as follows:

1. imitate, mimic . . .
2. emulate with joy, follow
3. in the arts (plays, paintings, sculpture and poetry), represent reality by imitation, imitate in an artistic way. . . . An actor is therefore a mimos, a mimer. . . . A symmimētēs (Lat. imitator) is an imitator, especially a performer or an artist who imitates. When used in a derogatory sense, the words refer to quasi-dramatic “aping” or feeble copying with lack of originality.²⁶

Significantly, from the earliest stages of this group’s history in classical Greek, “the words were used to express ethical demands made on men. One should take as one’s model the boldness of a hero, or one should imitate the good example of one’s teacher or parents.”²⁷ Such imitations are without a revelational norm, but they nevertheless illustrate a linguistic background for usage in the New Testament.

One particular nuance in classical usage deserves special attention. It is this word-group’s place within the typically dualistic cosmology of the ancient Greeks. Of course, Plato was especially fond of its employment in this sense. Bauder captured the gist of it: “The whole of the lower world of appearances is only the corresponding, imperfect, visible copy or likeness (mimēna) of the invisible archetype in the higher world of the Ideas.”²⁸ Such thinking is antibiblical, but in the process of its development among pagan philosophers, discussions arose about “divine” imitation.²⁹ Though Michaelis concluded “that in such statements the imitatio dei is not too closely bound to the cosmological mimesis concept,” this study concludes that such ancient references “have quite plainly an ethical thrust,”³⁰ albeit without revelational norms.

Since “The Vocabulary of Modeling” earlier in this chapter alluded to the Jewish usage of this word-group, it will suffice to add that two of the four occurrences in the Apocrypha spoke of emulating heroes of the faith in martyrdom³¹ and that in subsequent history

the Rabbis were the first to speak of imitation of God in the sense of developing the image of God in men. In the Pseudepigrapha in addition to the exhortation to imitate men of outstanding character . . . one can also find the thought of the imitation of God (i.e. keeping his commands . . .) and of particular characteristics of God.³²

Again, apart from any accretions, eccentricities, perversions, etc., in these materials, such usages are a linguistic link in the conceptual chain that culminated in the corpus of the New Testament teachings.

Bauder’s breakdown of the word-group is succinct and accurate: “In the NT mimeomai is found only 4 times (2 Thess. 3:7, 9; Heb. 13:7; 3 John 11); mimētēs six times (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Eph. 5:1; 1 Thess. 1:6; 2:14; Heb. 6:12); and symmimētēs only once in Philippians 3:17.”³³ The deponent middle verb meaning “imitate, emulate, follow” occurs with accusatives of person, and the uncompounded noun form mimētēs (“imitator”) occurs either with a personal referent or with an impersonal genitive.³⁴ Also, “it is noteworthy that in all its NT occurrences is joined with , denoting moral effort.”³⁵ Indeed, a safe assertion is that “all [words in the group] are used with an ethical-imperative aim and are linked with obligation to a specific kind of conduct.”³⁶

Michaelis opposed this ethical-emulation thrust of the words and reinterpreted according to his chosen viewpoint. He bolstered his contention with a few textual observations, especially pertaining to contextual emphases on faith, suffering, persecution, death, industriousness, obedience, etc.³⁷ All these contextual colorings have some credibility, but specific applications do not negate the all-embracing ethical perspective of total character and consistent lifestyle. Much more subjective is his discussion built upon a presuppositional foundation of apostolic authority, though nearly all interpreters will empathize with its apparent motivational tension—that is, how can any finite and fallible person, including Paul, say, “Follow my ethical example”? Despite this tension, no exegete should forge a few implicit references into a hermeneutical hammer for driving many round texts into square contexts.³⁸ The ensuing treatment of key passages will document the fact that the New Testament evidence “cannot be reduced to a demand for personal obedience.”³⁹

The Vocation of Modeling

The best way to organize key New Testament texts dealing with modeling is by an essentially theological development.⁴⁰ Whether historically noted or ethically urged, the New Testament data present God’s model to His people, show the moral example of the apostolic circle to all the churches, emphasize the particular area of responsibility in reference to church leaders, and advocate that all Christians be maturing moral models for the spiritual well-being of the whole body. This plan is basically consistent with both the early church’s historical development and special gradations of judgment or reward pertaining to church leaders. It does not dictate some sort of ethical apostolic succession, however. Essentially an unbreakable chain, it comes full circle, creating a theological necklace that begins and ends with the sovereign grace of God and Christ’s moral model.

