pay your church leader's wage?

Please read 1Timothy 5

This passage is sometimes used to justify a call for people to financially support the leaders of local churches and parishes.  But is this an accurate assessment of the passage?

It should first be noted that of the various English bible translations, only a few mention "financial support".  Of these, the inclusion sometimes appears within brackets indicating uncertainty as to whether or not it should really be there.

For the most part, the translation typically reads: "Consider the elders who rule/lead you.   Honour them, especially if they work hard to peach and teach."

Can we say with confidence that God asks people to financially support their leaders?  Maybe, bu  because is verse is unclear, it is not safe to assume we do.  Let us continue.

The next question is who these elders are.  Are they elders in character regardless of age, such as appear in Titus or Timothy? Or are they elders as in older members of a community?

Please read again versus 5:1 and 5:17 and also use the concordance (left sidebar).  What is the Greek word being translated as elder in each verse? Are they the same or different words?  What is their respective contexts?

• 5:1 ... indicates elder as in age
• 5:17... unclear
• However, the focus is similar in both verses.  What is this focus?  Even the wording seems almost identical.
• What does this similarity suggest about who 1Timothy 5 is speaking of?

Could an analogy be being made between how we treat older people (5:1) and our church leaders (5:17)?  Maybe, but to do this requires using everything before 5:17, and treating it as a metaphor. This includes what is spoken of about widows because what is shared about them flows out of 5:1.   In short, everything prior to 5:17 is about elder in age.  Also there  is no transition (eg like, therefore, parable intro, etc) to suggest 5:17 starts a new topic.

So for the moment imagine an analogy is being made.  How would this read?  But before you do, consider what does it mean to "honour them"?  Again use the concordance to look up the word "honour".  What is the Greek word?  Now use the concordance to look at 5:3.  Find where this Greek word also appears.  Why in this sentence does it not translate "honour" but instead "take care of"?  Why is it specifically used for widows?

What happens if we insert the translation, because we treat what is written as an anology, of elder as church elder as in function regardless of age, as occurs in the church life today?  It would read something like:  "Care for your local church elders.  However, if they have the ability to support themself, let them.  If they cannot, but have kids or grandkids, let their own family support them so it may not be a burden on the broader church.  Failing these, please take care of them yourself."

Okay, they may not be widows, nor older members of the community, but care for church leaders anyway.  How?  In the same way as the frail, the vulnerable, the isolated, the family-less, the ones who have little option but the support of others.  Care for them because they have one of a wide variety of roles among God's kingdom.

Does this sound like an analogy of leadership?  Does this sound like a gospel founded leader?  Why would a list be given for what it means to be a true widow, someone really in need, and then say to someone who takes up a leadership role, be like that, this is how God want his leaders to be?

In other words, does 1Timothy 5 speak of leaders of local churches as we understand them today? Does either the text or God's heart allow it?  Does the language or context speak of people older in age with certain needs or leaders whatever their age?  Yes, we may choose to cared for/support our church leaders because they lead, but does this passage either  raise the issue, let alone require it?

Does the pastor, priest, leaders of your church or parish fit this need?  Does choosing to go into full time ministry qualify that person for being support according to is passage?  Could doing other work, a job, detract from running the logistics of the local church?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  But regardless, does worrying about the consequences of ministry involvement create the meaning of this passage or simply your interpretation of it?