Harold Hoehner passed away today
I just read that Harold Hoehner passed away today.
I have enjoyed his commentary on Ephesians, and I had the opportunity to hear him speak at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. The topic of his speech was “Can a Woman be a Pastor-Teacher?” His speech prompted me to write a short series on the topic of gifting vs. office:
Part 1 (introduction)
Part 2 (Hoehner’s designation of “office”)
Part 3 (Hoehner’s designation of “gifting”)
Part 4 (My discussion of the topic with a summary of Hoehner’s view)
Those who knew him, worked with him, and studied under him described him like this: “Most of all Harold has shown us what it means to be a man of God, committed to Christ and His gospel, and reflecting the fruit of the Spirit over a lifetime of faithful service.”
Good Reads
wow… there have been so many good blog posts written lately. Here are a few that I’ve enjoyed:
Lew at “The Pursuit” tricked me into filling out a sermon outline in his post “Sermon Outlines – A Better Idea“. I agree with him – the sermon would be more interesting if we could fill in the blanks ourselves.
Jeff at “Losing My Religion: Re-Thinking Church” marks several points in his life when “moments of truth” changed his life in his post “Life-Altering Moments of Truth“. I’ve come to some of the same conclusions. What were those “moments of truth”? Well, check out his post.
Chris at “Filtering Life Through the Cross” made the mistake of reading Roland Allen, and writes about it in “What are we so afraid of“. Read Chris’s post, then read Roland Allen.
Alan at “spermologos” questions “The Professional Church“. He asks some very powerful and provocative questions, and realizes that the church doesn’t really serve people.
Dustin at “Grace in the Triad” talks about “Pastors leaving church” – especially rural churches. I agree with Dustin that this is simply one symptom of a much bigger problem.
Why I’m glad not to be that kind of pastor
A few days ago, John Smulo at “smulospace” wrote a post called “Why I’m Glad Not To Be A Pastor Anymore“. John says that he is disillusioned with the “predominant models of ‘pastor'” and that he’s glad that he’s not in that position anymore because:
- I get to spend so much more time with my family.
- I get to spend more time with friends.
- It’s great to just be a married guy with kids, who owns a website and blog design business.
- I have time to be involved in my community through our local Rotary Club.
- I needed to recover from church burnout.
I understand what John is talking about, but not from experience, only from observing other “pastors”. Actually, I don’t think the problem is with being a “pastor” per se, but with the unscriptural expectations that many Christians place on those they recognize as leaders (especially elders or “pastors”). For example, a few months ago in a post called “Responsibilities and Expectations of Elders“, I published a standard job description that is published by a denominational agency:
- Plan and conduct the worship services; prepare and deliver sermons; lead in observance of ordinances.
- Lead the church in an effective program of witnessing and in a caring ministry for persons in the church and community.
- Visit members and prospects.
- Conduct counseling sessions; perform wedding ceremonies; conduct funerals.
- Serve as chairman of the Church Council to lead in planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and evaluating the total church program.
- Work with deacons, church officers, and committees as they perform their assigned responsibilities; train and lead the deacons in a program of family ministries.
- Act as moderator of church business meetings.
- Cooperate with associational, state, and denominational leaders in matters of mutual interest and concern; keep the church informed of denominational development; represent the church in civic matters.
- Serve as chief administrator of the paid church staff; supervise the work of assigned paid staff workers.
In that post, I stated that these (for the most part) are expectations placed on “pastors” by church organizations and many believers, but they are not scriptural expectations or requirements.
Here’s the thing… I’m an elder… I pastor… but I’m not “that kind of pastor”. And, I’m glad not to be that kind of pastor. Why?
1. No one expects me to be obedient for them, and I’m not paid to be obedient for others. Everyone who is part of the church recognizes that it is their responsibility to serve, teach, care, evangelize, etc.
2. When I talk about the difficulties of working, having a family, and serving other people in the church and outside the church, I’m not talking from theory. No. I actually do all of those things. I work. I have a family. I serve other people in the church and outside the church. By the way, my example also removes excuses when someone would want to say, “But I don’t have time.”