God: The Ultimate Model for His Church. Ephesians 5:1 instructs the church to “keep on becoming (or being) imitators of God” (author’s translation). Michaelis argued that this passage along with similar ones “does not speak of true imitation of Christ or God.”⁴¹ Yet it is in a setting that begins with an identical imperative (4:32) urging reciprocal kindness, tenderness, and forgiveness based on Christ’s example. Furthermore, the (kathōs, “just as”) clause, which bridges to the Lord’s perfect pattern, assumes analogy and infers emulation. Immediately after 5:1 comes another continuously binding imperative to “keep on walking in love,” followed by another indication of Christ as the Exemplar ( . . . [peripateite . . . kathōs], 5:2, author’s translation). Additionally, the simple adverb of comparison (hōs, 5:1b), “as beloved children,” points to the propriety of ethical emulation by believers.

On a larger scale, this command to imitate God and Christ is part of a larger section about holy living (Eph. 4:25—6:20). This in turn is a subset of the practical half of the epistle (that is, the “do” section) beginning at 4:1. All these exhortations are appropriate responses to the sovereign grace of God, expounded in the theologically indicative section (that is, the “done” section) of this great epistle (Ephesians 1—3).⁴² On yet a grander scale of inclusion is the comprehensive scriptural challenge to be holy because God is holy. From the reversed perspective, the obligation to “be holy for God is holy” receives definitive resolution through the prevalent indicative/imperative presentation of ethical obligation, with a variety of explicit exhortations as elaborations. This is the natural theological setting of moral modeling (such as “be imitators of God, as beloved children,” Eph. 5:1).

The Derived Apostolic Model in the Church. The designation “apostolic” pertains to the apostolic circle and allows for God’s use of both apostles and transition men such as Timothy and Titus in establishing churches during the first century. The latter group were not apostles, but they were in a special sense apostles of an apostle. They supervised the planting and the solidification of local New Testament churches. When doing this, they were not technically one of the pastors-teachers-elders-overseers of a given local church or group of regional churches, so this section treats them as mediate models. However, apparently in their day-today ministries they worked alongside and functioned similarly to pastoral leaders. Therefore, it is also appropriate to apply what is said here about 1 Timothy 4:12 and Titus 2:7 to the next major division, “The Third Generation Model of Church Leadership.”

1. Modeling Directly. Paul did not shy away from offering himself as an ethical model for believers he had personal contact with (see 1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 2 Thess. 3:7, 9).⁴³ Maintaining an accurate theological perspective must begin with a treatment of 1 Corinthians 11:1 and Philippians 3.

First Corinthians 11:1, “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ,” is basic to all modeling on the horizontal plane. Paul was not the Exemplar; only Christ can be that. However, that did not exempt him from the divine responsibility of being a derived moral example. The contextual application of his statement has to do with not becoming an offense because of one’s personal freedom in Christ (10:23–33). He closed his discussion with a command to comply (10:32), and then held himself up as an example (10:33), then picked up that same thread but repeated it with the vocabulary of moral modeling (11:1). He was careful to add, however, that when they followed his example, they were following the ultimate pattern of Christ’s treatment of others (11:1).⁴⁴

Philippians 3 has raised significant questions about the propriety of human moral example. After Paul urged the following of his own example (3:17), did he not confess his own finiteness and moral fallibility (3:3–16)?⁴⁵ Or, in the words of Bauder, “Prior to the demand to imitate him, he deliberately places a confession of his own imperfection (Phil. 3:12).”⁴⁶

He did indeed assert he had not arrived at moral perfection. “He does not think of himself as the personal embodiment of an ideal which must be imitated,”⁴⁷ but this saint in process did urge the Philippian church to keep on becoming (or being) fellow-imitators of (or with) him (3:17a).⁴⁸ In addition to Paul, others were consistently living (3:17b) according to the pattern (that is, typon) of the apostolic circle.⁴⁹ It is wrong to ignore one facet of biblical revelation because of another equally important truth that raises an apparent logical contradiction.

