1 Corinthians 9 and salaries for pastors
In my post "Pastors and Churches and Salaries" from last week, I started a discussion concerning why a church might not allow pastors to "work with his hands," but would instead desire to pay pastors a salary even if the pastors did not desire it. I did not intend to discuss my position on pastors and salaries, but listed some previous blog posts as background. However, some commenters brought up 1 Corinthians 9, and I thought it would be beneficial to discuss this passage.
I want to begin this discussion by stating what should be obvious. This post represents my own interpretation, although I think it is informed by several other studies. Also, I do not believe that this should be a basis of fellowship. Without hesitation I fellowship with those who disagree with me on this topic.
To begin, let's place 1 Corinthians 9 in its context within Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth. In 1 Conrinthians 8-10, Paul exhorts the "strong" in Corinth to consider the "weak" when making decisions. He tells the "strong" not to exercise their rights if that would hinder the faith of the "weak". He concludes chapter 8 by saying that if eating meat would cause his brother to stumble, then Paul would never eat meat again.
This leads to chapter 9, especially verses 1-15. In this chapter, Paul gives an example from his own life. As an apostle, Paul had the right to be supported by the church in Corinth. However, he relinquished that right so that he would not be a hindrance to the spread of the gospel there (1 Cor 9:12, 15). Paul, as an example of the "strong", gave up his right to support so that the faith of the "weak" would not be hindered.
(By the way, 2 Corinthians tells us that Paul's refusal to accept support from the Corinthians caused some of doubt his apostleship. Nevertheless, Paul says that he would still not accept support from the Corinthians while he was in Corinth (2 Cor 11:7-9).)
As part of his argument, Paul assumes that apostles have the right to receive support ("eat and drink" - 1 Cor 9:4 - "refrain from working for a living" - 1 Cor 9:6). To reinforce this right, Paul gives several examples: a soldier does not go to war at his own expense, the one who plants a vineyard eats from the produce of the vineyard, the one who tends a flock receives milk from the flock (1 Cor 9:7), the law says not to muzzle an ox while it is threshing (1 Cor 9:9), and those who serve in the temple receive a part of the sacrificial offerings as food (1 Cor 9:13). Paul concludes his defense of "support" with the following statement: "... [T]he Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14 ESV)
Few would disagree with my interpretation so far. In fact, most people agree on the meaning of this passage. However, problems come along when we start asking questions about the implications and significance of this passage for today.
Primarily, the disagreements revolve around the extent of the metaphors: who is like the soldier; who is like the farmer; who is like the one who herds the flock; who is like the ox; who is like the temple servants?
Many begin to answer this question with 1 Corinthians 9:14 - "[T]he Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:14 ESV) Some argue that since pastors proclaim the gospel, then they should "get their living by the gospel", that is, they should be supported by the church. However, we should make a couple of observations about this verse before we associate it with pastors and elders.
The phrase "those who proclaim the gospel" could be associated with anyone who proclaims the good news of Jesus Christ. Or, the phrase could be limited to a certain group of people who proclaim the gospel. If we decide that the phrase references ANYONE who proclaims the gospel, then it certainly includes pastors and elders, assuming that they proclaim the gospel. However, the phrase would also include anyone who proclaims the gospel. Thus, if the phrase "those who proclaim the gospel" actually references "anyone", then we should be prepared to support anyone who proclaims the gospel. We should not limit our support only to pastors and elders.
However, if we limit the phrase "those who proclaim the gospel" to a certain group of people, then we must explain why we limit the phrase to that group. For me, the only adequate explanation is to limit the phrase to the group discussed within its own context. What group is discussed in 1 Corinthians 9? Apostles and others who travel around. This is indicated in the first few verses of the chapter:
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? (1 Corinthians 9:1-6 ESV)Remember that Paul is discussing his "right" to support, which he is relinquishing for the benefit of the "weak" in Corinth. According to 1 Cor 9:1-6, this "right" is shared by Paul, Barnabas, other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Peter. Notice specifically that "other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas" have the "right to take along a believing wife". This is not discussing their right to be married, but their right to take their wife with them as they are travelling, and thus the entire family would have the right to be supported. The key here is that "the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas" are TAKING ALONG a believing wife. Paul does NOT say that they have the right to support because they are apostles, brothers of the Lord, or Peter. He says they have the right to support because they are travelling around, and thus TAKING ALONG their wives.
