 |
| Illustration by Judith Clingan |
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?
Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?
But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.
Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast. For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel.
In 1 Cor. 9:1-18, Paul's integrity as an apostle is under attack—not his
salary as a professional Christian. Regardless, some will read that
into the text without considering what I am saying, but for those willing to acknowledge the context of the passage, Paul states
specifically in verse 15 that his motive is not about getting paid
money. Paul is making arguments in the context of somehow personally
differing from others who had these rights (see below). Again, he is not debating
the abstract, "timeless" issue of whether it's "right or wrong to pay a preacher."
In the (con)text, Paul is referring to himself, who as an apostle (one sent temporarily), had the "right of support" as others evidently did. He is also referring to Barnabas and his apostolic traveling companions like Timothy and Titus, among many others, he deposed to places like Crete and Ephesus (Acts 20:2-5). Paul is not referring to anyone's right to an indefinite salary subtracted from a local treasury. Those, like Paul, who are traveling are naturally in need of "support" temporarily, and Paul is no different from others in this regard. Not seeing this context causes us to make the above passage into a proof text for certain Christians to usurp authority over other Christians--and especially husbands. The "they" of Acts 3-4 is men and women, and the "preaching" done was dialogue. It was not the monologue we have today of primarily one man for a super majority of the time we're assembled.
Also, Paul went to great pains to make sure that the collection for poor saints in Jerusalem ( 1 Cor. 16:1-4; cf. 2 Cor. 8-9; Romans 15:25-26) was delivered by locals, stating that he may not even go. This, too, is not what we do today. Today a church treasury (religious tax) is mandated on threat of unfaithfulness as a supposed ‘act of worship’ where the professional Christians typically get the largest percentage. Even if a group's building is paid for, and the church's "contribution" is extremely large, and "missions" require the largest percentage--this is still to propagate the institutional system throughout the world which begins with securing a professional Christian (gospel preacher) and a building. This is not what Paul, Barnabas, Timothy nor Titus were doing.
One difference in what we do today from what they were doing in the first century that shows that Timothy and Titus were apostolic workers and not “gospel preachers” is that these men were “sent” to instruct others who were already doing the local teaching. Paul writes to Timothy:
In the (con)text, Paul is referring to himself, who as an apostle (one sent temporarily), had the "right of support" as others evidently did. He is also referring to Barnabas and his apostolic traveling companions like Timothy and Titus, among many others, he deposed to places like Crete and Ephesus (Acts 20:2-5). Paul is not referring to anyone's right to an indefinite salary subtracted from a local treasury. Those, like Paul, who are traveling are naturally in need of "support" temporarily, and Paul is no different from others in this regard. Not seeing this context causes us to make the above passage into a proof text for certain Christians to usurp authority over other Christians--and especially husbands. The "they" of Acts 3-4 is men and women, and the "preaching" done was dialogue. It was not the monologue we have today of primarily one man for a super majority of the time we're assembled.
Also, Paul went to great pains to make sure that the collection for poor saints in Jerusalem ( 1 Cor. 16:1-4; cf. 2 Cor. 8-9; Romans 15:25-26) was delivered by locals, stating that he may not even go. This, too, is not what we do today. Today a church treasury (religious tax) is mandated on threat of unfaithfulness as a supposed ‘act of worship’ where the professional Christians typically get the largest percentage. Even if a group's building is paid for, and the church's "contribution" is extremely large, and "missions" require the largest percentage--this is still to propagate the institutional system throughout the world which begins with securing a professional Christian (gospel preacher) and a building. This is not what Paul, Barnabas, Timothy nor Titus were doing.
One difference in what we do today from what they were doing in the first century that shows that Timothy and Titus were apostolic workers and not “gospel preachers” is that these men were “sent” to instruct others who were already doing the local teaching. Paul writes to Timothy:
As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies (1 Tim. 1:3-4).
Ask yourself when you read this text, "Who was doing the teaching in
Ephesus?" Today, we pay a professional Christian to ‘repeat the signals’
of 19th and 20th century interpretations of a handful of men who are
considered "great, sound brethren" who, of course, were all "gospel
preachers" themselves! We try to avoid the biblical reality of more than one speaking in the assembly through the "elders
allowing" others to teach in a divided assembly setting, or "Bible
class." The New Testament speaks of assemblies of Christians, not
divided Bible classes that obscures the truth about what the NT says happened in the assemblies of Christians in the first century.
Another glaring difference between Timothy and Titus and today’s gospel preacher in churches of Christ is that Timothy and Titus, as apostolic representatives of Paul, had delegated, apostolic authority to appoint elders in multiple cities. Paul wrote to Titus:
Another glaring difference between Timothy and Titus and today’s gospel preacher in churches of Christ is that Timothy and Titus, as apostolic representatives of Paul, had delegated, apostolic authority to appoint elders in multiple cities. Paul wrote to Titus:
This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you...(1:5).
Titus and Timothy were not "gospel preachers" or individual pastors as
we understand them today--a delegated position of monologue speaker,
professional Bible studier, and hospital visitor. I do not mean this as
an attack on anyone personally. And I think that if we stopped
attaching personal identity to 'what we do' instead of 'who we are' this
would not be so offensive in our culture.
Some have tried to say that preachers should appoint elders, but this misses the point that Paul's traveling companions were temporarily deposed to instruct others who were doing the public teaching. They were not gospel preachers as we understand the term which is essentially the professional spokesman for the congregation.
