Why pastors and preachers should not be receiving salaries

rily51jean · Jan 21, 2020

Well, that's not necessarily true, there are real time, actual physical blessings from God for our obedience.
As written in Malachi:

Malachi 3:10 "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in Mine house, and prove Me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
Vs. 11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.
Vs. 12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts."

There's nothing wrong with being rich from God's blessings, through your faith & obedience, and serving Christ, by helping others, but just because you're poor doesn't mean you have to stay that way. There's nothing wrong with educating yourself, learning new skills, and working hard, honestly. When you through love of God, and faith in Him, obey Him, He does bless people.

That's the not the same thing as being rich by ripping people off through scams, ponzi schemes, and false preaching, like some of those "tent revivals", like Margot exposed on TV back in about 1967-68 or thereabouts.
The problem has come from a lot of charismatic super-preachers, who teach what people want to hear, instead of what they need to hear, and they demand lots of money from them. They twist the word of God, saying things like "O brother, sister, sow a seed to our church, sow a large seed, and you will receive a big blessing in a matter of days." They mean "Give us a big wad of money, and the Lord will repay you in kind, and you'll be rich." Meanwhile, somebody who is retired, or disabled, or also a senior citizen, and is on limited funds, a fixed income, with medical needs on top of everything else deprives themself of adequate food, or their necessary meds, trying to apply to that!! That's not right!!

When I read that statement by God, I look at our nation of America, and how blessed here that we are, and how millions, and millions of people from other nations seek to come here, either for education, or medical treatment, or asylum, to live, legally, or illegally. We're just about the only nation on earth, that more people are trying to enter, than to leave. Sure we don't have it "perfect", but it's more "perfect" than most.

Also Psalm 37, comes to mind, and is particularly comforting when considering all this.

Jesus said in Matt. 5:45 "That ye may be the children of your Father Which is in heaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

You can consider what God has to say to unbelieving, dishonest, disobedient people, priests or not, in
Malachi 2:2 "....If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto My name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart."

The unjust might receive the blessings of God, but that doesn't mean they can keep them. He might receive more rain on his field, making it all green and vibrant, only to have a swarm of bugs come eat it all up later on, and not even touch your field. (Just using a farmer as an example), same thing could apply to any business worked in, you might have a modest size business, like an auto dealership or something, and be doing real good. Then a super-car dealership might open across the street, and threaten your business, but maybe they can't run it right, or get/keep good trained employees, or maybe they have trouble getting parts, and word of mouth spreads, and all of a sudden they've closed their doors, and vacated the premises.
God said in Deut. 28:1-14 the blessings He would bless for obedience, and then in vs.s 15-68 the curses for disobedience and Lev. 26:1-14, the blessings with which He would bless for obedience, and in vs.s 15-33 the curses for disobedience that He would curse a people, & a nation.

Has God changed? I think not:
Malachi 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." And in vs. 7, "Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from Mine ordinances, and have not kept them, Return unto Me, and I will return unto you, saith the LORD of hosts."

What about Jesus, has Jesus changed at all? I don't think so...
Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever."

Angela53510 · Jan 21, 2020

rily51jean said:

Sadly, Arnold Murray is quite a heretic! I would ask you read this article

https://www.equip.org/article/arnold-murray-and-the-shepherds-chapel/

The only thing I disagree with the article is about the Rapture. But it is not an essential belief you need to be saved, one way or another! I think you need to read the article, and the Bible without his helps and Bible studies.
I'm so glad God saved you, but now it is time to break away from this cult!

OneOfHis · Jan 21, 2020

Melach said:

Depends on why you want it, if you love it, what you would do with it.

I think it is wise to use what God provides in regards to money in a way you end up with a lot. Then you can share more.

If one man hates money and gives everything he can away while working a low paying job and never trying to improve his value as an employee...

He would give much less than a man who sees money as a tool that can be used to help others, and uses it to create a business and jobs or forms of passive income which can be shared....

