The apostle Paul was explicit concerning how believers ought to progress in the faith when he told the Ephesians, “And be renewed by the Spirit of your minds” (Eph. 4:23). This instruction is universal in nature and pertains to all believers without exception.
Our actions as believers are determined by the processes that govern the way we think as individuals. The Lord Jesus Christ condemned tradition that imposed itself over the authority and the purposes of the Scriptures (Mark 7:7). The apostle Paul understood the power tradition had over the lives of people in general. Paul understood how that tradition could be employed to further the purposes of the Lord for the church and how traditions could easily contradict these very purposes. While human will or tradition has no power over the sovereignty of God, as God’s purposes will be accomplished whether or not we want it to happen, it can prevent believers from actively participating in the work of God and thereby prevent the believer from personally experiencing the blessings and victory that comes through a complete submission to the Master’s will.
A great part of the New Testament is dedicated to instructing believers how to live. Paul dedicates the second half of a majority of his epistles and letters to providing his readers with practical guidelines on how to effect the principles and doctrines into daily living. Paul considered this to be important being that most of the converts were accustomed to traditions that could easily impose itself on an unambiguous understanding and application of the Holy Scriptures in much the same way as the Talmud has gained more prominence over the Tanakh in the lives of devout Jews. He made it a point to set the proper understanding of those to whom he ministered to. The same practice was also employed by Paul when dealing with Gentile churches. He had to provide explicit instruction so that heathen practices do not corrupt the church and the lives of believers.
But despite the clarity of the New Testament, the ministry of the church is now overtaken by practices that serve humanistic purposes rather than sovereign purposes, where convenience overtakes principled living, and where a rich wellspring of faith is subverted through ascetic, pontifical, and ecclesiastical practices that have no place in the believer’s thought or life.
The ancient church grew in dramatic proportions as a result of the powerful indwelling of the Holy Spirit as recorded in the first five chapter of Acts. This is the Lord Jesus’ continuing work through His apostles—a work that began three years before. Popular teaching that led many believers to think that the church suddenly grew in number as a result the presence of the Holy Spirit is not accurate. The Holy Spirit was tasked to empower the apostles and disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 24:49). The Lord Jesus Christ already had a significant following by the time of His ascension. Luke accounts for 70 disciples that the Lord commissioned to go into every city (Luke 10:1), and 120 disciples at the time of Pentecost (Acts 1:15). Following the instructions of the Lord, the Holy Spirit empowered the apostles and disciples to equip each to fulfill their commissions. Again, Luke accounts for instances when “thousands” were added to the church over the span of a few days from Pentecost. But if you do the math you will find that if each of the 120 disciples preached to a crowd and convinced three persons to repent and believe, there would have been a population of 1.7 million new converts within a few days from Pentecost. If every single convert led at least one individual to the knowledge of the Savior, that would mean 3.4 million believers within a span of a few days from conversion. It is therefore no wonder that the disciples of the Lord immediately gained the reputation of turning the world upside down (Acts 17:6). No other religious movement known to the world at this time had demonstrated such cataclysmic results in a span of a few days. The preaching of the Gospel was at first limited to the Jews. Hence, the amount of converts who came to follow the Lord Jesus Christ was truly threatening to the very institution of Judaism. This demonstration of power was in itself a strong testimony of the enduring work of the Lord Jesus Christ through His Church.
