Last week, Jonathan Leeman and Mark Dever published a podcast in which they discuss the biblical validity of paying pastors in the local church: https://www.9marks.org/interview/episode-76-on-pastoral-pay/
I consider these men not only sincere brothers; I look up to them as men who have taught me much and whom I greatly admire.
But, having listened to this recording twice and re-listened to a couple of segments in particular, I don't believe the biblical texts they mentioned can validly be used as a basis for paying local pastors/elders in the church. So in this post I want to offer a brotherly/friendly rejoinder by briefly looking at each passage Leeman and Dever mentioned and pushing back on its applicability to paying local pastors/elders in the church. I do so in the spirit of Acts 17:11 and my prayerful desire is that we all who bow to Jesus Christ as Lord would do the same.
1 Corinthians 9:13 - In the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 9, Paul is talking about apostles. He mentions apostles/apostleship explicitly 4 times in the first five verses and once implicitly in v.5 when he speaks of "taking along" or "being accompanied by" a believing wife, which implies traveling. This is what the apostles did as "sent ones"(apostle literally means "sent one" as it comes from the verb apostéllein which means to send off). In the wider context of Matthew 10/Luke 10 where Paul quotes Jesus from, Jesus is speaking to apostles who are traveling. Nowhere in chapter 9 (or all of 1 Corinthians for that matter) are local pastors/elders mentioned. And when Paul says that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" (v. 14) the word translated as "proclaim" is katangello, which in the New Testament is never specifically applied to pastors/elders. It either applies to apostles (e.g. Acts 4:2) or all Christians (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:26).
Galatians 6:6 - This verse seems to be a poorly translated one in all modern English translations. A better translation to suit the context would be: "Let the one who is taught participate in all good with the one who teaches." The "things" that comes after "good" in all modern English translations isn't in the original Greek, but has to be inferred based on the context. To talk about paying a teacher seems to be oddly placed in the context. In the first 10 verses of chapter 6, Paul is telling the Galatians to watch over and minister to one another and to persist in doing this kind of good to all people, especially to the household of faith. In this context, the "good" that Paul is telling the Galatians to give themselves to is good *works* rather than giving good *things* to a teacher. The point is: don't expect the teacher to do all the watching over and ministering to the saints but you all should be participating in those good works *together with* the teacher. To see paying local pastors in this text makes little sense of the larger context. James Beaty unpacks this helpfully.
2 Timothy 4:3 - In multiple places in the New Testament, the apostles imply that there are people who are greedy to use the Word of God as a means of gain. For example, Paul tells Titus that elders shouldn't be greedy for gain (Titus 1:7). Peter tells the elders that they shouldn't do their work for shameful gain (1 Peter 5:2). Paul tells the Corinthians that there are *so many* who are wrongfully peddling the Word of God (2 Corinthians 2:17), which at the very least applies to the "super"/false apostles in the context of 2 Corinthians. To point to the fact that the New Testament indicates that there are people who are wrongfully making money from teaching the Word of God in no way proves that paying teachers is what God intended and that the church should rightfully be doing. One could argue that it actually proves that paying teachers is precisely what the church shouldn't be doing because of the dangers that are associated with it.
2 Corinthians 11:8 - Paul speaks of "robbing" one church (he specifically mentions the church in Macedonia here) in order to serve a church in a different location (specifically the church in Corinth here). First of all, Paul is applying this to himself as an apostle who is traveling, and not to a local pastor/elder who is permanently in one place. Second, he is speaking of church A funding the ministry of an apostle at church B. This has nothing to do with our modern way of paying pastors which happens by church A funding the ministry of a pastor/elder at church A.
Philippians 4:16-19 - This is similar to 2 Corinthians 11:8. Here Paul speaks of how the Philippians (Macedonians) funded his ministry while he was serving in Thessalonica. Again, he's speaking as a traveling apostle and church A (Philippians) funding the ministry of an apostle at church B (Thessalonica). Not related to pastors/elders permanently located in one place.
Hebrews 13:7,17 - Dever argues that to respect leaders and to let them do their work with joy and not groaning not only implies paying pastors but has "direct implications" on how you pay pastors. With all due respect, I don't believe this is exegesis. I think this is reading something into the text (eisegesis) that simply isn't there.
2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 - These verses clearly indicate that apostles have a right to food and drink. But, first, notice that it's talking about apostles, as developed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 when talking about the same right apostles have. Second, he isn't talking about apostles being given money. He's talking about apostles being given food (bread) without paying money for it (v. 8). As traveling apostles, what they needed was food/drink and housing/lodging for the temporary stay that they would have in any given town, not wages/a salary. This is why places in the New Testament like 2 John 10 speak of not receiving into your house or offering a greeting one who brings false doctrine.