If a man loves money, he still may end up providing more for others by proxy than the man who hated it in his efforts to gain material wealth...😅 (though this is not going to help him in any real or lasting way)

presidente · Jan 21, 2020

Angela53510 said:

If there were 'two creations of man' with Adam and Eve being a special creation, it doesn't make sense that whites would be the descendants of Adam if all mankind except for Noah's family were wiped out. I suppose one could theorize that some non-Adamic DNA got in through Noah's sons wives, but if the first generation of men had options other than incest and took them, then everyone would have non-Adamic ancestors also.

rily51jean · Jan 21, 2020

presidente said:

My own experience with Arnold Murray's teachings was not so positive. I was able to use a Strong's concordance and see that his anti-semetic theory about Kenites was not backed up by scripture. It was backed up by a lot of 'Because I say so' line of reasoning.

Murray argued that Eve had sex with the serpent and that Cain was the serpent's baby and Able was Adam's. This is totally unjustifiable from Genesis. He pointed to a Hebrew word in Genesis translated tree and one of the glosses, as I recall, could mean spine. That was supposed to be evidence from the passage that Eve had sex with the serpent-- pure nonsense. Most of us allow for a little bit of literative and allegorical language in our interpretation of scripture-- and that Cain was the child of the devil because of his sinful nature rather than being genetic offspring.

He taught that the Kenites were descendants of the Cain who was Able's brother, rather than some Cain whose descendants were actually alive after the flood. There were eight people saved by water. Maybe Murray counted Kenites as animals, demonic hybrids-- so they could survive the flood--and ancestors of (some of at least) those who claim to be Jews nowadays. His theory--which I refute--sounded like a better justification--if it were true-- for the Holocaust than Adolph Hitler's.

On the one hand, Murray would have us insist that Moses' Kenite wife wasn't a Kenite but was called that because she was from a Kenite area. There is no reason to believe him besides 'I say so.' Descendants of Moses' in-laws are called Kenites elsewhere in scripture. He tries to make the Rechabite Kenites out to be physical descendants of Satan, though Jeremiah's prophecy makes them out to be honorable for honoring their father's tradition in contrast to Israel's treatment of the Law. He gets the neo-Nazi sounding idea that they won't till the soil, the kind of criticism anti-semetic movements level at Jews. But making Kenites out to be modern Jews is ridiculous. A reference to Kenites being scribes is twisted to be about them 'handling the money.' Of course some historical banking families are Jewish.

Jesus' statement that 'ye are of your father the devil' and the statement about the 'synagogue of Satan', instead of being taken to refer to their spiritual father, are reinterpreted through this weird Kenite hypothesis, that the Kenites of the time Israel is in the land were supposed to be physical descendants of Satan and Eve through Cain, who somehow survived the flood (which would more make sense if he considered them to be animals), infiltrated the Jews and replaced their leadership. And that , taken with his other comments, can lead to the conclusion that many of the Jews today won't till the ground and like to handle money.

His treatment of the parables was messed up, too. There is nothing in the parable of the wheat and tares about wheat becoming tares. And the fact that the word for seed is where we get 'sperm' from in English doesn't prove the parable is talking about physical progeny from Satan.

The condescending attitude and contemptuous comments he makes about other preachers, in general, seemed to rub off on some of his followers. I found it quite repulsive.