When discussing the ox metaphor (1 Cor 9:9) which Paul took from Deuteronomy 25:4, Richard Hays agrees that the metaphor is used in this passage with specific reference to apostles. He says:
[Deut 25:4] functions as an elegant metaphor for just the point that Paul wants to make: the ox being driven around and around on the threshing floor should not be cruelly restrained from eating the food that his own labor is making available... so, too, with apostles. (First Corinthians, 122)Furthermore, most commentators agree that Paul takes his statement in 1 Corinthians 9:14 from either Matthew 10:10, Luke 10:7, or a combination of both. In both of these instances, the Lord is also giving instructions to those who are being sent away from their homes. Thus, the instructions are given to those travelling around in order to proclaim the gospel, not to those who are remaining in the same place to proclaim the gospel.
So, in the context of 1 Corinthians 9, and in the context where Paul found his command from the Lord, the reference is to those who are travelling away from home in order to proclaim the gospel. If we do not think we should give support to ANYONE who proclaims the gospel, then the only limiting group within the context is the group of believers who are travelling away from home (and their own source of income) in order to proclaim the gospel.
It is possible to decide that the phrase "those who proclaim the gospel" in 1 Cor 9:14 reference to a different limited group. However, there is no way to choose a different group from the context of 1 Corinthians 9. There is no other group listed in the context of 1 Corinthians 9. Thus, the choice of any other group (i.e. pastors, elders, teachers) would be arbitrary.
Therefore, in my interpretation, when Paul discusses his right to receive support in 1 Corinthians 9, he's talking about a right that is possessed by those who travel away from home in order to proclaim the gospel. He is not talking about a right that is possessed by any other group of believers. Since Paul (and Peter) specifically talk of pastors and elders as being those who are chosen or recognized from among the church (in other words, they stay in their home location and do not travel from place to place), pastors and elders would not fall under the context of this passage.
52 comments:
Great analysis Alan. I'm sure you can guess that I would agree with you, but this really gave me something to look into and study more. Thanks. I appreciate it.
Very good explanation, Alan. I do agree with you. I think that this passage is a good example of how we often interpret scripture based on what conclusion is "convenient" or "beneficial", rather than what is accurate.
Your point about "anyone" is well-made. And therefore, the conclusion that it probably only applies to a particular group is well-supported.
One could also probably make the point that the meeting of the needs of those who travel around need not be a "salary", but could be literally receiving food and lodging when traveling.
There is a third option with regard to who is in the group of "those who proclaim the Gospel." Those who proclaim the Gospel as their main vocation. In other words, proclaiming the Gospel is their main work in life.
This is why I still don't find your argument convincing. On the other hand, I certainly agree that there is no Scriptural mandate that any group MUST be compensated.
Grace and Peace, Brother.
Larry,
How does the words of Jesus and Paul ring when they say "freely you have received, freely you give". When Jesus sends out the 70, they were commanded not to take pay, when was there a change of mind that I now should charge someone for the Gospel?
One of the main problems I see with Larry's response (sorry Larry, not trying to pick on you) is that it seems as though he has already decided who the people are in the set denoted by "those who proclaim the gospel." In our day, almost everyone in the mainstream church automatically envisions a modern day pastor, so the argument seems cut and dry to them. In other words, they sort of use this approach, "[insert you pastor's name here] is a proclaimer of the gospel," therefore he automatically falls under whatever Paul says about those people in I Cor. 9. I think Alan makes the point very well that I Cor. 9 is about a very specific group of people; namely, people who travel around sharing the gospel with the lost. Actually, Scripture almost always uses "proclaim" to denote both a function (sharing the gospel) and the audience (lost people). I think that if we are going to use I Cor. 9 to justify some sort of compensation or support, then we ought to identify the very group that it talks about, not any old group of individuals that we want it to talk about. Hence, if you are going to claim that your pastor ought to be compensated or supported in some way on the basis of I Cor. 9, then I would say that he better be spending the vast majority of his time traveling around sharing the gospel with lost people. In other words, he better be an evangelist or missionary, in which case, he wouldn't be a pastor, either in the modern sense or the scriptural sense, which by the way are quite different.
