Quote:
Originally Posted by YP0534
I think it's obvious. 
Realizing some can argue straight hair into curly, I don't think there's any real controversy with your reading there. And I'm not certain it should be done generally with the saints but that is definitely a whole nuther topic.
That said, I think this significantly undercuts your theory about "elderLY" as a reading. Why would the old men be called out in such an especially prescribed manner?
While we're at it, v. 18 of this section speaks directly to the concept of a paid clerical class, no? Isn't this the real intent of v. 17's "double honor" phrase?
Sorry. This is what I'm talking about that I'm trying to understand the whole of the classical context. This appears to me to the plain reading of the section and it is corroborated in 1 Cor. 9.
Paul appears to expressly sanction a compensated professional clergy. He himself, he says in 1 Cor. 9, declined to exercise his right to compensation but that it was in fact his due, even as the oxen had a legal right.
Without making too much here of the fact that Paul AGAIN makes an appeal to the Law in 1 Cor. for proof of his position (the other being in chapter 14 concerning submission), doesn't the fact that he's got people designated to receive compensation weigh heavily in favor of the existence of an "office" of "elder" and not merely the more mature informally taking the lead? |
I considered that it could cut against my "elderLY" reading and it very well might. But it does inherently do so. Even if the section is talking about the "elderLY"
who take the lead, such ones - that is ones who take on work
for others, such ones take on greater accountablity, whether they have office or not. If someone, without office, takes on a burden to labor for the church and, "especially" to teach, then such a one takes on greater accountability. I think this prinicple is valid regardless of "office" or station.
So, I think the 1 Tim 5 reading is still a valid one. That said, even accepting such a reading does not mean there weren't, in fact, offices at the time of Paul - prescribed or inherited. And, as such, its entirely possible that Paul saw an "office" of elder who deserved pay...
Peter