Someone gave me a tape of his and asked what I thought. I told them what I'd discovered by actually following his arguments through the Strong's, somethignghe recommended, and warned against following him.[/QUOTE]

Well, I appreciate your view point, you are welcome to your opinion, although, it's not too different than my sisters, who showed me no appreciation for turning back to Jesus Christ, and to God again. You'd have thought they would have been happy for me, but no. In my experience I've had very, very little trouble, researching what Pastor Murray has taught, and it makes a lot more sense to me, and leaves very little confusion compared with what I experienced in other churches that I've tried to attend. So, I will stick with Shepherd's Chapel. Sometimes a lot of the new translations of the bible, don't convey clearly, or correctly what is written in the King James Version bible. They aren't compatible for use with The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and I suspect that's probably the reason why most people, if they're using say an NIV, or NASB, or some other are unable to verify what Pastor Murray teaches.
When the translators completed the King James bible, they prefaced it with a statement basically saying they tried to be as accurate as they possibly could, but couldn't guarantee that it was totally without some error. Their English is far removed, in some places, that what the English we speak today.
Pastor Murray was a soldier, in the Marines, and he was passionate for the word of God, and the word of Jesus, so, yes, sometimes he could be perceived as arrogant and contemptuous, however he always made it a practice never to call out and accuse other Pastors and churches by name. I'm not saying he was 100% perfect, but he was passionate against people who twist the word of God to make it of none effect. I had respect for him for that. In my book, he's the best preacher I've ever heard.

rily51jean · Jan 21, 2020

Angela53510 said:

Well, I'm very sorry, but I respectfully disagree with that. Pastor Murray, himself, has taught about what constitutes a cult, what they do, what makes them a cult, what they will do to you.
I've been sent lots of stuff by my sisters, who rather than rejoicing for me that the Lord called me back into His word, in the King James Bible, no less, and they all sound the same, and there is absolutely no merit to what they say.
#1, Cults or cult members work to separate you from your family & close friends, Pastor Murray has never sent anybody to talk to me, to try to do anything like that.
#2, Cults or cult members try to separate you from your income, finances, stocks, property, liquidity in your bank account
and no, Pastor Murray has never sent people out to me, or called me on the telephone demanding to know when I will sell my home, my cars, and donate all my income, checking & savings, or pensions to his church, that has never happened.
#3, Cults or cult members try to indoctrinate you (like as some other churches try to do, even if you identify yourself as a baptized in Christ, Christian), to think like them, act like them, no questioning allowed, usually questioning their authority brings some kind of punishment. Pastor Murray has never called or sent anybody out to check out if I'm adhereing to exactly what they say, he's always said "If you don't understand me, can't "see it", don't agree, check it out for yourself, and make your own mind up.
#4 Cults don't let you think for yourself, you have to think according to what they tell you, they don't allow you to investigate what they say on your own. No, Pastor Murray has never called me up, or sent someone to my door to check up on me, to see if I think according to everything they say. There are a couple of things that I disagree with on Pastor Murray's teachings, but they're not a major doctrinal issue.
I've been studying both with Pastor Murray, and on my own for 22-1/2 years, and I've never read of, or heard on the news of any instance where that church behaved in any of the above numbered ways to people.
Now, if anything does happen to Pastor Dennis, his son, and the leadership passes to some other person, and if they do start calling me up, and sending people to my door to check up on me: I will definitely tell them to kiss off, and will summarily kick them out of my life.

presidente · Jan 21, 2020

rily51jean said:

There are different definitions for 'cult.' One is the cult in the sociological sense, the way you describe it. Some Christian use 'cult' to describe groups with unbiblical doctrine, like the Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons.

SUNDOWNSAM · Jan 22, 2020

Enxu said:

----------------

I believe more in a gathering with a home or a facility.

I agree with you that the so-called churches have become entertainment center and Yeshua's name is being marketed for personal financial gains. I have no problem with given a salary to someone who will be a full time shepherd in the church, but their income should not be more than 5 figures being that they have a family. If the Church wants to include medical no problem, but for them to make millions that to me is not right in the sight of God, they are laying treasures on earth. In the old days the ministers of the church worked.

billabong · Jan 22, 2020

SpoonJuly said:

Me, I'll put my hand up for not paying a pastor.
Why would I when God COMMANDS His body of believers not to. see post #261
Anyone that suggests otherwise is suggesting that their wisdom is greater than their Creator.
Dose the clay jug dictate to the potter?
Be extremely careful, because anyone that publicly opposes Gods Word gets the label "false prophet". And believe me God really hates that!

presidente · Jan 22, 2020

billabong said:

I think the OP's question is valid, especially supported in Paul's teaching. The arguments against the OP are exactly the same teaching I used to hear coming from behind pulpits so long ago.