3. No one wonders if I serve them only because I’m paid. They don’t wonder what would happen if another church offered me more money. They don’t wonder if I’m part of them only because they hired me.
4. I’m free to do whatever God leads me to do. My time is not taken up with meetings and planning and other “duties and responsibilities” that may take time away from serving or loving people that God brings across my path.
5. I’m part of the church. I’m not the main guy or some outside expert or professional. I’m just another brother who is struggling in his walk with Christ just like everyone else. Hopefully, since I’ve been recognized by the church, my walk is at least a little more mature and is a good example for others to follow. This also means that I’m free to say, “No”, if someone asks me to do something.
6. The church are my friends. I don’t have to keep people at arm’s distance. I don’t have to worry about job security if people find out that I’m not perfect or I don’t have all the answers.
7. Since I’m not the only one responsible for teaching – all of us are responsible to teach – then I’m also able to learn and be encouraged by the church. I can exercise my spiritual gifts in serving others and others can exercise their spiritual gifts as well. I don’t have to try to be (or pretend to be) a “jack-of-all-trades”.
There are so many other reasons why I’m glad not to be “that kind of pastor”. But, primarily, I’m glad that I’m actually able to pastor (that is, care for people), without being required to handle administrative, organizational, and structural requirements that other “pastors” are required to deal with.
Just Semantics? (Pastor)
In this series, I’m going to discuss various biblical terms that are often misused or misunderstood because of the way we use the English terms today. In other words, we often read our modern day definitions into scriptural words. This is not a valid way to understand Scripture.
For example, consider the English word “pastor”. As a noun, the Greek term that is translated “pastor” (ποιμήν – poimÄ“n) usually refers to Jesus. Only once in the New Testament does it refer to someone other than Jesus (Ephesians 4:11). This noun refers to someone who takes care of sheep. The Greek verb (ποιμαίνω – poimainÅ) usually refers to the work of an actually shepherd. At least twice it refers metaphorically to the work of church leaders (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2).
In the metaphorical uses, this word group always refers to caring for people. It is not used as a title, but as a function. However, today, the church often uses the term “Pastor” to refer to an official position in the church – much like we use the word “Minister” from yesterday’s post. Likewise, when we read the word “pastor” or “shepherd” in Scripture, we often read this modern definition into the meaning of the Scripture.
For example, wiktionary gives the following definitions for “pastor”:
Pastor: The minister or priest of a Christian church.
Recently, I heard from a man who referred to himself as a “Pastor”. The church referred to him as “Pastor” as well. The man said that he loves to study Scripture and teach, but he doesn’t like caring for people. However, when he read Acts 20:28 or 1 Peter 5:2, he thought that it referred to him because he was a “Pastor”.
If someone refers to himself as “Pastor”, but does not care for people, then that person is not a “pastor” and is not “shepherding” in the scriptural sense. Even if the church gives someone the title of “Pastor”, if that person is not caring for people, then the person is not a “pastor” in the meaning of Scripture.
The person may be a great person. He or she may be a terrific teacher. But, that does not make the person a “pastor”. But, of course, if someone is giving the title “Pastor”, they naturally read Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2 as referring to them. Again, this is an example of reading a modern meaning of the word “Pastor” back into Scripture illegitimately. This means that we are not understanding Scripture the way the original authors (and God!) intended for us to understand it.
———————————————————–
Just Semantics? (Servant)
In this series, I’m going to discuss various biblical terms that are often misused or misunderstood because of the way we use the English terms today. In other words, we often read our modern day definitions into scriptural words. This is not a valid way to understand Scripture.
For example, consider the Greek word διάκονος (diakonos) which is variously translated “minister”, “deacon”, or “servant”. Here are a few passages from the ESV (other translations are similar):
Of this gospel I was made a minister according to the gift of God’s grace, which was given me by the working of his power. (Ephesians 3:7 ESV)
Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. (1 Timothy 3:8 ESV)
If you put these things before the brothers, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, being trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed. (1 Timothy 4:6 ESV)
If you look up these three words (“minister”, “deacon”, “servant”) in an English dictionary, you’ll find that the three words have different meanings, and especially different connotations. For example, here are the definitions from wiktionary:
Minister: A person who is trained to perform religious ceremonies.