Throughout the first few chapters of Acts, Luke records activity that catches his attention: those who came to believe in the Lord did not have to be convinced to give of their abundance to the furtherance of the work of the Lord. Since the Scriptures does not record preaching from any apostle that stressed the need to give, the Holy Spirit is the only logical source of this instruction and conviction. This may very well be why in Acts 5, Peter classified the sin of Ananias and Sapphira as a sin (lying) against the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3). In retrospect, we now know that this was to prepare the church to minister to the community in
This is the first instance where a change of mindset was made evident in the early church that was consistent with the Lord’s command for believers to take up their cross (Matthew 8:38-48, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23), and in keeping with the principle the Lord taught the apostles and disciples that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35). Early believers gave willingly and without hesitation as they were led and instructed by the Holy Spirit, and the church in
In Acts 6, it was evident that the ministry of the church revolved around attending to the daily requirements of believers (Acts 6:1), attending to the poor, sick, caring for the homeless, the aged, orphans, and widows. The attendance to such work necessitated the appointment of deacons so that the apostles could dedicate their time to the study and preaching of the Scriptures. If we are to estimate the number of believers by the numbers earlier stated by Luke, the work of daily ministration then would have been an overwhelming task. Disciples were added to the church and were obviously taking turns to serve the church and the deacons were selected to organize disciples so that the needs of all believers could be attended to. This manner of organization is not alien to members of the ancient church. Being Jews themselves, they were familiar with how Levites organized themselves to attend to the daily laborious rituals of the
This organization was to address practical necessities. The disciples had to attend to their personal occupations and trades in order to feed themselves and their households. Conversion to Christianity was not tantamount to abandoning their trades, rather conversion entailed a change in financial priorities and lifestyles. The Scriptures tell us that believers gave of their substance, but does not tell us that they abandoned their livelihoods. This principle applied to the all believers as much as it did to apostles who had to prioritize their time to the study and preaching of God’s Word. The delegation of work was designed so that each could attend to the daily needs of their households and those to whom the Church ministered to in an orderly and organized manner. Although the Scriptures do not explicitly state the rationale for organization, it is implicit—they have to work to attend to support their households (1 Timothy 5:8). Jewish boys are required to take up a trade as a requirement of process leading to Bar Mitzvah which is celebrated on the 13th birthday. Work was an inalienable part of Jewish social life and is inculcated in the minds and lives of young boys and girls at the earliest possible time of their young lives. This standard was not abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ—believers had to work a trade, and this means every believer.
That the apostles, disciples, or early church converts reverted to a life of withdrawal and ascetism where they abandoned their livelihoods in exchange for a life of piety is not supported in the Scriptures. In fact, even the apostles built their ministries in close proximity to their sources of income. The instructions provided by the Lord in Luke 10 in His commission to the seventy, in no way suggests that these disciples were to travel in want, or that they be busy bodies feeding off the abundance of their hosts. Clear instructions were given not to go from house to house (Luke 10:7). That they carry neither purse nor script, simply meant that they were to travel without the burden of earthly possessions to encumber their work as it was in every way practical and efficient.
Consistent with contemporary customs, Jewish travelers were often welcomed into the homes of fellow Jews especially when visiting new cities. This is especially practiced during the Feast of Tabernacles. The common place were traveling Jews would go to meet fellow Jews is usually in the market place where they would establish relationships with those in the same trade, or in the local synagogue. The Lord instructed them to carry nothing, but also implied that these seventy labor so that they could sustain themselves (Luke 10:7). The point is that the seventy should work in order to eat, and whatever is set before them in the house of their abode, they must eat without question or complaint.
As the seventy would seek out those of the same trade, it would be safe to assume that laboring entailed working in the place of business of the host (Acts 18:1). These seventy were not instructed to go into the Gentile communities yet, so they would have clearly understood that they were to go to the synagogues throughout the land which, according to Josephus, numbered around 300 at the time of Christ, to preach the good news or gospel.
Perhaps the seventy would have understood the command in this explicit way: “Do not carry anything that would encumber you. In the place you go, find work and take up residence, and preach the word in the Synagogues as often as you meet.” The synagogue met only on specific days (Sabbath) and on special holy days and high holy days. Members of the synagogue would spend other days attending to their businesses and livelihood. This was true even for the Rabbis of each synagogue. The concept of a full-time minister or clergy who was supported entirely by the contributions of the members, as we know it today, did not exist then.