Pastors that justify their worth expecting and often demanding that the congregation is required to pay them a regular wage as you would in a secular job, (a hireling or a hired hand).

Their trump card so often used is "the elder is worthy of double honor". Yes "honor" somehow magically changes to mean money or a weekly paycheck.
Do note that just a few verses earlier Paul is addressing people with widowed family members not to burden the congregation and take care of their own family members. Key word here is burden.

Also, notice this: The Apostle Paul does not equate "working" with preaching the gospel.
The two activities are clearly and distinctly separate in Paul’s mind.
1 Thessalonians 2:9 "Surely you remember brothers, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you."

Here in 2 Thessalonians 3: 6-15, the Apostle Paul says the same thing, except with even more emphasis.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in
accord with the tradition that you received from us.

For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle
when we were with you, we did not eat any one's bread without paying,
but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not BURDEN
any of you.

It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our CONDUCT
an EXAMPLE TO IMITATE.

For even when we were with you, we gave you this command: If any one
will not work, let him not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in
idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work.

Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ
to do their WORK in quietness and to earn their OWN living.
Brethren, do not be weary in well-doing.

If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man,
and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Do not look
on him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. (RSV)

Again, the key word here is "burden".

The Apostle Paul has clearly labeled the “paid pastors” or the “teaching elders”, the paid professional clergy, not a benefit, but rather a burden; not a help, but rather a hindrance.

'Honor' meant compensation for hundreds of years before Paul wrote that. In the Illiad, Achilles was given honor, a slave girl and other treasures. He talked back to the general who stripped him of his honor, taking the girl and treasure back he stopped fighting. So time can mean compensation.
Notice widows being honored is material.

Paul had a right to live of the gospel. Cephsd and the Lord's brother's did. It was not a sin to do so but rather his right. Paul encouraged elders to work and support themselves. His example was one of waiving a right nonetheless and it is not a sin to exercise that right.

In fact in Matthew 10 those who refused to provide housing and feed the 12 were to come under judgment.

rily51jean · Jan 22, 2020

presidente said:

Well, that may be true, and so, but both Pastor Arnold & Pastor Dennis, both preach chapter & verse, in the context, and for the meaning given, as far as I'm concerned they're very biblical. I think we all have the option to agree to disagree, I think they used to call that "detente".

presidente · Jan 22, 2020

rily51jean said:

I just got a taste of Arnold Murray's teaching many years ago and that was enough for me. I pointed out some of the problems in the last post, which you can research yourself. he twisted the Strong's definitions in ridiculous ways. His arguments did not stand up to scrutiny after looking up all the references. The objection was to teach an anti-semetic conspiracy theory. His interpretation of the parable of the harvest was plain weird-- tares turning to wheat. And then there was the condescending comments toward other preachers to program those so inclined to believe that he has the exclusive inside scoop.

rily51jean · Jan 23, 2020

presidente said:

I have nothing more to say to you on the topic, I've said all that I'm going to say. You're welcome to your own beliefs, but now I'm done and done with this.

billabong · Jan 23, 2020

presidente said:

'Honor' meant compensation for hundreds of years before Paul wrote that. In the Illiad, Achilles was given honor, a slave girl and other treasures. He talked back to the general who stripped him of his honor, taking the girl and treasure back he stopped fighting. So time can mean compensation.
Notice widows being honored is material.

I'm not too sure about all this mythology stuff, and frankly i couldn't be bothered with it. I can show you the the dictionary definition of "honor" If you like.

