My last post obviously did not answer the often asked question, “what church should I go to now?”.
There is no easy answer to this question, so I normally tailor my response to the one asking. Clocked out Dad who has no interest in being the primary educator in your children’s spiritual life? Just pay the pros to do it for you. For a meager 10% of your annual salary, your children can benefit from 1st Whatever’s wonderful children’s ministry. Don’t worry about the teens, as they’re sure to have an uber-cool youth pastor who can teach your teens how uber-cool it is to be a Christian. Ignore the verified data available about how “successful” these programs are, just pay your dues and leave the heavy lifting to the pros.
An additional benefit will be that you won’t even have to think for yourself. Just show up and hear the 45 minute lecture, prepared just for you. You know, just like the Christians in the new testament did.
Sadly, I think this is the right answer for the majority of American Christians. Pay your dues, enjoy the “services” provided.
Food for thought-why does 1 Cor 14, which is the most descriptive (and prescriptive) example we have in Scripture of an assembly of believers bear no resemblance to what most of us do every Sunday?
More food for thought-we are clearly told in Hebrews 10:25 that we must gather together. How are we supposed to fulfill the reason we gather together (Hebrews 10:24) while we are looking at the back of each other’s heads while listening to a professional speaker give a lecture?
July 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I know the Brent news is… news.
I’m wondering if anyone has ever considered my “food for thought” questions, or am I just a nut?
When God saved me in 1982, He gave me an insatiable hunger for His Word, as I knew nothing of the Christian life. I read the entire NT in 30 days, then read it again, over and over again, starting at Matthew (I’ll admit i started skipping Revelation, as I found it confusing).
I started “going to church” right after God saved me, and after around 60 days I started to think, “what we do here on Sunday bears no resemblance to what I’m reading”.
Has anyone else ever thought about this? Does it matter?
July 29th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Hi Jim!
To answer your “food for thought” questions, I must say, it is not that simple. For example, in our churches today, we do not see believers being judged by God and fell dead like Ananias & Sapphira (Acts 5:1-11) for their lying in public. I know I should have fell dead a long time ago if this is continuing. Also, in Corinthian church, Paul said that some were sick, weak and some dead because they abused the Lord’s Table (1Cor. 11:27-30). So not all NT resemblance of the church is good thing.
You said, “More food for thought-we are clearly told in Hebrews 10:25 that we must gather together. How are we supposed to fulfill the reason we gather together (Hebrews 10:24) while we are looking at the back of each other’s heads while listening to a professional speaker give a lecture?”
But that’s how also the early church functioned. When there was a preaching, they had to look at the back of believer’s head (whether in the synagogue or at home church) as you listen to the Apostles’ teaching. Learning & listening was one way of being edified and being built up. In Acts 2:42-47, we note concerning early church’s function:
(1). They themselves were devoted to Apostles teaching (2:42) – presumably looking at the back of someone’s head =) [I am being humorous here and not sarcastic, Jim].
(2). They also devoted to fellowship (2:42b).
(3). They held communion (2:43c),
(4) They prayed together (2:42d),
(5) They experienced the signs & wonders done by the Apostles (2:43),
(6). They shared everything voluntarily (2:44-45), and
(7). They worshiped God with sincerity and gladness of the heart (2:46-47).
And large measure, but not all, modern churches do reflect the above. It may not be in the same degree, quality or the same intensity, but real nevertheless.
Few days ago, in my prayer, God gave me one word to describe a modern church: “chaos.” Since there are: Roman Catholics, Greek/Russian Orthodox, Protestants with many diverse practices and beliefs, and Cult groups like JW, Mormons, etc… How are we to understand this and sift through all the evils within?
But He also convinced me that His church is not built by man, but His Son (Mt. 16:18). This is where my faith and hope lie in the midst of muddled chaos.
July 29th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Doulos,
Thank you for responding. Are you familiar with the “order of worship” in first century synagogues? Are we to think that they early Christian meetings were more restrictive?
