[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Wages

opsōnion

Thayer Lexicon:
1. a soldier's pay, allowance
a. that part of the soldier's support given in place of pay [i.e. rations] and the money in which he is paid
2. metaphorically wages: hire or pay of sin

The English word “wages” fits fine in the context.

Income is not just money but value that you receive. If we are bartering goods the government wants to know the values in order for taxes to be paid. Food and raiment has value so it can be considered income. What is the difference if I give you a hamburger or if I give you the money to buy a hamburger. It is essentially an income. We are splitting hairs here only to shame ministry for receiving, or for teaching receiving for labor in the gospel.

I personally have been happy to give to the many ministries God has put in my life. I don’t see the hang up? If someone is just a hireling then don’t support them.

The hang-up is whether the Word is being rightly divided or not. In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes the case that soldiers don't go to war on their own wages (same Greek word as used in 2 Corinthians 11:8). The "wages" Paul refers to isn't money for whatever desire comes to mind but was a settled amount as a stipend for food. That stipend for food wasn't an income. It was monies taken out of the taxes that the Roman Senate mandated from the people so the legions of Rome could wage war and/or protect the interests of the empire. Not a paycheck to be used to support themselves personally, but a pre-determined and settled amount (usually based on rank) so the soldier could soldier on a full stomach for King and Crown.

It's all about, and in this case, was only ever about, food. You can research what their daily allotment of food was. It is well-attested. I can give you some resources if you would like.

Additionally, in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul makes the case that the priests who serve at the altar partake of the altar, meaning what? They are allotted a portion of the animal that was sacrificed. Again, it's about food, not money. Then Paul states that "in the same way" they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. It's about food. It's not about money for whatever need.

To take today's standard of economics and commerce and apply it retroactively to a situation 2,000 years ago is the very definition of shoe-horning and eisogesis. Per 1 Corinthians 9, Paul wouldn't recognize anything salaried ministers do with their income from the churches which pay them. He would expect only itinerate evangelists (not resident prophets and teachers) to receive a meal, some additional clothing as the need arose, a place to sleep, and at most, perhaps some extra funds for travelling to the next stop on the missionary journey. He wrote of nothing else. Suggested nothing else. Commanded nothing else. Taught nothing else.

There is then no grand-fathering a modern application into the text. The Holy Scriptures and the Christian faith do not work that way.

And as far as hirelings are concerned, take a look at the Greek word that Jesus uses in John 10:12-13. It means a paid worker, i.e. a wage-earner. So, anyone in ministry who gets paid in money and earns a wage as you describe is by default, a hireling.

Is the pastor hired on?
Is he considered an employee of the church?
Can he be fired?
Did he have to audition or try out for the job?
Is he answerable to a church board and secretary who monitor the funds?
Does he get an actual paper paycheck or a direct deposit?

You see, at least for our brethren in the USA, for all of the above questions, the likely answer is going to be "yes". And if that's the case, then he's a paid worker, i.e., a wage-earner, and therefore a hireling, by definition.

See: https://biblehub.com/greek/3411.htm