Conclusion: I Cor. 9 cannot be used to justify vocational/occupation/salaried pastors, because it isn't even talking about pastors; it's talking about sent ones (i.e. apostles and missionaries).
Larry,
Your third option seems circular. This is the verse:
"So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel."
My understanding of your interpretation: "those who proclaim the gospel" = "those who proclaim the Gospel as their main vocation."
The new verse: "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel [as their main vocation] to get their living from the gospel."
So, in other words, it looks like you are saying that those who make a living proclaiming the gospel should make a living proclaiming the gospel.
For some reason that just doesn't really make sense to me, especially given the context.
God's Glory,
Lew
Alan,
As you know, I am 100% with you on this one. It took almost a half century of immersion in churchianity, and its study/reading habits, before I began to do my own serious thinking and study, which caused me to throw off the preconceptions upon which much traditional thinking is built.
The old saying, which came from the ecclesiastical world, is so true that "old habits dye hard" (I meant to write "dye"). Religious dress dyes hard, stiff and unyielding to prayerful, careful, thoughtful scrutiny, which looks beyond learned preconceptions which prevent objective consideration of fixed opinions.
Mark,
Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate your comment as well.
Steve,
I agree that the next step in this investigation would be to study what it means to "get their living from the gospel". I think you're right that it's more likely food and lodging (hospitality) than a salary, even for apostles/missionaries.
Larry,
Thank you for your comment. I really appreciate it - and I'm not just saying that. While I disagree with you (for reasons stated by Gary and Lew), I'm glad that you responded.
Lionel,
That is an interesting verse, isn't it. Its not "preached" about much.
Gary,
Thank you for the very clear explanation. I agree 100%.
Lew,
I agree again. We should be able to find the referent in the context. Any other referent would be arbitrary.
Aussie John,
Thank you for your comment. It helps to know that more mature believers agree with my interpretation. Some suggest that this kind of interpretation simply comes from the young and those angry with the church. I don't think I'm either, however.
-Alan
Alan,
Do you believe that your interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9 implies that stationary pastors should never get paid? And I assume that the same applies to stationary seminary professors.
Jim,
I do believe that Paul taught that pastors/elders should "work their hands" to support themselves and their families. (Acts 20:33-35, 2 Thess 3:6-12). Also, it seems that the ones taught/led are encouraged to "share with" or "honor" those who teach/lead in response to their teaching/leading (Gal 6:6, 1 Thess 5:12-13, 1 Tim 5:17-18). This should certainly include pators/elders. I do not think this kind of "sharing" and "honoring" in response to service is the same thing as the contemporary practice of giving someone a salary in order for them to do that service.
As to professors, I do not consider education to be the same as discipleship. Similarly, I do not consider being educated the same as being spiritually mature. One deals with the transfer of information (education), while the other deals with transformation (discipleship).
Thus, being an educator in this sense (whether it is elementary schoole, middle school, high school, or college) is not the same as being a pastor/elder or an apostle (or any other type of Christian, whose responsibility it is to disciple others). Instead, being an educator is an occupation, like fishing (wich is mentioned in Scripture) or computer work (which is not mentioned in Scripture).
By the way, I am a computer developer (for which I am paid) and an educator (for which I am paid). The church has also recognized me as a pastor/elder. I am not paid to be a pastor, and I do not desire to be paid to be a pastor. I would "pastor" regardless of my occupation.
Thanks for the questions.
-Alan
Alan,
I don't see your dichotomy of elder/overseer discipleship versus seminary professor education. Teaching, which involves education, is a major role for elders (1 Timothy 3:2, 5:17; Titus 1:9). And Jesus taught that the Great Commission includes teaching disciples (Matthew 28:20). And many seminary/Bible school professors see themselves in a ministry of discipling Christian leaders. Are you sure about your dichotomy?
