“Don’t you remember, dear brothers and sisters, how hard we worked among you? Night and day we toiled to earn a living so that our expenses would not be a burden to anyone there as we preached God’s Good News among you.”(1 Thess. 2:9, NLT)
In the previous teaching we learnt that within the hierarchical Roman system the clergy started receiving a ministerial salary.
Thousands of years later this un-Biblical practice is still a problem for contemporary believers. On the popular question-website About.com a man named Jim asks the following: “I need your help to understand something that has troubled me for years … why do churches pay preachers to preach or pastor a church? I pray that you can answer the question and tell me what the Holy Word of God says about this.”
Mary Fairchild, a pastor, then answers the question: “Many Christians are surprised to discover that the Bible plainly teaches congregations to financially support those who care for the spiritual needs of the church body. This includes pastors, teachers and other full-time ministers who are called by God for service. Spiritual leaders can best serve when they are fully dedicated to the work of the Lord—to the study and teaching of God’s Word and ministering to the needs of the body of Christ. If a minister has to work a job to provide for his family, then he will be distracted from ministry and forced to divide his priorities, leaving less time to adequately shepherd his flock.”
On another website that promotes market-related salaries for pastors and reverends, we even find a purely secular measure for determining what a pastor or reverend should be paid: “Income paid to pastors should be fair and a reasonable indication of the congregations’ evaluation of the pastors’ worth. Yet, it should also take into consideration the responsibilities and workload of the pastor, the pastor’s level of education, the size of the congregation, the economic level of the locale, and the experience of the pastor.”
In the light of earlier teachings the reader should realise that both these arguments are full of general myths about the nature of the church, and are in no way Biblically founded, although it might superficially make sense at first. The context in which such an explanation falls is however based on false premises. Let it be made very clear – the notion that a pastor/reverend receives a salary is not a New Testament principle. In fact, the Word speaks explicitly against it.
Paul’s plea on this matter is found in Acts 20:33-35, where he points out what the attitude of those sent out to shepherd should be: “I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. Yes, you yourselves know that these hands have provided for my necessities, and for those who were with me. I have shown you in every way, by laboring like this, that you must support the weak. And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
If the church considers a set church building with fixed monthly expenses as the default position, then the fixed salary of a pastor/reverend (and the other church members that in the process become part of this operative machine) will be a necessary next step.
From a New Testament perspective we need to address a number of things. The ministers of the Word in the first century were never paid a salary. They did at times receive gifts – food, clothing, means or commodities, even money, but never, to anyone of this period, was a fixed salary paid out to (Carl B. Hoch, Jnr.: All Things New).
In his book New Testament Commentary: Acts Simon J. Kistemaker uses the example of Paul as one who ministers in the kingdom of God, but who was still responsible for his own livelihood: “In his [Paul’s] letters he discloses that he worked night and day with his own hands to support himself, so that no one would ever be able to accuse him of depending on the hearers of the Gospel for his material needs (compare 1 Samuel 12:3). He refused to be a burden to anyone in the churches he established. By performing manual labor, he provided for his financial needs. Paul received gifts from the believers in Philippi, as he himself reveals (Philippians 2:25; 4:16-18), yet he declares that he did not solicit those gifts … The Ephesian elders had observed Paul’s ministry and physical work during his three-year stay. They were able to testify that he had never exploited anyone (2 Corinthians 7:2), but had always set an example of diligence and self-sufficiency, in the good sense of the word. He was a model to the believers and taught the rule: ‘If you will not work, you shall not eat’ (2 Thessalonians 3:10) … It appears that Paul generated sufficient income to support not only himself but even his companions … In every respect, says Paul to the elders of Ephesus, I taught you to work hard and with your earnings to help the weak … He exhorts them to follow his example and to labor hard.”
In his commentary on Acts 20:33-35, Roland Allen writes in Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?: “When I wrote this book I had not observed that in addressing the elders of Ephesus, St. Paul definitely directs them to follow his example and to support themselves (Acts 20:34-35). The right to support is always referred to wandering evangelists and prophets, not to settled local clergy (see Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Corinthians 9:1-14) with the doubtful exceptions of Galatians 6:6 and 1 Timothy 5:17-18, and even if those passages do refer to money gifts, they certainly do not contemplate fixed salaries which were an abomination in the eyes of the early Christians.”
The Scripture that is often presented to motivate that a reverend or pastor should receive a salary, or certain financial benefits, is 1 Cor. 9:13-14: “Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel.” Atkerson & Svendsen, in their book The Practice of the Early Church, explains this section, and their analysis is solid in terms of both exegesis and historical context: “1 Corinthians 9 does not refer to pastors, elders, or any other leader normally associated with today’s church. Instead it refers to ‘apostles’ (those who are sent out), roughly equivalent to today’s missionary. We are to financially support ‘those who proclaim the Gospel’ because of the nature of their work. The fundamental difference between the work of an elder (who is not financially supported) and the work of an apostle (who is financially supported) is that the apostle must uproot and travel from location to location. His stay is temporary; consequently, his odds for gaining employment at each location are slim. He would therefore need financial assistance to do the work for which he was sent. The elder, on the other hand, is stationed at one location. His stay is permanent … Even the apostles did not make their living from the church. The passage in question simply means that the need of the apostle for food, shelter, and clothing were to be met by the church (Matthew 10: 9-11 was no doubt the pattern that the early church used for apostles). There was no salary involved.”
The argument is clear – it is a myth that the reverend/pastor is the centre of the ecclesia and should be formally compensated for his services.
- Selah: How does one then understand 1 Tim. 5:17?
- Read: 2 Sam. 5:11-6:23; 1 Chr. 13-16; Ps. 1, 2, 15, 22-24, 47 & 68.
- Memorise: 1.
- For a more in-depth understanding: Read any of the books mentioned above.