Timothy and Titus were not sent to take up residence and be the only ones allowed to interpret and speak in the public assembly. I am not saying that there is no place for teaching the word. I am contending with a sociological construct (office) that hinders the God-commanded growth of other Christians, and forbids others God-given right to speak in the assembly (1 Cor. 14:26-33). This has been happening for generations and it is not what Paul and Timothy were doing at all.
Are we equating our modern 'salaried employee position of monologue speaker' with the position of a traveling apostle who has the right to demand support for himself and his traveling companions who were sent to instruct locals? Paul did not say, "I expect compensation for my time, etc...." He was not working for a church as an employee. He said he had the "right" to support as an apostle sent by Christ Himself--and his context was that he was being separated out as not worthy of this support of which others evidently were (v.12). He was being personally separated and attacked.
Again, when I talk about 'gospel preachers,' I am talking about a sociological construct, or position—not anyone personally. Taking "they that preach the gospel" (v.18) out of its context and saying that it is speaking of our modern gospel preacher is not the context of Paul's argument.
Finally, those who got their "living from the Temple" (vv. 13-14) were there temporarily (2 weeks) serving their "course" that David had instituted (like Zechariah, John the Baptist's father--Luke 1:8). For the rest of the year, they were to farm/shepherd their own land, not "make a living" off of everyone else, much less claim the "right" to demand it. They were also to appear when everyone else was to appear during the 3 festivals of Unleavened Bread, Weeks, and Tabernacles:
The priests and the Levites were divided into 24 courses within their assigned class. The length of each course was 7 days (1 Chr. 9:25). The week of service began and ended on the Sabbath (2 Chr. 23:8). In addition, all the priests served for 3 extra weeks during the year (Deu. 16:16). Each course of priests and Levites came on duty for a week, from one Sabbath to another. The Jewish calendar has only 51 weeks in a year. Each of the 24 courses therefore served twice a year, plus 3 weeks they all served, for a total of 5 weeks during the year.1
In modern terms, that’s 45 weeks of “no salary” or mandated “support.” Temporary
traveling companions of Paul = temporary course/division sharing in the
sacrifices (food) at the Temple. That was Paul's first century/Old
Testament understanding in 1 Cor. 9:1-18--not what we do today. Are
we saying that Paul is demanding "luxurious living" and "upward
mobility" as a right? Are we saying that 'Gospel preachers' have a
"right" to demand this kind of "living?" I don't think so.
If someone wants to give them their money to live that way, it's "your money" (Acts 5:4), but I will not be intimidated by a system that has conditioned the masses with this mythological and ungodly clerical separation of some Christians from others. I will not be intimidated by the false doctrine of, "This is an act of worship (putting money into a dish) and if you don't do it, then you're unfaithful"--and then some Christians take a large percentage and then tell other Christians we are to be doing for no money what they do for money!
The "collection" of 1 Cor. 16:1-4 was private collections in the homes of the Christians, not a church treasury to be controlled by an oligarchy of elders who paid some Christians for the work all Christians are commanded to do. The elders of the Bible distributed the collections to the poor. It was not a spiritual tax on the people of God that created an elite class of Christians. In my opinion, our position of 'gospel preacher' is a semantic term for the Protestant Pastor, like "gospel meeting" is our semantic term for the Protestant 'revival,' and our 'prayer for babies' is the denominational concept of dedicating babies, etc. This is why the preacher prays for them in hospitals and other occasions, and why the church has the preacher do the prayer for the babies, etc.
Churches of Christ with whom I am most familiar need to acknowledge that our interpretation of 1 Cor. 9:1-8--that Paul is talking about what we know as the 'position of gospel preacher' paid from a mandated treasury indefinitely--is out of context.
We need to see the real, historical meaning behind what we are doing and why we do it, not live in denial and condemn everybody who disagrees with us. We fool ourselves with these proof text semantics, and it seems that we are the only ones unable to see it. Rather than continue to fool ourselves by only listening to ourselves, let us be wise like Paul who said:
“We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).
If someone wants to give them their money to live that way, it's "your money" (Acts 5:4), but I will not be intimidated by a system that has conditioned the masses with this mythological and ungodly clerical separation of some Christians from others. I will not be intimidated by the false doctrine of, "This is an act of worship (putting money into a dish) and if you don't do it, then you're unfaithful"--and then some Christians take a large percentage and then tell other Christians we are to be doing for no money what they do for money!
The "collection" of 1 Cor. 16:1-4 was private collections in the homes of the Christians, not a church treasury to be controlled by an oligarchy of elders who paid some Christians for the work all Christians are commanded to do. The elders of the Bible distributed the collections to the poor. It was not a spiritual tax on the people of God that created an elite class of Christians. In my opinion, our position of 'gospel preacher' is a semantic term for the Protestant Pastor, like "gospel meeting" is our semantic term for the Protestant 'revival,' and our 'prayer for babies' is the denominational concept of dedicating babies, etc. This is why the preacher prays for them in hospitals and other occasions, and why the church has the preacher do the prayer for the babies, etc.
Churches of Christ with whom I am most familiar need to acknowledge that our interpretation of 1 Cor. 9:1-8--that Paul is talking about what we know as the 'position of gospel preacher' paid from a mandated treasury indefinitely--is out of context.
We need to see the real, historical meaning behind what we are doing and why we do it, not live in denial and condemn everybody who disagrees with us. We fool ourselves with these proof text semantics, and it seems that we are the only ones unable to see it. Rather than continue to fool ourselves by only listening to ourselves, let us be wise like Paul who said:
“We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise” (2 Cor. 10:12).
_______________________________
1"The Service of the Priests and the Levites" from http://www3.telus.net/public/kstam/en/temple/details/priest_service.htm
All bold emphasis mine, sp.
No comments:
Post a Comment