tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post5806445124786160919..comments2023-06-09T12:46:12.932-04:00Comments on The Voice Of One Crying Out In Suburbia: Back to double honorArthur Sidohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-35927441820913478372010-12-22T22:05:35.797-05:002010-12-22T22:05:35.797-05:00Arthur, perhaps in the mean time you would delete ...Arthur, perhaps in the mean time you would delete my accidental double post? (The second of my three posts is a duplicate of the first.)<br /><br />Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-61160199863908584982010-12-22T21:23:01.490-05:002010-12-22T21:23:01.490-05:00Tom,
Your comment is not too long at all. I will ...Tom,<br /><br />Your comment is not too long at all. I will respond to it in a day or two but I appreciate that you set forth a case for your position instead of just assuming it and stating it as fact as if it is beyond reproach. I will say that my objection is not to any sort of financial support at all, I think it is entirely appropriate in certain circumstances for the to support one another in ministry, it is the system of a permanent paid ministry.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-78383132681480941912010-12-22T21:19:29.306-05:002010-12-22T21:19:29.306-05:00Chad,
I would go straight to Hebrews for that que...Chad,<br /><br />I would go straight to Hebrews for that question. We see there that the old system of a special class of men who were priests was replaced by Christ. The Old Covenant priesthood of Levites was merely a shadow of what was to come. In Christ there is no distinction between believers. That doesn't mean there aren't leaders of course, men who are more mature and who lead by example and service, but the idea of a ruling class of professionals is absent.Arthur Sidohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03848508095612688493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-58442427839266661042010-12-22T21:12:02.584-05:002010-12-22T21:12:02.584-05:00(This is the conclusion of my previous comment; so...(This is the conclusion of my previous comment; sorry if this is too long.)<br /><br />I suggest that the question of whether a pastor should collect wages is analogous to that of marriage:<br /><br /><b>1.</b> God's word declares that it is not sin to marry (<b>1 Corinthians 7:36</b>), and God's word declares that ministers of the gospel are not to be prevented from reaping financial benefits of it (<b>1 Corinthians 9:6-11</b>).<br /><br /><b>2.</b> God himself ordained marriage (<b>Genesis 2:18; Matthew 19:4-6</b>) and God himself "<i>ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.</i>" (<b>1 Corinthians 9:14</b>)<br /><br /><b>3.</b> Nevertheless, Paul gives sound reasons why a man desiring to serve God should refrain from marriage (<b>1 Corinthians 7:25-35</b>). Though Paul said he had "<i>no <b>commandment</b> of the Lord</i>", yet the Lord Jesus did confirm that it may be wise for a man to refrain from marriage "for the kingdom of heaven's sake" (<b>Matthew 19:10-12</b>). Likewise, Paul gives sound reasons why a man desiring to serve God should refuse wages for his gospel ministry (<b>1 Corinthians 9:12-23</b>).<br /><br /><b>4.</b> These two issues are mentioned in practically the same breath as a part of Paul's discussion of his own personal financial choices (<b>1 Corinthians 9:5-6</b>).<br /><br />It is interesting to note that though Paul considered it best in the service of the gospel to remain single, yet not only did he refrain from criticizing others for marrying, but he actually condemned those who forbade it: see <b>1 Timothy 4:1-3</b>.<br /><br /><br />Arthur, I hope this has satisfied your desire for a scriptural argument with some meat to it in favor of vocational ministers. I look forward to reading your reasoned and considerate response, if you care to give one.<br /><br /><br /><b>P. S.</b> Please take this little essay at face value; I am attempting to address the question of whether there should even <b>be</b> full-time, vocational ministers of the gospel, <b>not</b> how, how much, when, or by whom they should be paid. Neither is this about how they should be chosen or trained, nor whether they should wear special clothes, give speeches in a special building, etc.<br /><br />Also, I agree that "<i>worthy of double honour</i>" is a poor proof text for the validity of paid ministry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-43549245938083296282010-12-22T21:06:21.936-05:002010-12-22T21:06:21.936-05:00It is interesting to consider that during Jesus...It is interesting to consider that during Jesus' earthly ministry, neither he nor his closest followers held any secular job; they lived on the donations of those they ministered to (<b>Matthew 10:9-10; 27:55; Luke 10:4-9</b>).<br /><br />They often had little (<b>Matthew 8:20; 14:17; 15:34; 17:27</b>) - in want, even, at times (<b>Mark 6:31-34</b>) - but neither our Lord nor the Twelve had any qualms about living on the gifts of others.<br /><br />In <b>1 Corinthians 9:15-23</b>, Paul explains why he did secular work, rather than live at the church's expense; there is no need for me to go into his reasoning here, as you have explained it well more than once on this blog.<br /><br />However, that is not the only point Paul makes in that chapter: he very clearly says, in <b>1 Corinthians 9:3-14</b> that it is the God-given right of a minister of the gospel to make his living from so doing:<br /><br /><i>Even so hath <b>the Lord ordained</b> that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.</i><br /><b>1 Corinthians 9:14</b><br /><br />Moreover, I see it strongly implied in verses <b>5</b> and <b>6</b> that Paul and Barnabas were the exception, rather than the rule, among the apostles in this thing. (I would, however, be pleased to examine any scriptural evidence to the contrary.) It would seem that the Twelve continued their practice from the days of Christ's walk on this earth of living on others' gifts, even in the time of <b>Acts</b>.<br /><br />This theory is supported - although certainly not proven - by <b>Acts 6:2</b>; if they would not "<i>leave the word of God, and serve tables</i>" for the church, ought we to suppose they left the word of God to serve tables for money? (I mention this only to show the mind-set of the other apostles; not to disparage, or suggest that the Twelve despised, Paul and Barnabas' choice.)