Secondly you have a real problem using your definition ("material compensation") in place of "honor", the problem you have is that it will not stand in light of scripture. In fact using your definition you are actually making Gods Word to be an absurdity, your definition implies that God speaks with a divided tongue. In other words, how is it possible that Paul says one thing to one church and the opposite thing to another.

presidente said:

Most of what you say is correct but it only applies to the Jewish people, housing and feeding messengers of God was standard if not mandatory practice for generations. This would not be a hindrance to them.

Now as we know, Paul was and is dealing with the gentiles to this day, and it was Gods instructions to not burden the church as it would hinder those outsiders from hearing and receiving the message of salvation. Paul didn't spare any ink on the matter, he left very clear instructions.

Obviously God know whats best and yet it surprises me how many disagree with God. And this is the part that boggles me. The command not to feed those "pastors etc." is one of the easiest commands to follow.

Angela53510 · Jan 23, 2020

rily51jean said:

M

My definition of a cult includes teaching heresy or outright lies. I see this in all the things I read about Arnold Murray.

There is a certain way to interpret the Bible, called Hermeneutics. It means not twisting the verses to make them say something they were never intended to say. In other words, context is important. You cannot take a verse, or part of a verse, and make it say something neither the author nor God wanted to say. My favourite example is the erroneous use of Isa. 53:5d. One quarter of one verse. It says, "By his stripes we are healed." What does the rest of the verse say? What is the chapter about? What is the whole book of Isaiah about? It is about God calling Isaiah to preach repentance to a sin sick Israel. They have walked away from God, worship others gods, and live in sin.

So, this 1/4 of a verse, is it a strange thumb sticking up and about healing through the atonement, or have people wrongly interpreted it? Our first clue, is that you can never make a doctrine out of one verse. True, it is quoted in 2 places in the NT, but neither is about universal healing for all. The second clue, is that the book of Isaiah is about sin, sin sickness. Our third clue, if we had done some research, is that the OT Greek Bible, known as the Septuagint, or LXX, translates that same verse as "and our sin sickness is healed." Which makes so much sense in terms of the rest of the verse, chapter and book. Read Isaiah one if you don't believe me.

I don't know where Murray stands on healing, but this is an example to show that neither you nor this heretic have a clue on how to properly read and interpret the Bible. You keep saying, "He shows it right from Scripture," really concerns me. He probably doesn't quote passages, with the verse or topic or sentences, but single verses or even partial verses. He probably never refers to the outline of the book, the people to whom the book was written, or the topics.

Context is also to do with who God wrote the book to. Somethings were cultural, and some things were universal. So, God wrote the 10 commandments for a backsliding Israel, in the middle of the Sinai desert. That was the historical context. But, I believe they were also written as a guideline to not only us, but every generation that has ever lived. Finally, context requires we read different opinions and commentaries. I used to use a minimum of 10 different sources when teaching or preaching. Quite frankly, someone who only studies one person, is the definition of being in a cult.

I'm sorry you are so brainwashed. But what concerns me more, is I think you have been proselytizing for Calvary Chapel, right from your first post. You have glorified this man in most of your posts and yet, I don't believe you glorified Jesus once. So yes, you have been trying to convert us, your #3 above. As far as thinking for yourself, you certainly don't exhibit that quality at all. I don't mean to insult or hurt you, I just get riled when I find people who are in a cult, and brainwashed to believe they are not, while the indoctrination into bad and wrong doctrine continues. I would love to see you using others sources. There are many commentaries on line. I plead with you to use them. You will always find things you don't agree with, and that is good! Then we can define what we believe, without a cultic mediator like Arnold Murray.