Jim
Jim,
I'm sure that education is not the same as discipleship - I'm sure we can both point to educated people who are not disciples. I'm sure that the acquisition of information is not spiritual maturity - again, I'm sure we can both point to people who know vasts sums of information who are spiritually immature.
Teaching is certainly part of discipleship. I do not doubt that at all. But, teaching is not discipleship. I would even argue that "teaching" in the scriptural sense goes beyond teaching as we consider it today, including much more than meeting educational objectives.
Yes, there are many seminary professors who see themselves as making disciples. I can tell you that there are also many web developers who see themselves as making disciples. That does not make web developers to be the same as pastors/elders. Instead, it is simply showing that we who are Christians can make disciples in whatever profession we choose - web developer or professor.
-Alan
Alan,
It was good to get your perspective on this passage. While I find myself in disagreement with you, I want you to know how much your writings have encouraged and challenged me in many areas.
The reason I disagree with your interpretation of the passage is that I recently interviewed 10 full-time pastors and they all said you were mistaken! Ok, just kidding, but here are some reasons why I disagree:
1) The language of Paul’s metaphors seem to be illustrative of a practice that is continual and intentional rather than incidental or temporary (such as travel expenses for an evangelist). It would seem strange to me that Paul would use metaphors such as planting a vineyard or tending a flock to illustrate someone with an expense incurred from travel. One who tends a flock or plants a vineyard does so intentionally in order to reap the fruit of his labor, which is Paul’s point. In addition, vinedressers and shepherds are both permanent and stationary professions.
2) In order to strengthen his argument, Paul appeals to the law on two occasions (verses 8-9 and 13). While Deut. 25:4 seems to be more proverbial than instructive, Paul’s reference in verse 13 to the temple priest would seem odd if Paul only had traveling gospel evangelist or apostles in mind. If there was ever a stationary or permanent profession, it would have been the Levitical priest. There was no moving on to a better temple down the road!
3) 1 Tim. 5:18 quotes the same metaphor used by Paul in 1 Cor. 9:13. While we could argue about the identification of the “those who preach the gospel” in 9:13, it is undeniable that he is referring to elders in 1 Tim. 5:17-18.
4) It seems unreasonably dogmatic to conclude that “those who preach the gospel” could not possibly refer in part to elders. If Paul had traveling evangelists and missionaries in mind, we must conclude that elders are not of those who “preach the gospel.” I’m not so sure we can draw that conclusion, especially in light of Paul’s many commands for elders to preach the gospel.
Finally, I’m not convinced that your explanation concerning educators is consistent with your interpretation of 1 Cor. 9. It seems rather bizarre to say that a local church can provide a salary to a permanent and stationary educator (whether it be a computer teacher or Bible teacher who is not serving the local church directly) but not a pastor of a local church (who is serving the local church directly). I agree with you that teaching is a profession, but we must remember that the salaries given to many seminary professors (including those in SBC seminaries) are made possible through the financial support of local congregations. According to your interpretation of 1 Cor. 9, I am having difficulty understanding how you could justify teachers/professors receiving financial support. From what you have argued, I get the sense that a church is justified in financially supporting anyone but a pastor. It would be an entirely different matter if a teacher’s salary came from a source other than the local church. However, if a professor’s salary is made possible through the giving of local congregations, how can you argue on the one hand that his salary is justified, while on the other hand claiming that it is unbiblical to financially compensate a pastor?
While I disagree with your conclusions of this chapter, I am thankful that you have brought to our attention some of the practical advantages of foregoing compensation “for the sake of the gospel.” It is my hope that more of us will consider foregoing our rights and experience the blessings that derive from financial self-reliance. We should all be willing to do all things for the sake of the gospel.
Ben Laird
Ben,
Thank you for the very thorough response. I appreciate the thoughtfulness that you put into this response, and I appreciate your final words. I agree that it would be good if more leaders began to work with their hands to support themselves.
1) Metaphors are often used in Scripture related to unlike things. For example, leaven is used as a positive metaphor in Matt 13:33 and a negative metaphor in Matt 16:6. The use of the same metaphorical image does not necessarily connect the referents.
2) But, Paul did use these "stationary" metaphors to compare to apostles who were travelling. Was he wrong to do this? By the way, can you show me any passage that connects Levites or priests to pastors/elders? Again, this was a metaphor, not a direct connection.