Are you familiar with Pliny the Younger’s description of a Christian gathering? None of these point to the “one man show” of today, and all were clearly interactive.
“Devoted themselves to the Apostles teaching” could mean a number of things. “Devoted” in this verse is sometimes translated as “continued steadfastly”.
If your premise is that Acts 2:32 refers to believers listening to the Apostles preach (for 45 minutes), what did the believers outside of Jerusalem do?
July 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Hi Jim!
Thanks for your response. Let me enumerate my answers to your questions for the sake of clarity. Also I think that you might have misunderstood my response, hopefully it will be cleared up.
1. I am familiar with the basic order of worship in synagogues during the time of Christ. It wasn’t same as Christian order of worship, but it included the following: Prayer(s), singing of psalms, reading of the scripture and exposition if the teacher was there, and sometimes followed by Q & A, and announcement. In some sense, they were also liturgical. From the NT itself, we can see that clearly – especially in the Gospels and the Acts. No, I am not saying that Christian worship was more restrictive. But the scholars do agree that early church worship followed similar pattern of the synagogue. Now, how much was it followed? That is the debate.
2. I am fully aware of Pliny the Younger’s Letter to Trajan. But in his letter, he does not mention the order of worship per se. Rather he simply states that Christians meet at a fixed day before the dawn, sing, and pray to Christ and afterward eating together. Isn’t this what we do? We meet at fixed day (Sundays usually) and worship Christ and have meal together either before/after communion? To understand how early church worshipped, you might want to read “The Didache (esp. chs. 8-15).” When you read “The Didache” you will note that Christian worship was definitely more strict, although this does not mean, it wasn’t interactive, but it doesn’t mention that. Additionally, Apostolic Father’s letters are of immense help in understanding about the life and worship of Christians after the Apostles. These Apostolic Fathers (not all, but many) have had direct contact and teachings of the Apostles (hence the term, “Apostolic.” For example, Polycarp and Papias were disciples of Apostle John. And Clement was a disciple of Paul.
3. Above (2) does not mean it was a “one man show” (I don’t believe that. For the Scripture is clear that leadership is plural in number and that the congregation has real power to decide important matters). However, whether you like it or not, after the Apostles, the church as whole was shifting to “one person/hierarchical” structure of a church. So by the time of the Apostolic Fathers, the term, “bishop,” “elder,” and “pastor” were no longer used interchangeably. Bishop had more authority than the elders. That is why “Ignatius” had a more authority than local elders. NOTE: Ignatius was a loving and godly man who cared for the churches. He wrote 7 letters (to churches and Polycarp). The point is that by 2nd century the church no longer resembles NT church, rather it became incipient to Catholic church later. The Reformation recovered more laymen led ministries, however.
4. When I used Acts 2:42, I am only pointing out the fact that there were teaching by the Apostles where the believers were committed to learn. Whether it was on Sunday or every day, whether it was 45 mins or all night is moot point. The point is that someone taught, and the congregation learned. Jim, if you simply want interactive fellowship with no one to teach, then Quaker is the best way to go (I am being serious and not sarcastic). Now, I believe in interactive learning. That’s what I do in Bible Studies, that’s why we have open forum, what’s why we have fellowship together sharing their insights and questions. But the during the sermon, the traditionally, it was understood as “proclamation” (that’s what the word, “preach” means. Therefore, it is not interactive. It is proclamation. So during Sunday worship, sermon is heard and then after the service, believers can freely ask and interact with the pastor about the message. Like the old Puritans did.
5. By Acts 2:42, there were no churches outside of Jerusalem have been formed. But when it spread, many became teachers as they learned from the Apostles or by the Spirit directly.
Jim, as I stated in my previous comment, to answer your question is not that simple. Perhaps, that is why others are hesitating to respond. I do agree that something is not right with our churches today. But is the structure or the spirituality? I would blame more on the (lack of) spirituality than the structure.