Is it possible to resolve this scriptural tension? Like most other biblical paradoxes, not fully. Nevertheless, several observations will ease the difficulty it causes our limited logic. For example, the major portion of this epistle has to do with ethical exhortation (Phil. 1:27—4:9). From the beginnings of this section, the theme of unity through humility, including the preferring of others over self, dominates. But the supremely important example of Christ (2:5–8) undergirds all subsequent moral responsibilities. The Lord is the primary pattern for attitude and actions. Based directly on that perfect example, Paul challenged the Philippians to progress in their sanctification (2:12), reminding them that the resources for such a holy calling reside with God (v. 13). The Philippian disciples were fully responsible but not adequate in themselves. Interestingly, following this general challenge to holy living, Paul referred to Timothy and Epaphroditus (vv. 19–30) as others-oriented examples.

To begin chapter 3, Paul rehearsed his pre- and postconversion experiences (vv. 3–16). These not only compared and contrasted the preconversion Paul (especially vv. 4–6) and other genuine Christians (vv. 7–21) with some externalists in Philippi (see 3:1–2, 18–19), but they also compared the postconversion experience of Paul with that of all true disciples. Although both Paul and true believers at Philippi were positionally “perfect” in Christ, neither he nor they were perfect experientially. Consequently, his quest like theirs should be one of an intensifying pursuit of moral purity. Such a focus, by the grace of God, qualified one to be a reflected model of ethical development. However, the perfect moral mold remains the one who said, “You are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48).

This theological perspective sheds light on other Pauline statements. For example, when he wrote earlier in 1 Corinthians, “Therefore I urge you to imitate me” (4:16 NIV), he did not disregard Christ as the ultimate example (11:1), nor did he intend to leave the impression that he had arrived. He had already negated any claims to self-sufficiency, especially in his exposé of all human wisdom (chs. 1—3). In addition, he had built a solid bridge to genuine ministry (chs. 3—4), largely with prominent personalities as illustrations. That set the stage in chapter 4 to challenge Corinthian arrogance. By weaving in positive examples, he exposed the heinousness of their pride (vv. 6–13). He also mixed in several testimonials to God’s ultimacy and sufficiency to His servants (see 3:5–7; 4:1–4). This was hardly the context for a Pauline ego trip. His personal example in 1 Corinthians 4:16 once again reflected the pattern of Christ and His grace.

Paul wrote to the Thessalonian church to encourage them to follow the apostolic example (2 Thess. 3:7, 9). Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy (1:1) supplied positive examples as a corrective for any who were out of line among the Thessalonians (that is, [ataktōs, “disorderly”], 3:6, 11; see the verb form in v. 7), especially in matters of freeloading and meddling. The disciples at Thessalonica recognized “how it was necessary [for them] to imitate ( [mimeisthai]) us [the apostolic circle]” (v. 7, author’s translation). Paul and his associates offered themselves as a “model” (, typon) for the members of body there to emulate (v. 9).⁵⁰

2. Mediately Modeling. First Timothy 4:12–16 is an exceedingly important passage regarding moral exemplification. It equals 2 Timothy 4:2 in importance as a qualification for Christian ministry. In fact, it stresses that in importance, patterning the Word is a necessary corollary to preaching it, with the former usually preceding the latter.

