[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

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

I'm really distressed about the model Paul apparently lays out for a paid clergy. While he himself made tents and at least on this cited occasion declined to accept anything monetary, he has established that there are some who should get money for their Christian labor. Indeed, he has declared it a legal right on the principle of othe ox. The Lord said to go without a purse. Paul says he could demand money. Isn't there a contradiction there?