3) I've dealt with metaphors already. The same metaphor can be used for different referents.
4) "Proclaim the gospel" in Scripture is related to the work of apostles and missionaries among areas where the gospel has not been proclaimed. I think you would find it very interesting to do a study of the scruptural use of the kerygma / kerysso word groups. On the other hand, pastors/elders are exhorted to teach and encourage the church.
The fact that churches today choose to pay professors is beside the point. You are arguing from contemporary practice: since professors are paid by churches, pastors whould be paid as well. If churches stopped paying salaries to pastors and professors, then more believers could use their money as Scripture commands: to take care of the poor, to support those who are travelling to proclaim the gospel, and to honor those who teach and lead them.
-Alan
Alan,
I'm baffled by both your exegesis and logic. It may take me a few rounds of questions and comments to understand this. May I please start with some comments and questions to understand the implications of what you teach about Bible verses related to ecclesiology?
1) Do you agree or disagree that Matthew 28:19-20 teaches that teaching is a major part of discipleship?
2) Do you agree or disagree that Matthew 28:19-20 teaches that water baptism and teaching are the primary components of discipleship?
And please confirm if you agree with each of the following statements according to your exegesis and ecclesiology.
a) Only traveling apostolic church leaders may get compensated for their hard work in the ministry
b) A Christian who is an educator may get financially compensated for his or her teaching
c) A Christian who is a public speaker may get financially compensated for his or her speaking
d) A Christian who is a counselor may get financially compensated for his or her counseling
May I request first closed yes or no answers and then of course any comments would be appreciated?
Jim,
Hey lets not stop there let me add for you.
E) A Christian that leads a small group.
F) A Christian who evangelizes on Saturday Evenings Downtown.
G)A Sunday School Teacher
H) The person over the greeting ministry
I) An Usher
J) A Deacon
K) Every single Elder
L) Someone who volunteers for the infant ministry
Jim, do you agree that since each of these proclaim the Gospel they should be paid also? There is a hint of sarcasm here but it is a genuine question once we work through it all. Thanks in advance
Lionel,
Paul clearly taught that apostolic gospel workers could get paid or refrain from pay for their hard work. And Paul clearly taught that all followers of Christ need to work hard. And Paul or anybody else in the New Testament never taught that all gospel work must be entitled to payment.
Your example L is clearly a trick question because volunteers by definition don't get paid.:) And I don't think any of your examples require payment. On the other hand, perhaps a church could have dozens of services a week and need to hire full time ushers.
Jim,
So then does Elders=Apostolic Gospel Workers? Are those two synonymous for you? I think that is where I struggle.
Jim,
Thanks for the reply and for continuing this discussion. I don't intend to be confusing. Hopefully this reply will help.
First, I believe that ALL believers are responsible for "the hard work in the ministry", which would include teaching, discipleship, serving, loving, exhorting, rebuking, etc. I do not believe that Scripture teaches that we should pay salaries to believers (any believers) in order for them to do "the hard work in the ministry". However, I do believe that Scripture teaches that we can "share all good things" and demonstrate "double honor" toward those who have already served us through teaching or leading. Thus, our "sharing" is an individual's response to someone's service in their lives.
Second, the difference between travelling Christians (i.e. apostles, missionaries) and all other Christians is that the travelling Christians are away from their home and their source of support - that is, their ability to work with their hands. Thus, these travelling Christians should be supported, at least with food and lodging. Of course, these travelling Christians could also choose to work with their hands and not to be supported, like Paul chose to do. (By the way, the Didache also made a distinction between travelling Christian leaders and Christian leaders who stayed in one place. So, this is not a novel distinction.)
Now, to answer your first two questions:
1) Yes, teaching is part of discipleship. I said that in the earlier comment. The difference, as I alluded to earlier, is that this type of teaching seems to include more than simply sharing information or reaching educational objectives, that is, educating. Thus, Paul would teach with words (what we call "teaching" or "educating" today) and he would also teach with his lifestyle. I also believe that ALL believers are responsible for discipleship and the type of teaching that goes along with discipleship. This is not the sole realm of pastors. I would also assume that ALL believers would be making disciples while they work at their occupation - whether that occupation is being a professor, or a tent maker, or a web developer. A professor is paid to impart information with students so the students can reach certain educational objectives. Hopefully, a professor who is a Christian will also disciple his or her students while imparting that information.