It is unlikely that the Lord Jesus Christ would have meant for the seventy to become busybodies, eating without working, and simply preaching every day for the following practical reasons:
- They would have been ineffective. For the seventy to be jobless would have disqualified them from being heard in the synagogue. Laziness is eschewed in Jewish communities. Rabbis were especially required to be productive members of the business community as much as model a spiritual life;
- And, the preaching and teaching of the Scriptures was customarily done in the synagogue, or in especially appointed locations which were held only after the close of the business day. It was only on the Sabbath that services in the synagogue lasted throughout the day. To preach and teach in the synagogue in other days would mean that they would be preaching to the walls of an empty room, hence it was impracticable.
For any of the seventy to go into a city to preach, consume resources, and become an added burden to a household would have been completely unacceptable, and would have worked against the purposes of the ministry since it would have been contrary to acceptable customs.
Each of the seventy could not have lived off the abundance of the synagogue since it would not have been acceptable. Each of the seventy could not have entered a household, become a burden to that household and justify such a disposition simply because they were gospel preachers. Evangelists and missionaries were expected to support themselves through ministry. The ministry of preaching resulted from who they were as believers, their calling to serve the purposes of spreading the gospel, and not because it was their primary trade or means of livelihood.
This passage in Luke 10, along with those that occur in the Pauline Epistles have been used as a foundation upon which the modern church built its assumptions on how it should manage its financial affairs. Unfortunately, the various applications and postulates derived from a misunderstanding of the contemporary conditions governing these passages, especially when viewed through the lens of sound exegesis, will show that the present applications are inconsistent with the models provided in the New Testament.
If we examine the ministries of the apostles we will find that their ministries revolved around areas that were related to their individual trades. Paul, and his fellow servants such as Timothy, Titus,
1 Corinthians 9:1-27 has been a popular reference employed by the modern local church to justify the model for salaried or deputized ministers. Let’s look into this in a little more detail. To begin with, 1 Corinthians 9 is part of the third response (1 Corinthians 7-16 – “Corinthians C”) of Paul to the inquiries or questions raised by the Corinthians. Since the letter to which Paul was responding to is no longer extant, we can only derive the nature of the questions from the responses that have been recorded in this epistle.
Given the opening remarks of Paul in this epistle, and the context of the previous epistle (1 Corinthians 1-6) it would be safe to deduce that the Corinthians were:
- Questioning the legitimacy of his apostleship and authority;
- Questioning the intent and motivations behind the collection he had requested for
Using rhetoric, Paul poses several questions that do not require an answer simply because the answers are evident by themselves. We can only assume that the church in Corinth were accusing him of using the collection for his own purposes in order to fund his own interests in the façade of ministry, this we derive from the way Paul argues his points (v. 4ff). Paul uses commonly understood constructs such as funding a war, planting a vineyard, managing a herd (vs. 7-8) and alludes to Deuteronomy 25:4 to set the context of his response in rhetoric. What is the most popularly used verse is found in verse 14, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” This verse could only be understood as an interpretation of Deuteronomy 25:4, since the New Testament does not record such an instruction coming directly from the Lord Jesus Christ.
While the apostle Paul alludes to familiar practices, he introduces a superior model in verse 12 and 15: “Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ…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 conjunction of separation (“but”) is employed to distinguish privilege from the gospel minister’s disposition. Although, based on common temple practices the priest and all the servants of the Temple were allotted a portion of the offerings for their daily provisions (it would have been acceptable to sustain themselves through the offerings of the Church), Paul demonstrates how his disposition was not to hinder the gospel of Christ, so that those to whom he ministered to would realize that his ministry was not contingent on the benefits he could extract from the work of the Lord, but out of the necessity of obedience to what Paul refers to as the dispensation of the gospel (v.17) that was committed to him.
The Inter-Testamental period was rife with incidents were the Aaronic line contended for the high priestly office and the privileges that came with it as this office was afforded the respect, privileges, and distinction exceeded only by royalty. Being a student of the law, this knowledge was without doubt prominent in the mind of Paul. He realized that applying the model of sustaining themselves through the traditional means (workers of the temple, eat of the abundance of the temple) would hinder the gospel. He understood the negative social effects and perception this would introduce into the local church, and so decided to support himself as well as those of his number through personal labor so as to make the gospel of Christ without charge.