July 29th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
It does not seem that these things can practically be carried out in a large group setting, staring at the back of someone’s head:
I Cor 14:26 What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.
There is a personal quality to this. If scripture instructs us to do these things when we meet, then why is this seldom practiced in our churches (even in small groups)? It seems we humans like to stick to OUR plan, its safe, and ‘prevents ERROR,’ but then how about the Holy Spirit? Our SG care group was structured so that these things were awkward, and didn’t really occur. My view of (church based) small groups “in general” has been of regimented ones designed to keep people from straying into the “dangerous waters” of interpreting scripture based on “personal feelings.” It seems many people are “emerging” because they desire intimacy with one another, and God, that can’t grow in a pew. I’m not at all discounting preaching, because it is held up in scripture, God has gifted men to preach and it seems vital to keep our doctrine from straying. However why does practicing one necessitate sacrificing the other? Doesn’t it seem scripture says we need both? The sheep are parched for lack of intimate fellowship that “builds up.” It is sad that it’s largly overlooked that ’something’s missing,’ even when the door swings closed as the next starving person goes out to forage.
July 29th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
George Barna in his book “Revolution” points out the fact that millions are leaving churches all over the country because they want more of Jesus and true faith than they do of “church”. He seems to think that by the year 2025, nearly %70 of Americans will have found some other more meaningful way to serve God than going to the local church. He gives three different alternatives (pg. 49). He goes on to say:
”The relatively compromised and complacent state of faith in the nation today suggests that any new means through which people – especially younger people – can make their faith come alive and become more center stage in their lives, without conflicting with scriptural imperatives, will represent a welcome breath of fresh air in the stagnant spiritual landscape of our country” (REVOLUTION, by George Barna, pg 49).
July 29th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
July 29th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Doulos-
There were five parts in the synagogue service:
(1) The Shema’ is made up of Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Numbers 15:37-41 — two opening blessings for morning and evening, one closing blessing for morning and two for evening. These benedictions are named Shema‘ from the opening word, the imperative
: “Hear, O Israel; Jahweh our God is one Jahweh“. The origin of the Shema‘, as of other portions of Jewish liturgy, is unknown. It seems undoubtedly to be pre-Christian. For it ordains the wearing of the phylacteries or frontlets — prayer-bands borne upon the arm and between the eyes — during the recitation of the great commandment of the love of God (cf. Deuteronomy 6:8; 11:18). These philacteries (phulaktéria) are called in the Talmud, “the prayer which is for the hand”, 
, and “the prayer which is for the head”, 
. The wearing of the two bands was in vogue in Christian times (Matthew 23:5; Josephus, “Antiquit.”, IV, 8:13).
(2) The Prayer is called “the eighteenth”, Shemónéh ‘esréh
), because of its eighteen benedictions and petitions. There are two recensions — the Babylonian, which is commonly in use, and the Palestinian, which Schechter recently discovered in a Cairo genizah (manuscripts-box). Dalman (Worte Jesu, p. 304) considers that petitions 7, 10-14, are later than the destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The twelfth petition of the Palestinian recension shows that the Christians were mentioned in this daily prayer of the synagogue:
The Babylonian recension omits
, Christians. The Lord’s prayer is made up, in like manner, out of petitions and praises, but in a very unlike and un-Jewish spirit of love of enemies.
(3) Torah. The Jerusalem Talmud (Megilla, 75a) tells us that the reading of the Law on sabbaths, feast-days, new moons, and half feast-days is of Mosaic institution; and that Esdras inaugurated the reading of Torah on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. This Talmudic tradition, though not very reliable, points to a very ancient custom. The law is divided into fifty-four sections, sedarîm, which make up a pericopic sabbath reading of the Pentateuch. Special readings are assigned for special sabbaths; seven readers are called upon at random, and each reads his share.
(4) The Prophets. Parallel to the pericopic reading of Torah is a pericopic reading from the Prophets, or second part of the Hebrew Canon. These sections are chosen with a view to exemplify or drive home the lesson from the Law which precedes. The name of the section from the Prophets, haphtara (from Hiph‘il of
, “to dismiss”), indicates that at first the synagogue service here came to a close.
