Should a pastor that spends most of his time preaching and teaching get paid for what God has him to do? I know what the scriptures says about this, but would you pastor for free?

Views: 2773

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It apparent you read and understand the Word. Many are caught up in the passions of the day and the statement, but what does the scripture tell us. These people, like the Pope, were very well cared for, first. Remember Paul was a cardinal, an emissary of the group sent went his own army. They were getting paid. The grass roots group of "the Way" were given money, food and clothing everywhere they went. They took care of those who followed them and their was always at least 120 everyday, who were apart of their group.
I would disagree with calling them Popes and Cardinal due to the origin of meaning. Paul was rightfully called an Apostle. That term command far more respect and holds a more biblical meaning than "Pope" or "Cardinal" ever meant.

With that said, an Apostle as an Ambassador of the Kingdom, lived debt free, for the Kingdom itself paid for everything by its citizens. The Shepherds lived by literally "fleecing the flock" (which is a term that has been made to sound evil). Teachers/Rabbis almost never taught for free. Even when they did, the people took care of them anyway. No Prophet went without provision where ever they went, for true people of GOD took care of true Prophets of GOD. And an Evangelist was valued, for they drew the masses to the cause that they promoted, because by origin an Evangelist was a promoter/advertiser of a thing or product. Don King is the Evangelist of the Boxing world; commercials are the Evangelists of their products; Billy Graham is the Evangelist of the Church of the Living GOD.
Sorry Trevor, a Sadducee were different than the Pharisee they were one of the four schools of thought. The others being the Essenes (they were the revoutionaries or the actively passionate group; Sadducees had many thoughts recognizing only the written letter of the Torah and they rejected life after dearth. They were conservative and aristocratic and Paul was a Sadducee. the Pharisee were eclectic , more democratic and polular, any believe that the Rabbinic interpretation of the Mosaci law as they were the priest closest to the people. I'll wait while you check.
Rev,

Actually, Paul was a Pharisee, as he states in Acts 23:6,"Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees." The problem with the Pharisees, at least some of them, was that they regarded the Talmud & Mishna over the written letter of the Torah.
1) You are totally off here because Paul is a Pharisee.

2) I never mentioned nor referred to him being Pharisee, Sadducee, or anything like that. Thats has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I mentioned that Paul was an APOSTLE. After becoming an Apostle of JESUS CHRIST, Paul lived outside of his Pharisaical training.
Trevor,

Scriptures reveal that Paul was indeed true to his Pharsaic training. Acts 23:6. Acts 24-25 accounts Paul saying that he did nothing to defend the Torah of his fathers. Obviously, he kept Torah, as Yehwah commanded to be observed throughout generations.. forever.
Blah Blah Blah......Never mind the fact that he said:
1st Corinthians 9:19-21 "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law."

Verse 21 shows a MAJOR difference that you refuse to acknowledge!!
Good afternoon my sister in Christ Jesus Rev. Sunee Robinson, here is a definition of
Pharisees
Separatists (Heb. persahin, from parash, "to separate"). They were probably the successors of the Assideans (i.e., the "pious"), a party that originated in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes in revolt against his heathenizing policy. The first mention of them is in a description by Josephus of the three sects or schools into which the Jews were divided (B.C. 145). The other two sects were the Essenes and the Sadducees. In the time of our Lord they were the popular party (John 7:48). They were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses (Mat 9:14; Mat 23:15; Luke 11:39; Luke 18:12). Paul, when brought before the council of Jerusalem, professed himself a Pharisee (Acts 23:6-8; Acts 26:4, 5).
There was much that was sound in their creed, yet their system of religion was a form and nothing more. Theirs was a very lax morality (Mat 5:20; Mat 15:4, 8; Mat 23:3, 14, 23, 25; John 8:7). On the first notice of them in the New Testament (Mat 3:7), they are ranked by our Lord with the Sadducees as a "generation of vipers." They were noted for their self-righteousness and their pride (Mat 9:11; Luke 7:39; Luke 18:11, 12). They were frequently rebuked by our Lord (Mat 12:39; Mat 16:1-4).
From the very beginning of his ministry the Pharisees showed themselves bitter and persistent enemies of our Lord. They could not bear his doctrines, and they sought by every means to destroy his influence among the people.
God Speed and Good Journey...
—Easton's Illustrated Dictionary
Sharpspear:

What you said was interesting, but ended totally inaccurate. Allow me to explain. You said in your statement:

"The moneychangers found a way to collect money too. Satan's only creation,MONEY.The Messiyah Yahoshua didn't have any, He only had FREE SALVATION, HalleluYAH."

I have to totally disagree with this standpoint of yours. For starters, this is not a "money changers" matter. You being familiar with scripture should know what the money changers were in the Temple doing. They weren't of the priesthood, but merchants. Also, Satan creates absolutely NOTHING. He is only a perverter of things, not a creator. If Satan created money or currency, then why would GOD say that HE would bless us with it in His scriptures? As far as Messiah not having any, I disagree with that as well. Far too long people have run with this "poor righteous Teacher" thought, indicating that if you want to be righteous, then being poor automatically goes hand-n-hand with it. This is as false a doctrine as to say that JESUS was an Arab Muslim or a Buddhist Monk! Poverty does not automatically mean righteousness. In fact, things like poverty often viewed in the Bible as being right along with famine, and both are 9 out of 10 times viewed as a curse!

Also, salvation is not free at all. It cost the FATHER His Son, and it will cost us our servanthood. The investment is well worth it, but don't say it is free! NOTHING GOOD IS FREE! You just don't pay for salvation with gold or silver.
I believe that a under shepherd is worthy of his wages, but if the congregation is in economic failure...then the man /woman of God should look to the hill from whence cometh their help...God Jehovah Jireh... the one that seeth and provides... and our motivation should not be money, but soul saved to the glory of God... this is inclusive of all walks of ministry. For God is our source and He will provide if we are in Him, for we can do nothing apart from Him for He is the True Vine and we are the branches... Hallelujah and Amen
God Speed and Good Journey!!!
If a congregation is in economic failure, then that should be a Pastor's focus. When in need of healing, who needs to here about tongues? When in need of a home, who needs to here about the five fold ministry? If a church has a need, then fulfill that need. If the Church is in economic despair, then finacial teaching/blessings are the answer to the need!
No way should a pastor, pastor a church for free. The bible says a labourer is worthy of his hire. The only way I can see myself pastoring a church for free is at the beginning when the church is at the set up stage/beginning stage.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Raliegh Jones Jr..   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service