Furthermore, the whole epistle places a very high priority on character and conduct. The man of God is always accountable in areas of personal and professional responsibility. He cannot just be faithful in teaching the truth; he must live the truth. Heralding God’s gospel is a highly motivating and worthy call, yet the human instrument must possess certain qualities of integrity (see 1 Tim. 3:1–7). As with Paul (see 1:12–17), he must accept both responsibilities with a profound sense of humility and in utter dependence upon the one who commissions. Indeed, by the time 1 Timothy closes (6:11–16), the young man of God certainly understood the two primary obligations of spiritual leadership.

First Timothy 4 is especially cogent. Verses 7–8 set the tone for verses 12–16 with Paul’s command to Timothy to “work out” strenuously (, gymnazō, “I train, exercise”) to develop spiritual muscle for godliness (v. 7). For all intents and purposes, the many imperatives in verses 12–16 supply the whys and the wherefores of the exhortation to holiness. In 1 Timothy 4:12–16, three waves of commands pounded Timothy with his two general responsibilities. The first wave crashed with an overwhelming reminder of his personal responsibility (v. 12). As it began to ebb, commands relating to his professional accountability drenched him (vv. 13–14). For most conservative evangelicals, the professional requirements (v. 13) are an authoritative given. The same applies concerning personal requirements; however, the application of these is far more sensitive personally. The intimidation factor at times seems to be overwhelming. For that reason, this discussion will concentrate on the modeling requirements.

The first command of 1 Timothy 4:12 does not directly address the man of God; it addresses those he leads. Indirectly it implies that he himself must be irreproachable (compare the first and general qualification of 3:2). The implication of the first part of verse 12 finds confirmation in the conclusion of that verse. His obligation is one of exemplifying before members of the flock: He was to “be (or become) a type (or pattern or model) (typos) for the believers.”⁵¹ Paul typified the moral example in five areas:

1. in the language (communications) of the man of God
2. in his general lifestyle,⁵²
3. in his (agapē, “love,” that is, that unselfish, extending, all-giving variety that exudes tenderness, compassion, tolerance, etc.)
4. in his “faith” (or better, “faithfulness, trustworthiness, reliability,” the passive meaning of [pistis])
5. in his personal purity

Without integrity of life, his pronouncements, preachings, proclamations, and indoctrinations (vv. 11, 13) are severely limited.

A second wave of commands comes in verse 15 to remind the man of God to concentrate on both his personal and professional responsibilities⁵³ so that his advancement might be clearly visible to all. The concluding purpose clause of verse 15 stresses the importance of Timothy’s modeling.⁵⁴ His life was to exhibit significant “progress.”⁵⁵ Therefore, verse 15 not only reiterates his patterning responsibility, but it also confirms that it is not necessary for ethical models to be absolutely perfect; however, they must be growing in holiness.

Two imperatives in verse 16, Paul’s third crashing wave, emphasize the same two areas, “yourself” and “your teaching” (compare vv. 12–14; see also Acts 20:28), but in a slightly different way. Putting person before ministry, Paul wrote, “Pay close attention” to yourself and to your teaching (v. 16). Calvin summarized, “Teaching will be of little worth if there is not a corresponding uprightness and holiness of life.”⁵⁶ Guthrie expressed it, “Moral and spiritual rectitude is an indispensable preliminary to doctrinal orthodoxy.”⁵⁷ Paul emphasized even further Timothy’s personal and ministerial responsibilities with his closing injunction to “persist (or continue or persevere) in them.”

The rationale for these commands is overwhelming: “because as you go on doing this [singular pronoun referring to both duties], you will save both yourself and the ones who hear you” (v. 16, author’s translation). Almost unbelievably, personal example is side-by-side with the ministry of God’s Word in a salvific context.⁵⁸

Titus 2 has the same message more briefly stated. Along with instructions about appointing elders (1:5–9) and combatting false teaching (1:10–16; 3:9–11) with healthy doctrine (2:1, 15; 3:1, 8), came directions for how Titus was to handle various groups: older men (2:2), older and then younger women (vv. 3–5), younger men (v. 6), slaves (vv. 9–10), and the whole flock (3:1–8). A major message was the priority of good deeds (1:16; 2:7, 14; 3:1, 8, 14).

