[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The hang-up is whether the Word is being rightly divided or not.

I have a totally different view on what it means to rightly divide the word.

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.

This is comical. Does it even matter what the wages are? Food, raiment, lodging, transportation, or money for any of those things? This thread has went from disproving tithe teaching to shirking off responsibilities to support those who labor in the gospel. The thing about ministers of the gospel, they are supposed to be God called. Whether or not the consensus on AFF feel like they should support ministry, God is the one who gives those charges (1 Corinthians 9:7), and God will take care that he receives the necessary wages (2 Corinthians 11:8).

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.

So the rightly dividing of the word is: “don’t give anything but food rations to the preacher while he is active duty involved in ministry”?

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.

As many times as I have read these scriptures I never realized that Paul was only allowed to receive food rations for his labor in the gospel.

Philippians 4:10-13
10......But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity.
11......Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
12...... I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
13......I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

I personally believe Paul ministered to generous and hospitable people who treated him like royalty, and I believe there where other times when Paul didn’t know where he was going to get his next meal. Bottom line is that God provided. Also, it is certain that Paul was not working a 40+ hour weekly public job and raising a family on his missionary journey. Rightly diving the word of God doesn’t mean that we are legalist, and that we must have precise and exact applications of a 1st century culture in a 21st century culture. It means that we are able to use principles and adapt applications to situations that are relevant to us today.

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.

So you are saying it is unbiblical to receive monetary offerings in the NT church? Have you got any examples on how we can apply that today? I would like to know what do you think is the biblical way to implement your views, because I am confused about the way it would go over for the saints as well as ministers.

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.

We live in a post modern world. Paul didn’t have Christian temples, public utilities, sound and media, etc…. The principle doctrines never change, but applications have changed with every passing generation.

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

I haven’t tried to put anything into the text at all, but I only seek how to apply it in my life today. I guess we should close and sell all of the church buildings and give money to charity. Everyone in ministry needs to go get a job and just gather at a saints’ house, because there is not a biblical model for a church building in the Bible?

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 have categorized practically everyone in modern church ministry as a hireling. Being a hireling is determined by intents. Sure there are probably some in it for the money, but in my circles it is sacrificial. If it was a pay based occupation then I would have quit a long time ago because I have never been so abused on a job for so little before lol. (The reward is Heaven)

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

It isn’t like this only in the U.S. I have supported many ministries in South Africa, Philippines, etc… some of them may be a poor country, but every instance I am aware of, they feel like the preacher of the gospel needs to be honored with whatever resources they are able to give.