I know there are people who think we ONLY need the Bible. And that is true, to a certain extent. I read the Bible from cover to cover every year, plus in other languages, including French, German and Spanish, the NT in Koine Greek, and books of the OT in Hebrew. I had been saved and reading my Bible, and going to church and studying the Bible for 25 years, when God told me to go to seminary. I learned 10 times more about the Bible, God and doctrine in those 7 years, than the previous 25. I also learned how to study the Bible correctly. I always remember in a seminary class on theology, we were comparing all the different beliefs people had about many areas of theology. One male student finally asked the prof, why he was teaching us all these views, instead of telling us what to believe. He replied that if you want to answer a member of your congregation a difficult question, you should not be quoting your professor, but rather have studied the Bible, know the options, and then pray and study more about what you think God wants you to believe.

preacher4truth · Jan 23, 2020

rily51jean said:

I'm so sorry you've been hoodwinked by their false teachings. Ephesians 1:15-22.

presidente · Jan 23, 2020

billabong said:

Let me clarify. I do not mean that you can just plug in the word 'compensation' whenever 'time' (translated) honor shows up in the text and get the right translation. What I mean is that the word had a range of meaning that included a concept very similar to our word for 'honor' and also 'that set of persons or things with which someone is honored'. In the Illiad, part of the honor was the slave girl along with other spoils of war.

And my point is not about mythology, but about usage. It is just evidence that the word had a certain meaning in Greek. The illiad was almost like the Greek pagan Bible back then. It was read and quoted extensively, and so the usage of words in it would have had an impact on the language. But I am just pointing to it as an example of how the word was used. The way that Greek scholars determine the meaning of words is that they look at how they are used in context. Linguists, Greek scholars, and lexicographers who put together language dictionaries look at what words mean in context.

So the thought-map for 'time' (roughly pronounced 'tea may', probably without the English y-sound diphthong ending we do not realize we say when we read such things), translated 'honor' includes the concept of things given to honor someone (or a group) in certain contexts.

I think we both agree that I Timothy 5 talks about the type of widows the church should materially support. But notice the wording used to open up this topic in verse 3, "Honour widows that are widows indeed." Paul says to honor the widows, and then goes into detail on what widows to materially support....i.e. honor.

In the same chapter, he writes about elders,
16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

I leave verse 16 for context. He's talking about the church being charged. He just finished up a section on what older women to support-- widows indeed. Then he talks about what elders to honor (implies compensation also)- them that rule well.

And notice the reasoning in verse 18. 'Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn' is the same saying he refers to in I Corinthians 9 to argue that he had a right to live of the Gospel. He had a right to have the Corinthians support him.

The other saying is extremely similar to the saying of Christ directed at the 70 when He went them out.
Luke 10
4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
5 And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house.
6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again.
7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:

They weren't allowed to take a money bag with them. They were to enter into people's houses and eat and drink. In one of the similar passages about sending out the twelve, Jesus told them to inquire who in the town was worthy and to go there. The house that would not receive them would face judgment in the future. They were to eat and drink in that house.

This was commanded here with the 70. They weren't allowed ot take money. They were commanded to eat and drink on this particular mission.

Paul was not apparently under this specific directive, but he applies the same principle in verse 7 'the laborer is worthy of his hire' to the elders in I TImothy 5 when he says 'The laborer is worthy of his reward.'

Paul DID receive support from believers during his time. He received gifts from Macadonia. Those Philippians supported him. The Corinthians did not. For whatever reason, he decided that he would not do so to cut off occasion from those who would accuse. But those reasons must not have existed in Philippi. Paul wrote to the Corinthians that he had robbed other churches to minister to them, because his needs were met by them of Macadonia. He's using colorful language here. The implication is that if Macedonians were materially supporting him, he should be ministering to them. The Corinthians weren't supporting him, but he was accepting support that normally would go along with ministering in Macedonia to support the Corinthians who weren't supporting him, although he had a right to their support.

I Corinthians 9 is also clear that he had a right to live of the Gospel and require support from the Corinthians. Part of his argument was 'even so hath the Lord ordained that they that preach the Gospel must live of the Gospel" but that he had used none of these rights among them and that he would not allow anyone to deprive him of this boast in the regions of Achaia.