(5) The Scripture Lesson. Even by the time of Christ, the exposition of Scripture was part of the synagogal liturgy (Matthew 4:23; Mark 1:21; 6:2). Any of the brethren might be called upon to give the “word of exhortation” (Acts 13:15). The Talmudic statute (Megilla, IV, 4) was that the methúrgeman, interpreter, paraphrase the section from Torah one verse at a time and the section from the Prophets one to three verses at a time. These paraphrases are called tárgûmîm; a lengthy exposition of a section is a midrash. There was formerly an antiphonal chanting of one or other of Psalms. The precentor chanted verse after verse and the choir repeated the first verse of the psalm. At the end he chanted the doxology and called upon the people to answer “Amen”, which they did.
July 29th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Doulos,
I think your summary of Pliny the Younger’s Letter to Trajan is a bit brief.
I think you’ll find that those gathered actually talked to one another.
Have another look.
July 29th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Jim-
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
I think you are missing my point. I am NOT against believers talk/interact/minister to each other. But what I am saying is your view is NOT totally supported by Pliny’s Letter either. And why would you only refer to Pliny and not Eusebius or The Didache? I am not saying what is right or wrong, I am only pointing out what has happened in the early church: That there was a shift from NT church to more hierarchical structure. I have not said anything about whether this was good or bad, right or wrong.
I have summarized synagogue worship in general terms without referring to their technical languages (anyone can do that). I do have Talmud in my library. I do have Jewish friends who know their religious history and I have often consulted their expertise. My point simply was that early church worship service did not simply rise from vacuum, but rather adopted some of synagogue form of worship. Since all the Apostles (the 12) were Jews and when they gathered together for worship other than Sabbath for worship in the synagogue, they had similar structure with some modification – such as inclusion of the Communion and Baptism.
I am not contradicting what you are saying (your post), I am only saying it is not as simple as you make the question out to be. But if we only resort to NT for answer, I think you already know the answer concerning the structure of the church and the roles of believers in the church.
Even in the NT, there is a progression of church: from no structure (Acts 2) to more established structure (in pastoral letters).
Jim, I am sure we have differences of opinion what church is and should be. And I am fine with that. I respect your views and faith, but your views may not be complete. But this applies to me too.
July 30th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Great topic and one near and dear to my heart. Another book, Pagan Christianity, is a great resource to show WHY we do what we do at institutional church and where it comes from. Let’s face it, there was no pulpit in Lydia’s living room, no stage, no pews. And to even discuss sermonizing from one guy each time the Body meets…most preaching was done OUTSIDE the Body meetings to unbelievers!
What you have referred to in 1 Corin 14 is very important. If two or three speak, the others judge. Which means a room full of people searching the scriptures…even though they were searching the OT. Think of all the false teaching that would be eliminated right there. Another thing to consider is that with one guy “preaching” or teaching, the sheep will be less likely to mature past where he is in his walk with Christ. It is stifling maturity in the Body. And the point of the body is to not only worship but to make disciples who are mature and go on to plant other churches.
You also have a situation in 1 Corin 14 where most of the believers are exercising their spiritual gifts when the Body meets. Today, most are spectators being taught by paid professionals. So, we are paying folks to exercise gifts while holding others back. (I speak of true gifts…not just service to the Body through good works)
We have instituationalized everything. In the Greek, there is no ‘office’ of elder or pastor, etc. It is a function within the Body. Elders are simply the spiritually mature who care for your soul and truth of the Word. Ever wonder why Paul did not tell the elders to handle the situation in 1 Corin 5? He wrote the whole Body to deal with it.