Among the instructions to young men, probably Titus’ age group, Paul reminded Titus of his obligation to be a moral model. Preaching alone was not enough (2:6); he also had to live before them (v. 7). In other words, he had to both exhort and exemplify. For the man of God, a pattern (typon) of good works is never optional (see Eph. 2:10). It is essential to preaching and teaching.

The “Third Generation”⁵⁹ Model of Church Leadership

The same thread permeates the epistle to the Hebrews, from the superior model of Jesus Christ, through the faith’s hall of fame (ch. 11), into important statements about church leaders (ch. 13). Accountability of church leaders is the subject of 13:17, but 13:7 deals specifically with their modeling responsibility. The writer instructed the recipients, “Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider⁶⁰ the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith” (NIV). Examining the result of their lifestyle (from anastrophe) and emulating (present imperative of mimeomai) their persevering faith are parallel efforts. Such concrete examples dovetail with the total thrust of the epistle, which is to keep on keeping on.

Peter’s corresponding message addressed the leaders of the church directly. He commanded the elders, “Shepherd [tend or feed] the flock of God among you” (1 Pet. 5:2; see John 21:15–17; Acts 20:28). This is the only imperative in the passage, but its obligatory force permeates all the qualifiers to follow (vv. 2–3). Three contrasts highlight motives for spiritual leadership:

1. Spiritual leaders must not serve because of human constraints but because of divine commitments.
2. Spiritual leaders must not minister for unjust profit but with spiritual zeal.
3. Spiritual leaders must not lead as prideful dictators but as humble models.⁶¹

New Testament shepherds have the binding obligation of being ethical models for the flock of God. The sheep in turn are to emulate their leaders’ lives (Heb. 13:7). This requires genuine humility (1 Pet. 5:5–6).

The Model of the Church to the Church

All believers are to be examples for other believers to follow. For example, Paul mentioned two instances of this. Paul asserted that when the Thessalonians received God’s gospel, they did so in a societal setting analogous to that of the Judean churches, that is, while being persecuted (1 Thess. 2:14–16). Paul’s words, “For you, brethren, became imitators (mimētai egenēthēte) of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea” (v. 14), provided an incentive to the church to keep on persevering.

Besides being a reflection of the Judean churches (2:14), the Thessalonians in their persecution modeled both the apostolic circle and the Lord Himself, and in turn became a pattern for believers throughout the regions of Macedonia and Achaia (1:6–7). Michaelis objected to any form of “conscious imitation,”⁶² but the subsequent verses not only document their persecution, but also mention continuing evidence of their faithfulness (vv. 8–10). These vivid exhibitions were a vital element in the pattern displayed before other believers.

Hebrew 6:12 speaks of modeling also. The exemplars here are all “who are inheriting the promises through faith and longsuffering.” The writer urged the recipients of this epistle to join their ranks by mimicking conduct.

Michaelis was correct when he said,

The admonition of 3 Jn. 11: [mē mimou to kakon alla to agathon, “do not emulate what is bad but what is good”] is general, but it stands in close relation to what precedes and follows. Gaius must not be ensnared by the Diotrephes who is denounced in v. 9f. He should follow the Demetrius who is praised in v. 12.⁶³

The Scripture never tells believers to imitate an abstraction. As here, the example is always concrete. This passage furnishes both negative and positive patterns.

God’s people should emulate not only other mature disciples but also the men whom God has given to them as spiritual leaders (Eph. 4:11–13). They in turn, in accord with testimonies of the apostolic circle, should strive to model Christ, who alone displays the perfect moral image of God. In the New Testament the vital link of ethical emulation represented in church leaders is particularly conspicuous. Consequently, rediscovering pastoral ministry according to God’s Word requires that today’s church leaders not only recognize and teach the priority of moral modeling but accept its overwhelming challenge personally and, by His grace, live as examples before His sheep and a scrutinizing world ready to level the accusation of hypocrisy.