Chuches/Pastors-How to support them?

1 Cor. 9:18 "What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I ABUSE not my power in the gospel." The verse is unambiguous to anyone reading it with honest eyes. ABUSE is present in the text. It is an abuse of power to be compensated for preaching the gospel.

1 Cor. 9: 14-15 “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.” Paul would rather DIE than to be guilty of accepting compensation for preaching the Gospel. If you want to behave EXACTLY opposite of Paul, be my guest.

Your entire argument rests on the single idea that so-called “ordained ministers” are allowed compensation because of 1 Cor. 9: 14. The verse does not say that. The verse says: “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”

EVERY believer preaches the Gospel. This verse does NOT say that "ordained ministers" only may live of the gospel. Rather, it says, “those who preach the gospel may live of the gospel.” GOD has ordained THAT truth. Should all believers who preach the gospel be compensated for it? NO. Paul agrees - and acted accordingly.

On a similar, though separate thought, Mark 3: 14 illustrates that ALL believers are themselves ordained to preach the gospel. If this were not so, then believers would have no authority to preach the gospel to anyone. This is what ROME believes, and it is an impossibility.

John 15: 16, Acts 13: 48 also shows that ALL believers are "ordained" to preach the gospel. Should every believer be compensated for it? NO. That is what you are arguing – and you don’t even know it.

You make the jump that you have a CHOICE between the old Levitical standard and Paul’s New Testament standard. No such choice is provided. Even if it were (which it’s not) then it would only mean that ALL believers would be entitled to the compensation that you exclusively claim. Paul’s standard is the correct one. That is why he himself embraced it. If the choice that wish existed, Paul would have said so. He did not. The entire 1 Cor. 9 chapter is precisely about SELF-DENIAL of ALL believers, including pastors – including YOU.

latterrain77

 

I just realized where your problem is. The KJV translates katakrasasthai as "abuse" when it should be "make use of" (cf. 1 Cor 7:31). It can have the connotation of "abuse" but that is not the way in which he uses it here. That would contradict everything he has just said. He is not arguing that receiving pay is "abuse." He has clearly stipulated that those who preach the gospel have a right to live of it. That is the point. Again, I ask, have you read the passage as a whole? I don't understand how you can possibly get your position. I really don't. It involves ignoring the plain reading of the passage.

Read these verses to get the point that Paul is making:

Clearly, it was a right, it was common sense, it was a part of the Mosaic Law, and it clearly refers to material things. How can you deny this?

As for all believers preaching the gospel, that is not the context in which Paul is talking. The first several verses make that clear. So I ask a question that you previously ignored: Are you saying that the Lord was not telling the truth when he said that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel? Or are you saying that Paul misunderstood him?

 

Dear Latter,

I am trying to see your point of view and from what I perceive you to be saying, I don't believe that it can "hold water".

Let me explain.

1 Corinthians 9: 13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

The plain sense of this portion of Scripture seems to me to be very much in line with what Pastor Larry is saying that those who minister the gospel (Preach) are allowed to take their earthly sustenance from this ministry which is ever so evident in verse 11.

1 Corinthians 9
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

I sow spiritual things I can reap carnal.
In fact it is undeniable (imo) because Pauls goes on to say that though he could he doesn't.

Personally, I don't know how myself to put what Paul said any more clearly.

Every believer bears witness to the Gospel and every believer is a priest of God but the root of this word "preach" is also the root of the word "evangelist" in Ephesians 4:11. To "preach" as an evangelist is a spiritual gift not given to everyone as well as the office of "pastor" as well as "teacher".

Ephesians 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

HankD

 

What secular job is going to let someone have a day off everytime someone in his congregation dies, marries, gets hospitalized or has some sort of crisis?

Pastoring isn't just preaching the gospel, it entails so much more and I am glad that my pastor is there to pray with us each time my daughter is in the hospital. I am glad he is there each time I need someone to talk to about spiritual things. I am glad he is there for not only my family but each one of his members.

Another note about Paul accepting money for preaching the gospel:

Was that his belief in all instances? Or only to the Corinthians and churches that would have just loved to accuse him of having false motives for visiting them? The Corinthians had a lot of problems and in thier case, I believe Paul felt it best not to take any money from them. But what about the Philippians?

Seems to me Paul lived on more then making tents.

~Lorelei

 

I answered all of your questions, you just can’t hear or see that I have. You have not answered ANY of mine – and you carefully avoid commenting on the Biblical verses that I provided.