Unlike doulos, I do not see an established hierarchical structure. There is simply not enough in the NT to make it clear what it HAS to be. To give you an example, the word for ‘appointing’ elders is the Greek word meaning ‘hand stretching’ as in voting. The NT churches were not so static. They had folks coming in and out like Titus at Crete was not going to stay there…he was there to provide instruction and set things in order. We also see that most Epistles hardly name a ‘pastor’ (which is mentioned once in the NT as a spiritual gift) nor are they written to elders to carry out the instructions but to the entire Body. (except what we call the pastoral letters)
So, who were the all important elders at Corinth? Philippi? Galatia?
We tend to put way too much importance on hierarchy and offices. It stifles the Body and makes us more of an organization that exists to maintain the organization itself to benefit a few instead of an organism that is alive with the power of the Holy Spirit
July 30th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Lin-you make some good points.
Doulos-I’m buried today, but will respond when I can.
You said, “I have summarized synagogue worship in general terms without referring to their technical languages (anyone can do that).”
I certainly can’t do that. I merely cut and paste from a commentary-I don’t have the “chops” that you do. My point is that even the first century synagogue had an interactive element. Scripture is clearly full of examples of this.
More to come…
July 30th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Hi Jim!
Thanks for your comment. You said, “My point is that even the first century synagogue had an interactive element. Scripture is clearly full of examples of this.” I agree with you. I am not arguing that particular point. As I said, synagogues often did have Q&A (both formal & informal). So I do not doubt that early church (NT specifically) had an interactive element – as you cited 1Cor. 14. This is not the point of my concern.
My point as I said earlier that NT church shifted to more hierarchical form of government in 2nd century (post-Apostles). In this sense, it may have reduced interactive/mutual involvement of lay believers compared to NT church.
The conclusion I was implying (I noticed that I did not make one in my earlier posts) is this: There seems to be a flexibility in church worship/order that cannot be rigidly put in place (whether it is for interactive or not). Even in 1Cor 14, Paul’s main point is that “but all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner” (14:40) because Corinthian church’s “interactive” worship and use of Spiritual gifts were out of control.
1Cor. 14 is not the chapter about interactive worship, but corrective measure to control the interactive worship in orderly fashion.
Now, the important question for me and you to consider is this: how much interactive worship/fellowship/use of spiritual gifts is appropriate? Since 1Cor. 14 tells us that it can actually be overdone.
Jim, I hope I was more clear on my point here than previous comments. In sum:
1. I am FOR interactive worship where ALL believers are engaged.
2. I am only stating the historical fact that NT church shifted to more hierarchical form (thus less lay believers involvement) in 2nd century. Reasons are both good and bad. Cannot be discussed here.
3. Jim, your questions (”food for thought”) cannot be properly answered because: (a) There is no “fixed” standard that is operative. Either it could be “underdone” (as you have pointed out in today’s church), or it could be “overdone” as Paul pointed out to Corinthian church. (b) 1Cor. 14 and Heb.10:25 are in some sense practiced by many churches in varying degrees. Now it may not satisfy you, but if others are satisfied, who could really argue?
4. NT church worship adopted some of the synagogue element of worship.
Well, Jim, I hope above summary was helpful about where I was coming from.
July 30th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
The fact is there is NO concept of laity in the NT. We are all ‘clergy’ as in “ministers” in the Holy Priesthood and all have anointing if true believers. (1 John) All believers are given gifts by the Holy Spirit. No gift is more important than another. The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you.
The concept of laity was invented by men. There are no professional Chrisitans. Just some more spiritually mature than others.
I am assuming some here are familiar with the writings of early church fathers of the 2nd Century and can see how unbiblical some of their teachings are. Paul warned that wolves would come in after he left. We can pretty much map the trajectory to the advent of the Catholic church to their skewed teaching and the legalizing of Christianity in the 3rd Century. Just look at the debate on the Trinity!
August 15th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Doulos,
I’m very sorry that it has taken me so long to respond. you and I agree on a number of points, particularly that the hierarchy/clergy/laity divide began in the second century.
Some church father would encourage believers to “obey the bishop”, which is something Paul never said.