There are other factors that may have dissuaded Paul from sustaining himself through traditional means. First, these privileges were limited to those of the Levitical order and no other. Second, the work of the Christian ministry is hardly as burdensome as the daily ministrations of the temple work (which by every means can be likened to a slaughter house)—the final sacrifice had been made and so there was no need to continually offer up sacrifices. Finally, Paul clearly taught that a change of priesthood had already occurred (Hebrews 7:12), which necessitated a change from law to that of grace. Peter also reckoned believers as a spiritual priests who, unlike their Aaronic counterparts, are now required to offer up spiritual sacrifices rather than physical (animal) sacrifices (1 Peter 2:5,9).
The references to Deuteronomy in the first 14 verses of the ninth chapter of first Corinthians were clearly employed by the apostle Paul to strengthen his rhetoric in answering the allegations of the believers at Corinth and as an opportunity to introduce a better principle of ministry, one that will not inhibit the gospel, and a ministry that furthers the gospel of Christ without charge. Paul’s disposition was that the ministry was part of his life and not his livelihood. Even in his instruction to Timothy, when Paul states: “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, "The labourer is worthy of his reward,” (1 Timothy 5:17-18) is not by any means suggestive of supporting an elder, minister, or pastor with a “salary.” Paul encourages the church to give, but by no means intends for ministers or elders to use this as a basis for the minister to compel the church to pay him a salary in exchange for his services. Hired servants have no need to be counted with honor simply because they are doing precisely what they are paid to do.
Paul’s conviction about how believers should work to support themselves was so strong that he openly commanded the believers in Thessalonica that “if any would not work, neither should he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). There were members in the church who, perhaps in anticipation of Christ’s immediate return, ceased from working, going from house to house, eating from the abundance of another, being busybodies. To this Paul instructed the believers in Thessalonica to make such a person ashamed and to admonish him to walk orderly, to work, and to eat from the labor of his own hands. This instruction was not qualified, it was universal in nature and so it applies to ministers or elders and the ordinary members of the church—then and now.
It is important for us to realize that Paul considered the work of the ministry his life but not his means of livelihood. By his instructions to the Thessalonians it is clear that he intends for ministers to follow his example (2 Thess. 3:7) of working a trade to support the ministry so that they be not chargeable to the believers to whom they ministered to.
In consideration of these things, we now have to ask why we pay pastors or ministers a salary. When did this practice become part of the ecclesiastical model? It is clear that the model from which the ancient church was patterned after did not practice this as there were no salaried Rabbis, neither did the primitive church pay salaries to its ministers.
There are no references to ministers receiving any form of payment in exchange for the services they provide in any of the writings of the early church fathers. In fact, it is more likely that even the church fathers supported their ministries by their trades. The earliest possible time that this practice would have penetrated the church would have been around the 3rd Century CE when Grecian organizational and associational models were first introduced into church polity. This is also considered as the period of corruption by most conservative and orthodox Church historians. It was at this point when positions that distinguished laity from clergy were first introduced, and also when the title of bishop was given a higher place of authority over other New Testament titles that were equal in meaning and application. This practice introduced Grecian organizations into the local church and with it came a higher risk of corruption through a hierarchical model of leadership. It is at this point when authority and power substituted godly submission and service.
After the Edict of Milan (313 CE), or what is also known as the Edict of Toleration, was issued, and the persecution of Christians being made illegal, the church gained a prominent status as they began to enjoy liberties that were not available to the church beforehand. Sanctioned by the State, clergy were now financially supported by the empire and the amount of support bishops received were more than likely determined by the size and political importance of the diocese they controlled (as consistent with Roman practices). Basilicas began to replace pagan temples under the rule of
The introduction of such distinctions in the church (laity and clergy) took a life of its own, albeit contrary to the Scriptural model, and introduced new traditions that now makes it difficult for the modern church to part ways with. Clergy was now considered a profession where one goes through a system of education, where those who aspired to become a salaried clergyman worked to develop their skills in homiletics and other sciences, who, upon successful completion of their studies could look forward to a lifetime of salaried ecclesiastical service. Such practices remain as the de facto ecclesiastical model today.