You stated that 1 Cor. 9: 14, gives you the right, as a pastor, to be “compensated.” I said that v14 refers to EVERY believer, not just pastors. You have NOT answered that question yet. Answer it NOW! So what is it? Who is v14 referring to? I say ALL believers. What do you say Larry?

latterrain77

 

Every believer bears witness to the Gospel and every believer is a priest of God but the root of this word "preach" is also the root of the word "evangelist" in Ephesians 4:11. To "preach" as an evangelist is a spiritual gift not given to everyone as well as the office of "pastor" as well as "teacher".

Ephesians 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.

HankD</font>[/QUOTE]Hi HankD. Actually, 1 Cor. 9: 14 speaks about ALL who preach the gospel, which is ALL believers. Paul set the standard of NOT being paid for such ministering. He said he would rather "die" than to be compensated for preaching the gospel (1 Cor. 9: 15). Why is that so difficult a concept to understand? Why is it that virtually all pastors ignore Paul's example? I am truly puzzled that they ALL do.

I appreciate your comments HankD. We disagree on this one, but at least you come in the Galatians 5: 22-23 spirit! I thank you for that.

latterrain77

 

Seems to me Paul lived on more then making tents.

~Lorelei</font>[/QUOTE]Hi Lorelei. Thank you for sharing your comments. There is nothing wrong with a pastor receiving the occassional gift (like a turkey on Thanksgiving, or something like this). Paul received little gifts, on two seperate occassions (Phil. 4: 16), and only under necessity (v.16). But this is quite a different thing than becoming a career "compensated" person with upkeep, paycheck, retirment plan, etc. Some pastors are paid very little, others are paid fantastically well. As I read the Bible, Paul's example is the correct way (that is why GOD gave his example).

I concede that most do not agree with me on this position. But I am humbly confident that my read is the correct one. I stand on Paul's example. Still, I'm amazed at the degree of passion by those who disagree with me on this issue. Few other issues seem to stir such opposition.

I agree with you that some pastors (and church members) can be very supportive in times of stress and sorrow. This is wonderful, of course. However, there are also quite a few who would just as soon "pass the buck" when it comes time to visit the sick in the hospital, or at home, or otherwise. Thankfully, this has not been your experience. GOD is merciful.

latterrain77

 

Dear Latter,

Yes, I agree that we disagree on this one but in the spirit of love. I think it's terrific that you don't revert to ad hominems (which is more than I can say for myself).

Anyway here are a few more thoughts in response to your posts:

Because supporting our pastors is an act of love as well as faith. We want them to have the proper time to do those things a pastor does. Shepherd and feed the sheep.
Many have pointed to the Scripture showing that Paul's exception to the rule that he himself established was self-imposed and not necessarily to be exercised by others. Apparently it is a matter of both conviction and circumstance.

You spoke of Paul's example. What about the Shepherd of our souls and His example? I realize the Scripture is largely silent (but not completely) as to whether Jesus practiced his trade of carpentry while He went on the road to preach the Gospel. It would seem not

19 And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
20 And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.

Jesus Himself depended totally upon His Father who apparently approved and gave certain women the unspeakable privilege of supporting the Son of God with their substance…

KJV Luke 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Jesus received support from His Father through other people's substance, Paul said he could if he wished.

In this I believe you are correct and we agree. Jesus criterion of a hireling is not that he gets paid but that he flees when the wolf shows up.

HankD

 

I may have missed it, but I don't think anyone mentioned that Paul did hold up his practice as an example to the elders at Ephesus: "I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts 20:33-35

 

If this is so, then who told Abraham about the tithe?

I think alot of the problem in understanding Paul's acceptance in pay is that Paul's ministry was not pastoring. He held a position that men of today will not have the priviledge of knowing. He was an Apostle, not a pastor.
Maybe an evangelist could understand this. They have the choice to accept or decline any offering. Paul declined the offerings from the Corinthians, explained why in part in I Cor 8. They also had problems with pride and being carnal (I Cor 3 & 4). As Lorelei has pointed out, Paul did accept gifts from the Phillippians.

I do believe tithes are in order (Heb 6 & 7). One tenth of what we recieve is a small amount to give to God's purpose. He is the One who called those pastors to minister to us. His house is there for us to worship Him. We only recieve money because He allows it. The offerings are above and beside the tithe. This is where giving from the heart comes from. The tithe furthers the Gospel in His honor and with His blessing. We tithe and are greatly blessed by Him in a special way, something that only one that practices titheing will experience. Maybe too many look at the tithe as payroll instead of giving to God's purpose.