<br /><br />Moreover, Paul and his companions did not themselves, in fact, refuse all gifts in the name of the gospel. In his follow-up to the very letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains that, although he worked a secular job, he also allowed another church to support him financially:<br /><br /><i>I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.</i><br /><b>2 Corinthians 11:8-9</b><br /><br />And verse <b>10</b> would seem to suggest that this was not even Paul's practice in all places that he ministered, but rather one he for some reason considered useful specifically in the region of Corinth:<br /><br /><i>As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting <b>in the region of Achaia.</b></i><br /><b>2 Corinthians 11:10</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-46304355949942097892010-12-22T21:05:35.306-05:002010-12-22T21:05:35.306-05:00It is interesting to consider that during Jesus...It is interesting to consider that during Jesus' earthly ministry, neither he nor his closest followers held any secular job; they lived on the donations of those they ministered to (<b>Matthew 10:9-10; 27:55; Luke 10:4-9</b>).<br /><br />They often had little (<b>Matthew 8:20; 14:17; 15:34; 17:27</b>) - in want, even, at times (<b>Mark 6:31-34</b>) - but neither our Lord nor the Twelve had any qualms about living on the gifts of others.<br /><br />In <b>1 Corinthians 9:15-23</b>, Paul explains why he did secular work, rather than live at the church's expense; there is no need for me to go into his reasoning here, as you have explained it well more than once on this blog.<br /><br />However, that is not the only point Paul makes in that chapter: he very clearly says, in <b>1 Corinthians 9:3-14</b> that it is the God-given right of a minister of the gospel to make his living from so doing:<br /><br /><i>Even so hath <b>the Lord ordained</b> that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.</i><br /><b>1 Corinthians 9:14</b><br /><br />Moreover, I see it strongly implied in verses <b>5</b> and <b>6</b> that Paul and Barnabas were the exception, rather than the rule, among the apostles in this thing. (I would, however, be pleased to examine any scriptural evidence to the contrary.) It would seem that the Twelve continued their practice from the days of Christ's walk on this earth of living on others' gifts, even in the time of <b>Acts</b>.<br /><br />This theory is supported - although certainly not proven - by <b>Acts 6:2</b>; if they would not "<i>leave the word of God, and serve tables</i>" for the church, ought we to suppose they left the word of God to serve tables for money? (I mention this only to show the mind-set of the other apostles; not to disparage, or suggest that the Twelve despised, Paul and Barnabas' choice.)<br /><br />Moreover, Paul and his companions did not themselves, in fact, refuse all gifts in the name of the gospel. In his follow-up to the very letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains that, although he worked a secular job, he also allowed another church to support him financially:<br /><br /><i>I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service. And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.</i><br /><b>2 Corinthians 11:8-9</b><br /><br />And verse <b>10</b> would seem to suggest that this was not even Paul's practice in all places that he ministered, but rather one he for some reason considered useful specifically in the region of Corinth:<br /><br /><i>As the truth of Christ is in me, no man shall stop me of this boasting <b>in the region of Achaia.</b></i><br /><b>2 Corinthians 11:10</b><br /><br />Also, although Paul and Barnabas worked to support themselves, Paul's companions also allowed Paul to help support them financially in their ministries, at times:<br /><br /><i>Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, <b>and to them that were with me.</b></i><br /><b>Acts 20:34</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-39631947289781786482010-12-22T11:29:12.000-05:002010-12-22T11:29:12.000-05:00Interesting analysis of Wilson's series. Good ...Interesting analysis of Wilson's series. Good work. It does raise a question for me though. You state...<br /><br />"Because that tradition is so entrenched, with over 1500 years of history, it is easy to read that expectation into 1 Timothy 5: 17-18."<br /><br />I'm wondering, isn't that tradition much older than 1,500 years? Doesn't that pretty much start with the establishment of the Levites as the priestly class? God sets them up as the ones to enter the temple and do all the "ministerial" duties after the exodus from Egypt I believe. They were the ones doing all the sacrifices God sets up a structure of compensation for them in their being able to keep a portion of what was being sacrificed. Of course, they immediately get greedy and start keeping too much. That didn't take long.<br /><br />So my question is, what is it specifically about the New Testament that does away with the whole idea of "professional" teachers of the Word? Are they never mentioned? (In a good way, I mean...I know they are usually the bad actors in the New Testament)Chadnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-68026676180954486352010-12-21T22:39:11.968-05:002010-12-21T22:39:11.968-05:00Arthur,
You post prompted me to post a link to tw...Arthur,<br /><br />You post prompted me to post a link to two other passages of Scripture that (I think) are parallel to 1 Timothy 5:17-18, but that clearly do not teach paying salaries to elders. The post is called "<a href="http://www.alanknox.net/2010/12/does-double-honor-salary/" rel="nofollow">Does 'Double Honor' = 'Salary'?</a>"<br /><br />And, let's not forget Acts 20:33-35, which is specifically to elders on the subject of working for your own support instead of relying on others.<br /><br />-AlanAlan Knoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07452247058550736803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6643715.post-31744291742218518932010-12-21T15:07:23.270-05:002010-12-21T15:07:23.270-05:00This is an excellent essay; thank you for posting ...This is an excellent essay; thank you for posting it. <br /><br />I would also point out that the word for "honor" Paul used in I Timothy 5:17 is the same word he used in Romans 13:7. But interestingly, Paul does not say to render double WAGES to teaching elders, even though he uses/references the word "wages" (a completely different Greek word than "honor") in the same sentence in I Timothy 5:17. If he meant "double wages," why didn't Paul write "double wages?"<br /><br />Again, excellent post.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04821504641329229500noreply@blogger.com