So he was cool with receiving support from Philippi in Macedonia, but not from Corinth for whatever reason. He also supported himself in Thessalonica.

Paul did point the elders of Ephesus of his own example of hard work and self support. What was his example? Even though he had a ____right___ to live of the Gospel and require support of the churches he had won to Christ, he chose to support and others through hard work. But he wasn't totally legalistic about this because he did receive gifts from other churches on occasions. No doubt he considered his relationship with churches and whether receiving support would help or hurt the cause of the Gospel in each case.

Paul was instructing Timothy on how to 'set the church up right' and it was right that the church should 'honor' the elders-- as laborers worthy of their wages.

The widows in Jerusalem were getting a daily distribution of food. I don't know if they got anything else. It doesn't say what they gave the widows Timothy was dealing with. It does make sense, IMO, for elders to be bi-vocational. And Paul appointed elders and wrote about appointing elders-- not young folks in the stage of life where they didn't know what they were going to do with a living and couldn't decided if they ever wanted to get married and all that stuff. These men, for the most part, probably had figured out a way to survive, materially, before being appointed to the role. Acts 14 mentions appointing elders. Titus 1 talks about 'elders' when it hones in on the bishop qualifications. I Timothy 3 doesn't mention elders, though, so I am going with the general gist of scripture. Timothy was involved in apostolic ministry with Paul. Titus was a co-laborer also, with instructions to appoint elders in every city.

You'd have to show the verse you think means the opposite of 'material compensation.' But to clarify, I am not suggesting substituting 'material compensation' every time the KJV, NASB, etc. uses 'honor', but that we understand that the concept of the Greek word translated 'honor' can refer to compensation given to honor someone. I am talking about the range of meaning as attested by the usage of the word in the language. I'm not a Greek expert, but I gave an extrabiblical example just to show the range of meaning, and the context of the passage uses 'honor' and gives sayings about compensation which clarify the issue. It also uses 'honor' in the context of materially supporting widows.

I read in a book about customs of Bible lands that seemed to focus on Bedouin customs, that there was a custom of housing and feeding anyone who touched their tent string for three days. The Didache requires housing a prophet or apostle for three days, also. It goes further and says the one who stays longer than three days is a false apostle if I remember right. The Jews also had Abraham's example of showing hospitality. I am unaware of specific commands in the Torah about hospitality per se. But Jael also opened her home to an enemy general, and he ended up with a tent peg in his head.

The apostles imposing hospitality upon those deemed worthy by local villagers might have fit better with the customs of hospitality back then that ours. But they still had a right to be housed and fed or else the house would come under judgment. (They were instructed to shake off the dust of their feet. The judgment might have been contingent on their obedience to this.)

Jesus saw a short man in a tree and told him that he was going to his house. He invited Himself to lunch or dinner and ate with the tax collector.

presidente · Jan 23, 2020

billabong said:

And we need to read all of those instructions and consider the whole message on this issue. In I Corinthians 9, Paul makes it clear that it was his right to receive support. The Lord ordained it. But he was not availing himself of his rights. From early in the chapter, we see that Paul and Barnabas were not (always) using these rights, but Cephas and the Lord's brother apparently were. Cephas may have given up fishing for fish, and the Lord's brother's may have shut the carpentry business down and gone full time.

And you also need to look at I Timothy 5 and see who was and was not supposed to 'burden' the church. Paul did want the widows who met the criteria to be supported. He did not want the widows who had sons, etc. to support them to 'burden' the church. He did want elders who ruled well to be supported.