[ July 30, 2002, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: TheOliveBranch ]

 

In the context, Paul is talking about the apostles and vocational ministers, not every believer. V. 14 is referring to vocational ministers, those who preach the gospel for a living. That is clear from the parallels: soldier, farmer, cattleman, and priest. Not everyone is a soldier, farmer, cattleman, or priest. If you are right, then Paul's parallels make no sense. Paul is arguing against the very thing that you are supporting. There were some who were saying Paul did not have a right to accept support from the church (v. 3). Thus, Paul is arguing that he does have a right to do that. As support he says that soldiers, farmers, cattlemen, and priests, all got their living from soldiering, farming, tending the heard, and being a priest. In Paul's argument, receiving a wage for preaching the gospel is no different.

The whole context points to this conclusion. You are selected one verse to read without putting it in the context. That is not a sound way to do exegesis.

 

My point on tithing is that it is never commanded in the NT. Proportional, regular, cheerful giving the NT prescription. I wouldn't base my theory of giving off Abraham. Most people who tithe don't follow the scriptural teaching anyway. The tithe in the OT was 23 1/3 % per year on average (two tithes and a third tithe every third year). How many "tithers" give that??? 10% is way too easy for some. If people "tithe" I don't care. I accept it as an offering. It all spends the same out of the church account.

 

People keep talking about Abraham and his tithe and apply it to NT theology because he preceded the Law.

Somehow this is being related to full time Christian service.

Actually Abraham was willing to give a lot more than a tithe (Isaac) which seems appropriate for the father of the faithful. Perhaps it is appropriate. How many pastors and full time workers have given up a lucrative 6 figure career to serve the Lord and His oft time complaining sheep?

But to say one gives a tithe because Abraham did, well, he was also a polygamist.
Nothing against a tithe as long as it is by faith and I suspect if it is by faith and love it will grow to more than a tithe as the years go by.

HankD

[ July 30, 2002, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

In the context, Paul is talking about the apostles and vocational ministers, not every believer. V. 14 is referring to vocational ministers, those who preach the gospel for a living. That is clear from the parallels: soldier, farmer, cattleman, and priest. Not everyone is a soldier, farmer, cattleman, or priest. If you are right, then Paul's parallels make no sense. Paul is arguing against the very thing that you are supporting. There were some who were saying Paul did not have a right to accept support from the church (v. 3). Thus, Paul is arguing that he does have a right to do that. As support he says that soldiers, farmers, cattlemen, and priests, all got their living from soldiering, farming, tending the heard, and being a priest. In Paul's argument, receiving a wage for preaching the gospel is no different.

The whole context points to this conclusion. You are selected one verse to read without putting it in the context. That is not a sound way to do exegesis.</font>[/QUOTE]The apostles have been dead for nearly 2000 years! What possible application would 1 Cor. 9 have to us today (or the church over the past 2000 years) if it were referring to monetary compensation of the apostles as you suggest? It’s a ridiculous proposition.

You have introduced words like “vocational ministers” into the 1 Cor. 9: 15 text where it does not exist. Are these the “professional pastors” with degrees in “divinity?” that you spoke of earlier? According to that read of 1 Cor. 9: 15, the LORD himself would not have qualified to be included in the 1 Cor. 9:15 group of preachers (John 7: 15).

The verse says “they who preach the gospel” – which are ALL believers, not merely some "exclusive" group as you suggest. Your position is more ROME than you realize.

latterrain77

 

It is referring to the apostles as gospel ministers. How is that ridiculous? Why the analogies to soldiers, farmers, cattlemen, and priests? None of those fit the bill if Paul is talking only about apostles.

The idea of vocational ministers is clearly in the text as there is a division between those who are ministered to spiritually and those who do the ministering. Furthermore, this distinction is common in Scripture (1 Tim 3, 5; 1 Thess 5; Titus 1). This is not Romish until we remove ministry from the "layman." My job as a pastor is to train the laymen to do the work of the ministry (Eph 4).

I agree that all believers "preach" the gospel. However, that is not what Paul is talking in 1 Cor 9.

You have not yet answered v. 11 yet. What is it referring to?

 

Posted by Latterrain77, July 31, 2002 08:33 PM

Why haven’t you commented on the John 7: 15 verse that I provided? The LORD himself was not “educated” so how could HE fit into your description of the people you say are spoken of in 1 Cor. 9 (i.e apostles & vocational ministers)? Why didn’t you answer that Larry? Answer it now - was the LORD acceptable to preach the gospel as per 1 Cor. 9: 11 – or not?