Such a practice introduced different problems that now confront the church. The ministry is now recognized as a profession rather than a consequence of conversion. Schools now offer theological instruction to prepare aspirants for a life of ministry. This meant that the church began to take on pastors who were theologically trained but lacking in life and faith experience as most were under 30 years of age. The instruction was largely based on theory rather than one derived from a mentor.
The church now pays someone to attend to responsibilities that were in the first place intended for every believer to fulfill – attend to the sick, the aged, the poor, the widows, feeding the hungry and caring for orphans. Its financial priorities moved from attending to Scriptural priorities to that of building large edifices, purchasing property, beautifying facilities, supporting mission agencies and associations, buying vehicles, or installing state-of-the-art sound systems.
Ministers spiritualize what would otherwise be a purely material requirement – the church that can pay the highest salary often wins. Rather than supporting themselves so that the ministry becomes without charge, present day ministers opt to charge the ministry for their time and effort, for the church to pay for their dedication and service to the Lord. Present day ministers end up idle and unable to support the needs of their families unless they could find a local congregation who will be willing to employ them. They became busybodies.
Churches now see the role of the minister as an employed resource and not as a spiritual leader. Ecclesiastical employers impose upon their ministers standards of measure that most corporations impose on their employees – number of converts and baptisms, number of bible studies, increases in offering, vibrant services, etc. These ministers have to perform if they wish to keep their posts. Otherwise, the pastoral relationship can be terminated at will. Even churches who cannot afford to pay the full living requirements of their salaried ministers consider it unspiritual for their salaried pastor to engage in a trade or find employment. They would rather see their minister in a state of poverty, than have him work to uphold a sound testimony of faith by supporting his family.
This practice needs to be broken if we are to return to the New Testament model of the Church and ministry as modeled by the Apostles. The change is simple:
- Ministers ought to learn a trade to support their households and their ministries. We should remove ourselves from the idea of charging the ministry for our time and services; We should work to support ourselves and our families rather than expect others to support us.
- We should learn to give of our substance and God given talents freely and without expectation of compensation or reciprocation; Rather than expect to receive support from the church, we should ourselves be the biggest givers in the Church.
- We need to depart from the measures the world employs to determine success and instead submit to what the Lord considers a success. We will remove ourselves from the pressure of quantification if we remove ourselves as a financial burden of the local congregation.
The Bible clearly encourages all believers to give of their substance. This much is Biblical. What is not consistent with the New Testament is for ministers to charge the church for their services that in reality is expected of every believer as a living sacrifice, a spiritual sacrifice (1 Peter 2:5) offered unto our Holy God and Savior Jesus Christ the Lord. (Romans 12:1-2).
Giving is a matter of obedience for all believers and introduces thinking processes and behavior that are consistent with the standards of Scripture. Expecting to get paid for fulfilling our responsibilities as believers, or charging the ministry for our services only serves as a vehicle for destructive mental models, materialism, carnality, as well as ungodly and unregenerate leadership to influence our minds, lives, and congregations.
If we are truly called to ministry, then we need to find a job or take up a trade to support our families by the work of our hands without charging the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ for exercising our spiritual gifts or for attending to the purposes and priorities of the local church. If we use the issue of not enough time, then our problem is not that we do not have enough time, but that we are unwilling to give our time sacrificially to the work of the ministry.
We need remove ourselves as a financial burden to the Church to allow the Church to dedicate its resources to the priorities stated by the Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostles. So that in the end we may, much like the apostle Paul, say:
“Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ…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. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. 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. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.” (1 Corinthians 9:12,15-19)
“For ye remember, brethren, our labour and travail: for labouring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.” (1 Thessalonians 2:9)