Acts 6 - In this chapter, deacons are appointed to distribute food so that apostles can devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. Dever acknowledges that it's not stated in the text but that the way they were able to give themselves wholly to prayer and the ministry of the Word is by being financially supported. I agree, as mentioned in the above passages, that apostles were provided with food/drink and housing. But I don't think this means a salary and this isn't talking about local pastors/elders.
1 Timothy 5:17-18 - Essentially all interpreters conclude that the honor Paul mentions is money in large part because of Paul saying that "the laborer deserves his wages." I think there's another way to read these verses. I've never heard anyone say that we should give pastors/elders grain. And rightly so. Because we understand that Paul is using a metaphor when mentioning not muzzling an ox. I think he does the exact same thing with the use of a laborer and his wages. The logic would go like this: in the same way that an ox should be free to eat grain as it treads and in the same way that one who is hired as a laborer should receive his agreed upon wage, so the elder should receive honor/respect for the kind of work he does. In the immediate context, one form of this honor is that we shouldn't admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses (v. 19). Further supporting this way of understanding honor as only literal honor/respect in the immediate context is just a couple of verses later Paul says that slaves are to regard masters as worthy of all honor (6:1). I don't think anyone argues that slaves should give their master money/wages since a slave wouldn't have any. So if this honor doesn't mean money/wages in 6:1, then is it too far-fetched to suggest it doesn't mean money/wages in 5:17? I think Paul means literal honor/respect, not money, in 1 Timothy 5:17 and that he makes the exact same point with different words in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13.
One text Dever and Leeman didn't mention that has bearing on this conversation is Acts 20. Beginning in verse 17, Paul is addressing elders/pastors from Ephesus specifically. As he wraps up this address in verses 33-35, Paul reminds the elders how he ministered not only to his own necessities but to those who were with him. And then he instructs the elders that by working hard *we* must help the weak and, as Jesus taught, be those who seek to give rather than to receive. This is an address to elders only. Paul appears to be telling them that, just like him, they should work hard and seek to give *materially* to the needs of others rather than expecting others to *materially* meet their needs.
Many of the passages mentioned above by Leeman and Dever to support paying pastors/elders are directly talking about apostles and are indirectly applied to pastors/elders.
This final passage in Acts 20 which seems to speak against paying pastors is directly making reference to local pastors/elders.
How did we end up creating a system/tradition of paying pastors that seems to ignore the latter and focus on the former?
I consider these men not only sincere brothers; I look up to them as men who have taught me much and whom I greatly admire.
But, having listened to this recording twice and re-listened to a couple of segments in particular, I don't believe the biblical texts they mentioned can validly be used as a basis for paying local pastors/elders in the church. So in this post I want to offer a brotherly/friendly rejoinder by briefly looking at each passage Leeman and Dever mentioned and pushing back on its applicability to paying local pastors/elders in the church. I do so in the spirit of Acts 17:11 and my prayerful desire is that we all who bow to Jesus Christ as Lord would do the same.
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.Luke 10:7 - In the context, Jesus is sending out *traveling* apostles. We know their stay in any particular town is temporary because they return to where they began in v.11. Furthermore, Jesus is saying they should have food/drink and housing provided for them, not wages literally. The phrase "the laborer is worthy of his wages" is a metaphor that we aren't meant to apply literally. In the same way that a worker should receive wages, a traveling apostle should receive housing and food/drink. How do we get from this to local pastors/elders who are permanently based in a location receiving literal wages?
Acts 17:11
1 Corinthians 9:13 - In the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 9, Paul is talking about apostles. He mentions apostles/apostleship explicitly 4 times in the first five verses and once implicitly in v.5 when he speaks of "taking along" or "being accompanied by" a believing wife, which implies traveling. This is what the apostles did as "sent ones"(apostle literally means "sent one" as it comes from the verb apostéllein which means to send off). In the wider context of Matthew 10/Luke 10 where Paul quotes Jesus from, Jesus is speaking to apostles who are traveling. Nowhere in chapter 9 (or all of 1 Corinthians for that matter) are local pastors/elders mentioned. And when Paul says that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel" (v. 14) the word translated as "proclaim" is katangello, which in the New Testament is never specifically applied to pastors/elders. It either applies to apostles (e.g. Acts 4:2) or all Christians (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:26).
Galatians 6:6 - This verse seems to be a poorly translated one in all modern English translations. A better translation to suit the context would be: "Let the one who is taught participate in all good with the one who teaches." The "things" that comes after "good" in all modern English translations isn't in the original Greek, but has to be inferred based on the context. To talk about paying a teacher seems to be oddly placed in the context. In the first 10 verses of chapter 6, Paul is telling the Galatians to watch over and minister to one another and to persist in doing this kind of good to all people, especially to the household of faith. In this context, the "good" that Paul is telling the Galatians to give themselves to is good *works* rather than giving good *things* to a teacher. The point is: don't expect the teacher to do all the watching over and ministering to the saints but you all should be participating in those good works *together with* the teacher. To see paying local pastors in this text makes little sense of the larger context. James Beaty unpacks this helpfully.