2) Yes. I'm not sure how adding "water baptism" affects our discussion.
Finally, for your second set of questions:
Since you did not define "compensation", I will define it for my answers. I've used the term "salary" in my discussion, so I will use that as the meaning of "compensation": "Compensation" is a set wage paid by an employer to an employee in order for an employee to carry out a certain function. Thus, if the employee is not compensted then the employee is not obligated to carry out that function.
a) No.
b) Yes.
c) Yes.
d) Yes.
If you would like to redefine "compensation", I'll be glad to answer the questions again. Remember, my argument is that Scripture does not justify paying a SALARY to a pastor based on his position as a pastor.
By the way, in your response to Lionel you said, "[V]olunteers by definition don't get paid". Isn't that the point of this very discussion? What functions should be carried out simply because someone is a Christian - without getting paid, i.e. by volunteering? If we decide that pastors have the right to earn a salary in order for them to teach or lead or disciple, then there is no scriptural reason that nursery workers, Bible study teachers, etc. shouldn't also receive a salary for their teaching/leading/discipling.
Lionel,
If we decide that Scripture does justify paying a salary to a pastor in order for him to teach/lead/disciple, then you are correct that we should also pay ALL believers who proclaim the gospel, teach, disciple, and/or lead other believers. (Gal 6:6, 1 Thess 5:12-13)
-Alan
Lionel,
No, apostles are not always equal to elders/overseers. Both Peter the apostle and John the apostle referred to themselves as elders (1 Peter 5:1, 2 John 1, 3 John 1), but many elders aren't also apostles. All elders, however, are delegates of apostles.
Jim,
If I may can I ask you a few questions Sir?
1. What would be a difference between an apostle and an elder? There are othe people called apostles beside the 13. What would make one an apostle?
2. Given the fact that Elders were appointed from among the congregation. Would you say that they should quit their day jobs and become full-time salaried staff? Do you believe this is what is happening as Timothy and Titus are appointing elders in Crete and Ephesus?
3. What exactly does an elder do that an average run of the mill believer should abstain from doing?
4. Finally, you said "elders are delegates of apostles". When was the last time an apostle delegated an elder? Even so what was Paul commanding the elders in Ephesus to do with their "own hands"?
Lionel,
1a. New Testament apostles typically had ministry to more than one city while non-apostolic elders where typically elders of a single city.
1b. Apostles are called by God to be apostles and they fulfill their calling. Apostles are sent by God with authority and as I stated in 1a they typically minister to more than one city.
2a. That would depend upon various factors such as the particular calling of the elder, the needs in the congregation, and the ability of a congregation to support a full time elder. I guess that there are other factors, but these come quickly to my mind.
2b. If you're asking me if Timothy and Titus appointed elders for full time ministry, then I doubt it. But then again, I never claim that an elder has to be called to full time paid ministry
3. Nothing that I can think of off hand while everybody should have an idea about their limits in counseling and teaching. Misapplied teachings can cause a lot of damage.
4a. Regardless of title, I believe that apostles with ministries to more than one city are appointing/confirming elders to this day. Even if you reject my apostolic ecclesiology, apostles established the appointment of elders.
4b. Please give me a more specific Bible reference.
Alan, thanks for continuing the conversation and I'll get back to you when my time allows.:)
Wow, really great discussion, it's good to see it delved into with such depth.
I'll go ahead and say I already agree with all that you've articulated, and I appreciate how much time and effort you've put into defining terms and contrasting modern ideas of leaders with biblical ones.
I've been thinking about this verse a lot lately ("those who proclaim the gospel should get their living from the gospel"), and since you've spent a lot of time dealing with the first half of the sentence (dealing with the question of who proclaims the gospel), I was wondering if you could help unpack the second half. That is, what exactly does the bible mean by "a living" anyway?
Lately I've been becoming more and more convinced that what scriptu