I wasn’t aware that you asked me about v11 in an earlier post. Did you? Where? Anyway, here are my thoughts on v11: those who “sow” spiritual things, are those who preach/teach the gospel. “Sowing” is a picture of “planting.” Reaping is an image of “taking up that which is sown.” By “sowing” the gospel, the carnal things of man are “reaped” up. In Matt. 13: 30, 39, we learn that those carnal things are tossed into the fire. The “reapers” of Matt. 13: 30 are ALL the believers (just like ALL the preachers of 1 Cor. 9: 15). This is also shown, to a degree, in 1 Cor. 3: 12, – which includes "ANY" man.

V7 is simply giving an illustration of the diversity that exists among ALL believers. Since 1 Cor. 9 refers to ALL who preach the gospel, a broad cross-section of those people is provided.

latterrain77

 

First, calm down. Second, who said anything about education in 1 Cor 9? I didn't. That has nothing to do with the issue. Did Christ fit the description?? Absolutely.

This makes no sense with what the verse is saying. Paul says, "If we (ministers of the gospel) have sowed spiritual things (truth through preaching and ministering), then why can we not reap material things?" Obviously, "material" has nothing to do with things that are thrown in teh fire. It has to do with the things of physical sustenance, just as the soldier, farmer, cattleman, and priest. Your explanation makes me wonder again if you are reading this passage. There is nothing in the passage related to burning. 1 Cor 3:12 is unrelated.

Once again, this is so totally unrelated to the context that it seems remarkable you put it here. v. 7 is setting up analogies.

Answer the questions:
Does the soldier fight at his own expense?? Yes or No
Does the farmer get to eat from his crops?? Yes or No
Does the Cattleman get to drink of the milk from his herd?? Yes or No
Does the ox get to eat of the grain he is treading out?? Yes or No

When you answer all these questions, you will then have the answer to the question about whether or not a minister of the gospel should be supported by those to whom he ministers.

[edited to correct quote credit - CK]

[ July 31, 2002, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Hi Latter,

I'm a little reluctant to come in here at this point but I'll do so anyway.

I posted this scripture once, perhaps it got passed by along the way (to wherever we are going ).

I believe it illustrates the point that Pastor Larry is trying to make:

Luke 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he (Jesus) went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him,
2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,
3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

In verse 1 we see our wonderful Lord preaching.
In verse 2 we see those women who had and were reaping the spiritual benefits of His ministry.
In verse 3 we also see "many others" who ministered to Him "of their substance".

Perhaps when Paul said

he meant "ordain" as "by His own example".

Dear latterrain perhaps for the sake of unity we should all leave this as a disagreement.

Psalm 133:1 {A Song of degrees of David.} Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
2 It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
3 As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore.

HankD

[ July 31, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

First, calm down. Second, who said anything about education in 1 Cor 9? I didn't. That has nothing to do with the issue. Did Christ fit the description?? Absolutely.

This makes no sense with what the verse is saying. Paul says, "If we (ministers of the gospel) have sowed spiritual things (truth through preaching and ministering), then why can we not reap material things?" Obviously, "material" has nothing to do with things that are thrown in teh fire. It has to do with the things of physical sustenance, just as the soldier, farmer, cattleman, and priest. Your explanation makes me wonder again if you are reading this passage. There is nothing in the passage related to burning. 1 Cor 3:12 is unrelated.

Once again, this is so totally unrelated to the context that it seems remarkable you put it here. v. 7 is setting up analogies.

Answer the questions:
Does the soldier fight at his own expense?? Yes or No
Does the farmer get to eat from his crops?? Yes or No
Does the Cattleman get to drink of the milk from his herd?? Yes or No
Does the ox get to eat of the grain he is treading out?? Yes or No

When you answer all these questions, you will then have the answer to the question about whether or not a minister of the gospel should be supported by those to whom he ministers.

[edited to correct quote credit - CK]</font>[/QUOTE]I was calm Larry. I’m sorry if it seemed otherwise to you (I should use those smiley face icons more often).

I’m glad you agree that it is NOT necessary to be formally educated in “Theology school” to become a pastor in a church (John 7: 15). You have made a big leap, as it softens your earlier statement about “professional pastors” and brings you much closer to the "ALL" believers of 1 Cor. 9: 14. ANY believer fitting the 1 Tim 3 standard is qualified for the office of pastor.

We still disagree on the matter of “pastor compensation.” Paul’s example of “no compensation” IS the standard as I see it. You still feel otherwise. Fair enough. We are both entrenched. I will concede that your point of view is the more common one.

latterrain77

[ August 01, 2002, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]