We disagree on 1 Cor 14, as Paul’s correction and prescription (the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord) still leaves us with an interactive assembly.
Whether myself or others are satisfied with what we do when we assemble is irrelevant. The business model of the “church” today is built on satisfied, paying customers.
The question is this:
Is there a Biblical model and if so, do we follow it?
Please show me a senior pastor in the NT.
Please show me the pastor as a paid professional in the NT.
Please show me a 45 minute sermon in the NT.
August 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Hi Jim!
It is good to hear from you. As I said, I am for interactive worship, fellowship, etc..
I agree with you in spirit, it is only in the relevancy and degree is where we may differ in opinion. But that is OK.
As for 1 Cor 14, you said, “We disagree on 1 Cor 14, as Paul’s correction and prescription (the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord) still leaves us with an interactive assembly.” Indeed, interactive assembly — I do not disagree as I said in my previous posts.
But does your extent of interactive worship include women? Since 1Cor. 14:34-36 makes women to be silent. At least, women cannot have interactive worship equally with men. Since that portion of scripture is connected with what you said, “the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord” (14:37). [PLEASE NOTE: I believe firmly in the women's role in the church. They are as important as man in the church. I am only asking this for discussion sake.]
As for your questions on pastors/sermon length/church structure. My views are almost same as Wayne Grudem’s view. He calls himself, “modified congregationalist.” That is my view. But for sake of clarity, I would recommend his book on that topic, “Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine” by Wayne Grudem, please see chapter 47, “Church Government.” Perhaps you own a copy of the book and familiar with the content.
I am a bi-vocational pastor (actually, I am still looking for a job), but I do believe in paid pastor. Of course I do not mean to be paid like a CEO or with a high salary, but some wage. I do think that Bible talks about it. [Personally, if I have a choice, I rather be free from church support, but that does not mean ALL pastors should be.]
1Cortinthians 9:8-14. Paul said, “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” (v.14). Now Paul himself waved that right (v.15-18). Even though he himself waved the right, he did not deny the fact that those who preach were supported by the church.
1Timothy 5:17-18, “The elders (or pastors — Jim as you already know, in NT “pastors” and “elders” were used interchangeably) who rule well are to be considered double worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’” Note: [1] Paul here distinguishes “ruling elder” and “preaching/teaching elder.” So among the elders there were some who were gifted and preaching and teaching. [2] These were honored more than those who rule well. In this context, Paul seems to pointing out wage for their work. If not, verse 18 does not make sense.
Galatians 6:6, “The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him.” Here Paul does not specify wage, but ‘all good things’ that may include some wage. But the distinction remains: there are teachers and there are learners. And the teachers/pastors were supported. Now this right could be waved by a pastor voluntarily.
Jim, I could understand your opinion. Although I may be in disagreement with you in above points, my spirit is gentle. As a pastor, I too wish that I could sustain myself through a job so that I may wave the right to be supported by the church. My wife works 2 part time jobs and we try very hard to not to burden the church, especially since we are church planting.
However, I must confess that when I did work part time outside of the church and with full time ministry, it did take time away from studying and preparation. I was barely getting by to preach and teach. Perhaps I am not as gifted therefore it takes a longer time to prepare, but nevertheless that was the reality.
Jim, I probably may not be able to post here for a while, my ministry outside of the church has been increased. But I will read. Take care, my friend and brother.
August 15th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Doulos,
To answer your question, as long as the women cover their heads
To really answer your question, we’ll have to connect offline. I’m not gonna touch that topic in this forum.
To address your Scripture references, Galatians 6 is a “one another” chapter-no mention of elders, and I think it’s quite a stretch to try and say that Paul was making a case for paid elders.
1 Tim 5:17-18 is the strongest argument one could use for elder compensation.
Here’s where the argument loses steam.
1-there is a Greek word for wages, as Paul used it in relation to laborers.
2-if Paul were making a case for elder compensation, he would have been better off using the word wages, instead of honor.
