An Elder/Pastor's Salary.

Why is it that Pastors/Elders always use 1 Timothy 5:17 to defend their right to get paid a good salary. But they never mention that "worthy of double honor" means that they are worthy to receive double the honor that the widow receives.

When was the last time that you ever heard of a widow in the church receiving a salary from the church???

1624 reads
Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Christian,

You have argued this point in several threads today. The reason you don't hear pastors making this argument is because those trained in the Word do not agree with your hermeneutics. I have never heard anyone try to tie the double honor to the widows - until today. It just doesn't work. Please keep in mind that no scripture is of any private interpretation.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

christian cerna's picture

How can the 'double honor' not be tied to the previous two paragraphs in 1 Tim 5, that speak about honoring widows? These two paragraphs speak about honoring widows who are truly widows, who are all alone, and who have no one to care for them, and provide for their needs. Then it goes out of its way to show that they were to receive a type of 'allowance'. It shows what the requirement were in order for them to be enrolled in the program/receive this allowance(i.e. over the age of 60, having been the wife of one husband, raised children, good reputation, known for good works, etc.)

It also expresses that those who are younger should not be enrolled in this program, because it would encourage idleness, and lead women to become busybodies. Also, it shows that widows who have believing children, should receive some form of repayment from their children, so that the church is not burdened by caring for these women.

This can be seen in the book of Acts, where there was a dispute in the early church, because the widows of the certain Greek believers, were not being recognized in the daily distribution of food. This forced the Apostles to choose 7 men to take over the task of the administration of welfare, and the feeding of those who were less fortunate.

So the third paragraph in 1 Tim. 5, that speaks of Elders being worthy of double honor, assumes that the reader has read the previous 2 paragraphs, regarding the churches honoring/caring for those who are truly widows, left all alone.

So I don't see how my interpretation of this Scripture is incorrect.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Christian,

Every Bible I could lay hands on right now breaks the passage between verses 16 and 17. Verse 17 starts a new paragraph, a new thought. There is no reason, no basis to tie the two thoughts together grammatically as you have tried, indeed, there is every reason not to tie them together. The double honor points forward to the metaphor of not muzzling the ox and the lesson of the workman who is worthy of hire. This is a separate thought from the previous paragraph entirely. Both are subpoints in an overall progression of thought regarding how to treat people in the church: 9-16 is about widows, 17-22 is about elders, shorter statements about church conduct come before and after these longer statements. I'm sorry, but your thesis has no basis.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

christian cerna's picture

Just because verse 17 is the beginning of a new paragraph, does not mean that it is disconnected from the ideas set forth in the preceding paragraphs. It is merely a literary device in the English language to divide long exposition into paragraphs after every few sentences, to aid in ease of reading and comprehension. And you have to remember that in the original Greek there are no paragraph breaks. So your argument does not stand.

The term 'double honor' does not point forward to the metaphors, as you are saying. It points backwards to the ideas expounded in the preceding paragraphs. Let me give you an example.

I say to you:

"My son did some work in the backyard today. He worked 3 hours, mowing the lawn, raking leaves, etc. I paid him $40.

My other friend also worked in the backyard. He worked for 6 hours, cleaning the shed, fixing the rain gutters, and painting the exterior of the house. How much should I pay him?"

You say to me:

"I think your friend deserves at least double the pay you gave your son. After all we should pay people according to their work. And you should not take advantage of a friend."

So in this case, does double the pay look forward, or do we need to look at the preceding paragraphs to understand it?

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Christian,

"Aslo" is a connector to indicate your first two paragraphs continue a thought. Furthermore, the continued reference to both son and friend in the final statement link the three thoughts together. The construction in 1 Timothy 5 is different; there is no connector continuing thoughts from one paragraph to another. Nor is there a continuation of concepts; each paragraph deals with different people in different situations. The link comes in the overall passage containing several paragraphs that all point to relationships in the church. Each new paragraph represents discussion on a new relationship found in the body. Each new paragraph continues the general discussion of several paragraphs, but it does not continue the discussion specific to the previous paragraph.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

christian cerna's picture

well, i think we should leave it at that. we'll be arguing all day about grammar and such, and get no where.

i think a better question would be...

Since most elderly Americans receive Social Security checks and some type of Medicare, is the Church still responsible financially to the older generation? And with Rest Homes, are children still responsible for them? At what point is a child being negligent to his older parents? Should we rebuke members of our congregation who neglect to visit their parents?

What about this one? Is it a sin if a member is faithful with his tithes, but does not contribute financially at home, to help out his parents pay the bills?

It brings to mind a passage in the gospels where Jesus condemns the Pharisees for telling people it is OK to say to their parents that the money that should have gone to them, they are giving to the Temple.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Christian,

Hermeneutics has rules, as does grammar. If we are going to disregard the rules, we have no way of knowing what God has said, and we can turn God's words into anything we want them to say. That's why I started this conversation with you with the statement

Quote:
those trained in the Word do not agree with your hermeneutics

You seem like a student of the Word; keep at it. Sorry I couldn't clarify my thoughts more in our discussion.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?