Deacon: A lay leader of a congregation who assists the pastor.
Servant: One who serves another, providing help in some manner.
Notice that in English, the three terms “minister”, “deacon”, and “servant” have varying degrees of “official” status. Thus, a “minister” in Protestant traditions is typically the most “official”, probably referring to someone who is a vocational pastor, evangelist, missionary, etc. A “deacon” would refer to someone who maintains an “official” status – though slightly less than the “minister” – while probably not being paid for his duties. Finally, a “servant” does not have any official status and certainly doesn’t get paid for serving in the church.
But, there’s a problem. All of these terms are translations from the same Greek term: διάκονος (diakonos). Now, granted, Greek words like English words can have different meanings and different references. But, this would have to be specified in the context of the passage. The context in which a word is used helps us to understand how it is being used. But, what if there is nothing in the context? Why is Paul called a “minister”? Why are some “servants” called “deacons”? What if they were all called “servants”?
Notice for instance that two of the passages above (1 Timothy 3:8 and 1 Timothy 4:6) are within the same context – only a few sentences from one another! But, the term διάκονος (diakonos) is translated two different ways: deacon and servant, respectively.
Of course, now we reach the crux of the issue. If we called “ministers” and “deacons” by the term “servant”, then they would lose their “official” status in the eyes of the people. And, of course, there are many, many “ministers” and “deacons” who do not act like “servants” – which means they should not be called “minsters” or “deacons” either.
When we read the words “minister” or “deacon” in Scripture, we should remember that those terms simply mean “servant”. If we impute any other significance onto those terms, then we are reading modern definitions back into Scripture. This means that we are not understanding Scripture the way the original authors (and God!) intended for us to understand it.
———————————————————–
Was Timothy the Bishop of Ephesus?
According to tradition, Timothy was the first bishop of Ephesus. In the article on “Ephesus” in Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), David E. Aune writes, “Timothy is remembered as the first bishop of Ephesus ([Eusebius] HE 3.4.6), a tradition probably based on 1 Tim. 1:3″. (415)
Notice that Aune gives Eusebius of Caesaria as the source of this early tradition. In fact, he references Eusebius’ Church History (Ecclesiastical History) 3.4.6. What exactly does Eusebius say about Timothy?
Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. (Eusebius Ecclesiastical History 3.4.6)
In fact, Eusebius does not cite his source for this information concerning Timothy. In many other instances, Eusebius specifically indicates which sources he used for his history. In fact, Eusebius’ writings contain quotations or references to many sources that no longer exist in another form. We know this because he tells us these sources.
But, when it comes to Timothy being the first bishop of Ephesus, Eusebius does not give us a source. He simply says, “So it is recorded”. Where was it recorded? We don’t know because he doesn’t tell us.
Aune suggests that Eusebius bases this tradition on 1 Timothy 1:3. What does that text say?
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine… (1 Timothy 1:3 ESV)
1 Timothy 1:3 does not say that Timothy was the bishop of Ephesus. In fact, Timothy is never called a bishop or a pastor or an elder. (The same could be said of Titus as well.)
However, Paul may have called Timothy an apostle (1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2:6), and he encourages Timothy to be a good deacon (1 Timothy 4:6).
In fact, while Paul leaves Timothy in Ephesus (1 Timothy 1:3), we do not know that Timothy was still in Ephesus when Paul wrote his second letter to him. Whether Timothy received Paul’s second letter at Ephesus or not, Paul did not expect Timothy to remain there (2 Timothy 4:13).
Why does it matter whether or not Timothy was a bishop in Ephesus?
Whenever there is a discussion concerning senior or solo pastors, those in favor tend to point to Timothy as the scriptural example. Whenever there is a discussion of “calling” pastors from outside the local body, those in favor tend to point to Timothy as the scriptural example.
But, we must remember, that the evidence for Timothy being a pastor/bishop/elder, much less THE pastor/bishop/elder, of Ephesus is based on one line that Eusebius wrote almost 300 years later without citing his source.
Priesthood of the Few or Priesthood of All?