Obviously God does know what's best. That's why we need to study and believe what the Bible teaches. We are studying this now. I think you should study more deeply before you draw your conclusions. The elders who rule well are indeed worthy of their reward, and we should not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads the grain.

presidente · Jan 23, 2020

billabong said:

And we need to read all of those instructions and consider the whole message on this issue. In I Corinthians 9, Paul makes it clear that it was his right to receive support. The Lord ordained it. But he was not availing himself of his rights. From early in the chapter, we see that Paul and Barnabas were not (always) using these rights, but Cephas and the Lord's brother apparently were. Cephas may have given up fishing for fish, and the Lord's brother's may have shut the carpentry business down and gone full time.

And you also need to look at I Timothy 5 and see who was and was not supposed to 'burden' the church. Paul did want the widows who met the criteria to be supported. He did not want the widows who had sons, etc. to support them to 'burden' the church. He did want elders who ruled well to be supported.

Obviously God does know what's best. That's why we need to study and believe what the Bible teaches. We are studying this now. I think you should study more deeply before you draw your conclusions. The elders who rule well are indeed worthy of their reward, and we should not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads the grain.

presidente · Jan 23, 2020

Angela53510 said:

Matthew quotes from Isaiah 53 about physical healing.

Matthew 8
15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered unto them.
16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:
17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.

You could listen to him. It's been a while, but I believe he does go verse by verse. He'll talk about how important it is to use the KJV, and say, 'Strongs is for the strong, and Young's is for the Young.', and talk about how important it is to use the Strong's concordance. In the message I heard, he came up with a crackpot argument using one of the words listed in the glossary in the Strong's. 'Spine' for tree was supposed to prove somehow that Eve had sex with the serpent. I guess he figures since serpents have spines, that makes sense to him. It doesn't say she had sex with the tree. He didn't go into details on that point. Another point he made was that the Greek word for seed in the parable of the harvest at the end of the age sounds like sperm. It can mean that in other contexts. He interpreted the parable to be about the supposed physical descendants of Satan through Eve, who he alledges became the Kenite people and infiltrated the Jewish leadership and pretended to be Jews. If Hitler had heard and believed this, maybe he could have slept better at night.

So yeah, he went verse by verse and used the Strong's concordance. Of course, the Strong's has limitations, and just pulling one word out of a list of ways a word is translated or a glossary entry and trying to spin a tale about that word isn't the way to use it. You would know there are much better tools than a Strong's when it comes to getting at the meaning of a Greek or Hebrew word.

I ran my references on Kenites and concluded the Kenites in Israel were on good terms with Israel and a number of them were descended from Moses' in-laws.

Murray may not have physically separated people from their families, but I think the frequent degrading comments made broadly about other preachers and the insults of those who disagreed with him may have served some of the same purposes of some of the other cult techniques. It's a way of brainwashing people into believing in you. If you get people to believe a little of what you say and like you, then if they are going to keep believing and following you, then they have to justify your negative comments about all the other teachers. The easiest way to do that is to believe it. And if they hear that sort of talk over and over again, they believe it. They come out thinking Murray has the inside scoop and almost all the other preachers are false. Maybe it's not a full-blown sociological cult, but it does seem to brainwash.

It also reminds me of some of the MGTOW people I have encountered online. This is the 'men going their own way' movement who are against men marrying. They point out legitimate problems with the legal system where a woman can marry a man and strip him of regular access to his children and his possessions through divorce. But they get people to conform to their anti-marriage agenda by name calling and insulting. If men want to be a part of the online community, they either get called names or conform. Maybe not all MGTOW are like that, but some groups are.

I think you are overstating the case there. Historically, we haven't all had access to multiple sources. I am sure there are many pastors who would have thought it was a blessing to have just one commentary aside from the Bible two hundred years ago. There have been illiterate villagers who relied on one missionary for the gospel, also.

I think she is into Shepherd's Chapel. Calvary Chapel is a different group of churches. They also tend to go verse by verse, but they are more mainstream evangelical with roots in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements.

I am concerned for people who follow Murray and treat him like a mediator of God's truth. But I believe he may have passed away several years ago.

Why pastors and preachers should not be receiving salaries

Junior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Senior Member

Junior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member