3-note that all elders are included. The use of the word “especially’ does not give us permission to have it both ways. If ‘double honor” means wages, he is clearly applying this to all elders.
4-read without a paid eldership in mind, the text is quite plain. Elders are worthy of double honor, oxen are worthy of grain, laborers are worthy of wages. Why was Paul so unclear, making us connect the dots?
5- Paul was absolutely clear (to me) to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20
31 Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. 32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. 33 I coveted no one’s silver or gold or apparel. 34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 35 In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”
Am I reading into the passage, or is Paul saying, “I paid my own way. Do the same.”
August 15th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Jim -
I know you and I will continue to disagree. And that is fine. Since you appeal to the meaning of the passage, we should then consider what is most plausible interpretation.
For Galatians 6:6, the distinction remains. The Greek construction has definite articles for both nouns. The distinction is: “the one who is being taught” vs “the one who teaches.” And “the one who is taught” shares with all good thing with “the one who teaches.” Your “one another” assessment includes distinction here. If you are saying, ALL of us mutually teach and share all good things — then you are negating the distinction. Event the term, “taught” is not general meaning, but “kateichumenos” which we get the word, “catechism.” The term carries the idea of “teacher” and “student” since it was students were “catechumized” by the teachers. However, you are right when you said this does not mean elders/pastors. True. Assumption is made on my part based on NT teaching that generally, pastors & teachers fed the flock with the knowledge of God.
The question I want to raise is: Jim, how do you share with those who teach you?
As for 1Timothy 5:17-18 – Jim, the term, “honor” is used with money in mind elsewhere in the NT. It is often translated as “price” (in monetary value) of purchasing something (Acts 4:34; 5:2,3; 7:16). Even in 1Tim. 5:3, Paul uses the same word “honor” for “widows indeed” to be supported by the church financially or temporary needs. And Paul follows the thought of “honor” to elders very few verses later. Chapter 5, Paul is saying, church should “honor” widows who are “widows indeed” who display godly character and old without someone to help (5:1-16), then Paul is saying, church should “honor” elders who rule well and esp. who preach and teach hard (5:17-18).
And in the context, the “honor” seems most natural to understand as some kind of “wage” because Paul uses the term the very next verse, “laborer is worthy of his wage (misthos).” No, Jim, if Paul would not have in mind of “wage” he would not have used the oxen and laborer image.
As for Acts 20, I do agree that generally Paul is saying, “I paid my own way. Do the same” as you have described. But Paul is saying much more than “I paid my own way.” By saying, “In all this” (lit. all or everything)” (v. 35), Paul includes what he taught and how he lived and Ephesian elders are to emulate his way of living – emphasizing the help those who are weak either spiritually or temporarily or both (v.35).
Paul did not always worked for his sustenance. Paul was supported by Philippian church financially (4:15-19). Paul received support for his ministry at times and other times he did not because he did not want to be a burden to a church and hear the slander that he was in for money. So Paul voluntarily wave the right by working with his own hands.
Jim, I know you will not change your mind, and that is OK. I will not either based on the Scriptures. But I am curious: how do you support those who teach you? If not monetarily (meeting their needs), then how? Bringing food, clothes? Just curious.
Also, I really cannot respond to your next comment. I have already spent a good portion of my hour here. =) It is addictive =)
Take care. Let us only “boast in the cross of Christ” (Gal. 6:14).
August 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Doulos,
This has been good. We’ve made our cases. You’ve done a better job, but as you well know, the more skilled debater is not always correct. People can decide for themselves.
I very hopeful that people will think through these issues, regards of the conclusions they come to. “We’ve always done it this way” is not a valid reason for any practice.
Your question is framed by your interpretive grid. You interpret “share all good things” as support, and have framed your question with that assumption in mind.
You also assume that in my circle I am the taught and not the teacher.
Assumptions aside, I support those who teach me by buying their books, as that is where the majority of my learning comes from these days.
Interpersonally, I share with my friends, and they share with me.
I do love our interaction-thank you!