As I’m reading through various modern ecclesiologies, I came across a book by Wallace M. Alston, Jr. called The Church of the Living God: A Reformed Perspective (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002). I’ve never read an ecclesiology from the “reformed perspective”, so I was looking forward to reading this book. I don’t know if this book is characteristic of all reformed ecclesiologies, so my comments will be directed solely toward this book.
First, while there are many positive aspects about Alston’s book, I was disappointed that he did not discuss Scripture more. Instead, in most of the book, Alston exegeted and expounded on Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and others. I learned alot about what these magisterial reformers thought about the church, but I did not learn how Alston believed their views meshed with Scripture.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, I was concerned with the explanation of the priesthood of the believer. Here are a couple of quotes:
In Calvin’s mind, the priesthood of all believers had to do with the access of the individual to God… It was Martin Luther, however, who gave to the universal priesthood its broadest and clearest expression… Luther was of no mind to destroy the priesthood. Luther wanted to expand the priesthood. (45-46)
Luther never really sorted out the precise relationship between the priesthood of the few and the priesthood of all. Later Lutherans spoke of it in terms of representation. The priesthood of the few was representative of the priesthood of all. The church may not be dependent upon the ordained clergy for its existence, but for its well-being it needs the few who are called and set apart by the laying on of hands to the particular vocation of preaching, administering the sacraments, teaching, and pastoral care. But the priesthood of the few must never obscure, threaten, or usurp the priesthood of all. (47)
To be honest, I don’t understand how a priesthood of the few can do anything except “obscure, threaten, or usurp” the priesthood of all. If there are some that are “more priest” than others, then the responsibilities of the others are lessened while the responsibilities of the few are heightened.
I think that my differences with Alston concerning the priesthood of the believer is primarily found in this sentence: “The church may not be dependent upon the ordained clergy for its existence, but for its well-being it needs the few who are called and set apart by the laying on of hands to the particular vocation of preaching, administering the sacraments, teaching, and pastoral care.” As I study Scripture, I cannot find where only a few are given the responsibility of preaching (proclaiming the good news), administering the sacraments (baptizing and breaking bread – the Lord’s Supper), or pastoral care (caring for one another). Instead, I see where all believers are given these responsibilities.
Of course, if we find the need for “ordained clergy” (again, a term or designation that I can’t find in Scripture), then I suppose we must find something for this “ordained clergy” to do. Thus, we end up with a “priesthood of the few”, which – despite Alston’s warning – does tend to “obscure, threaten, or usurp the priesthood of all”. Why? Because by definition now, the responsibilities of the “all” are not as important as the responsibilities of the “few” – the “ordained clergy”.
I am not arguing against leaders. Leaders are very important to the church. But, leaders are not important because they are set apart for special duties, such as preaching, administering the sacraments, or pastoral care. Instead, they are important as an example to all believers as to how they ALL should be preaching, administering the sacraments, and caring for people – as well as other God-given responsibilities.
I do not think it is possible to maintain the priesthood of all while requiring a priesthood of the few at the same time. Since the Reformation, it has been clear that the doctrine of the priesthood of the few has worked to maintain the clergy/laity divide with which the magisterial reformers disagreed. According to Scripture, all believers are priests.