2 Timothy 4:3 - In multiple places in the New Testament, the apostles imply that there are people who are greedy to use the Word of God as a means of gain. For example, Paul tells Titus that elders shouldn't be greedy for gain (Titus 1:7). Peter tells the elders that they shouldn't do their work for shameful gain (1 Peter 5:2). Paul tells the Corinthians that there are *so many* who are wrongfully peddling the Word of God (2 Corinthians 2:17), which at the very least applies to the "super"/false apostles in the context of 2 Corinthians. To point to the fact that the New Testament indicates that there are people who are wrongfully making money from teaching the Word of God in no way proves that paying teachers is what God intended and that the church should rightfully be doing. One could argue that it actually proves that paying teachers is precisely what the church shouldn't be doing because of the dangers that are associated with it.
2 Corinthians 11:8 - Paul speaks of "robbing" one church (he specifically mentions the church in Macedonia here) in order to serve a church in a different location (specifically the church in Corinth here). First of all, Paul is applying this to himself as an apostle who is traveling, and not to a local pastor/elder who is permanently in one place. Second, he is speaking of church A funding the ministry of an apostle at church B. This has nothing to do with our modern way of paying pastors which happens by church A funding the ministry of a pastor/elder at church A.
Philippians 4:16-19 - This is similar to 2 Corinthians 11:8. Here Paul speaks of how the Philippians (Macedonians) funded his ministry while he was serving in Thessalonica. Again, he's speaking as a traveling apostle and church A (Philippians) funding the ministry of an apostle at church B (Thessalonica). Not related to pastors/elders permanently located in one place.
Hebrews 13:7,17 - Dever argues that to respect leaders and to let them do their work with joy and not groaning not only implies paying pastors but has "direct implications" on how you pay pastors. With all due respect, I don't believe this is exegesis. I think this is reading something into the text (eisegesis) that simply isn't there.
2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 - These verses clearly indicate that apostles have a right to food and drink. But, first, notice that it's talking about apostles, as developed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 when talking about the same right apostles have. Second, he isn't talking about apostles being given money. He's talking about apostles being given food (bread) without paying money for it (v. 8). As traveling apostles, what they needed was food/drink and housing/lodging for the temporary stay that they would have in any given town, not wages/a salary. This is why places in the New Testament like 2 John 10 speak of not receiving into your house or offering a greeting one who brings false doctrine.
Acts 6 - In this chapter, deacons are appointed to distribute food so that apostles can devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. Dever acknowledges that it's not stated in the text but that the way they were able to give themselves wholly to prayer and the ministry of the Word is by being financially supported. I agree, as mentioned in the above passages, that apostles were provided with food/drink and housing. But I don't think this means a salary and this isn't talking about local pastors/elders.
1 Timothy 5:17-18 - Essentially all interpreters conclude that the honor Paul mentions is money in large part because of Paul saying that "the laborer deserves his wages." I think there's another way to read these verses. I've never heard anyone say that we should give pastors/elders grain. And rightly so. Because we understand that Paul is using a metaphor when mentioning not muzzling an ox. I think he does the exact same thing with the use of a laborer and his wages. The logic would go like this: in the same way that an ox should be free to eat grain as it treads and in the same way that one who is hired as a laborer should receive his agreed upon wage, so the elder should receive honor/respect for the kind of work he does. In the immediate context, one form of this honor is that we shouldn't admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses (v. 19). Further supporting this way of understanding honor as only literal honor/respect in the immediate context is just a couple of verses later Paul says that slaves are to regard masters as worthy of all honor (6:1). I don't think anyone argues that slaves should give their master money/wages since a slave wouldn't have any. So if this honor doesn't mean money/wages in 6:1, then is it too far-fetched to suggest it doesn't mean money/wages in 5:17? I think Paul means literal honor/respect, not money, in 1 Timothy 5:17 and that he makes the exact same point with different words in 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13.
One text Dever and Leeman didn't mention that has bearing on this conversation is Acts 20. Beginning in verse 17, Paul is addressing elders/pastors from Ephesus specifically. As he wraps up this address in verses 33-35, Paul reminds the elders how he ministered not only to his own necessities but to those who were with him. And then he instructs the elders that by working hard *we* must help the weak and, as Jesus taught, be those who seek to give rather than to receive. This is an address to elders only. Paul appears to be telling them that, just like him, they should work hard and seek to give *materially* to the needs of others rather than expecting others to *materially* meet their needs.
Many of the passages mentioned above by Leeman and Dever to support paying pastors/elders are directly talking about apostles and are indirectly applied to pastors/elders.
This final passage in Acts 20 which seems to speak against paying pastors is directly making reference to local pastors/elders.
How did we end up creating a system/tradition of paying pastors that seems to ignore the latter and focus on the former?
No comments:
Post a Comment