Küng on the Church in Corinth
I’ve recently been introduced to the writings of Hans Küng, a Catholic theologian who has written several books about the church. This excerpt is from his book, The Church, in a chapter called “Ecclesiastical Office as Ministry”:
The problem becomes finally acute when we take a look at the Church which we know so much more about than any other of the New Testament Churches: the Church of Corinth. We have a reasonably good idea as to how preaching and the Lord’s Supper were organized, as to what sort of ecclesiastical discipline and order there was. We know from Paul’s lists exactly how many different kinds of ministries there were at Corinth—apostles, prophets, teachers, and so on. But there were no “bishops”, deacons or elders. Moreover, when it is a question of restoring order in matters of preaching, the Lord’s Supper and Church discipline, Paul never addresses himself to a single official or a single group of officials, responsible for all the community. He addresses himself throughout to all and at the same time to each individual. With regard to the irregularities that had occurred at the Lord’s Supper, where the writer of the pastor letters might have said to the Corinth community something like: ‘Timothy is to give the sign for the celebration to begin’ (or perhaps even: ‘Timothy is to celebrate the Lord’s Supper’?), what Paul in fact says to the Corinthians is: ‘When you come together to eat, wait for one another’ (I Cor. 11:33). With regard to the confusion which had arisen through several members of the community preaching during worship, where the writer of the pastoral letters might have said something like: ‘Titus is to decide who shall speak’ (or even perhaps: ‘Titus is to give the sermon’?), what Paul actually says is: ‘… let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn… you can all prophesy one by one’ (14:27 and 31)… All of this is more than an argumentum e silentio [argument from silence]. The burden of proof lies with those who wish to assert that there existed in the Corinth community, in Paul’s time, an office of leadership, whether elders or the later monarchic kind of episcopate. (403)
While I disagree with Küng concerning the pastoral epistles (i.e., the author did not lay out rules for Timothy, Titus, and other rulers to control others or to control the church meeting), Küng raises some very good questions that we should consider.
For now, consider the question of leadership. Küng recognizes that the church in general and academic works concerning eccesiology in particular have blurred the distinction between the church and leadership. He says:
The fundamental error of ecclesiologies which turned out, in fact, to be no more than hierarchologies (where ecclesia=hierarchia) was that they failed to realize that all who hold office are primarily (both temporally and factually speaking) not dignitaries but believers, members of the fellowship of believers; and that compared with this fundamental Christian fact any office they may hold is of secondary if not tertiary importance. (363)
There may or may not have been leaders (elders or deacons) at Corinth. But, Paul did not consider their presence or absence relevant to the problems at hand. He did not tell the elders to handle discipline problems (1 Cor. 5). He did not tell the deacons to take of issues surrounding the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11). He did not tell any leaders to take control of the meeting to ensure that it did not get out of hand (1 Cor. 14).
Yet, today, when there are problems, everyone turns to the leaders. Why? Why do we presuppose that leaders are to make decisions while others are to either approve or disapprove of those decisions? If no one approached a brother or sinner who was sinning, whose “fault” would that be? If the Lord’s Supper gets unmanageable, who is responsible for ensuring that everyone is considering others first? If some people disrupt the meeting, who should help get things settled down? Why do we usually think of leaders first? Why did Paul not think of leaders first?
The Holy Spirit has made you overseers
Back in February 2007, I wrote a blog post called “The Holy Spirit has made you overseers“. The post was prompted by a conversation that I had about the role of the Holy Spirit in appointing elders. It generated a good discussion then, and I hope it will do the same this time.
—————————————-
The Holy Spirit has made you overseers
We are currently attempting to recognize additional elders among the church. We believe that a pastor, an elder, and an overseer are the same. In other words, an elder is a pastor is an overseer.
Recently, someone brought this verse to our attention:
Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (Acts 20:28 ESV)
As we discussed this verse, and how we should apply it, we noticed the phrase “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.” This brought up a very interesting question: At what point does a person become a pastor/elder/overseer?
According to Acts 20:28 (above), it is the Holy Spirit who makes someone a pastor. Does the Holy Spirit do this as a response to the actions of a church? I don’t think so. Instead, I believe that the Holy Spirit makes someone an overseer regardless of the actions or lack of actions of the church itself.
In other words, the Holy Spirit places someone in a group of believers and subsequently gives that person the responsibility of “caring for” (that is, being an overseer for) that group of believers. The church is then supposed to respond to the work of the Holy Spirit and to recognize that individual as an overseer.
If the church does not recognize that person as an overseer, the church’s action does not remove the responsibility from that person, because the responsibility was given by the Holy Spirit not the church. If the church recognizes different people as overseers, the church’s action does not remove the responsibility from the first person, because the responsibility was given by the Holy Spirit not the church.
Now, this is not the way that we normally think of pastors/elders/overseers. However, it does seem to align with what Scripture says about the work of the Holy Spirit among a group of believers (especially Acts 20:28 above). How does a church ensure that the people the church recognizes as overseers are the same people that the Holy Spirit has made overseers?
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.