hat kind of church leadership offices
and structure does the Bible call for? Should it consist of elders, deacons, pastors, bishops, presbyters, priests or some of each? Should
it be a highly vertical church hierarchy?
Or should there be no hierarchy or leadership at all, like in Quaker meetings?
Should there be more than one clergyman tending to a single church congregation?
Should the clergy be salaried?
These questions can easily be answered by looking at the Bible and then by looking to see how those directives were put into practice in the very first Christian churches. We know from the Bible that the Apostles were actively involved in organizing the first churches and if anyone would know how Jesus would want His church organized, surely those personally discipled by Him would know! Not surprisingly, when we compare the Christian church of the first century or so with the instructions for church organization in the Bible, we see that the early church based their leadership structure on the New Testament guidelines. In this document, we will also take a brief look at the leadership structure in the Apostolic Christian Church and see how that compares to the organizational model specified in the Bible.
Elders, Bishops, Pastors And Presbyters, What's The Difference?
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. (1 Timothy 5:17)
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14)
For by it the elders obtained a good report. (Hebrews 11:2 )
For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? (1 Timothy 3:5)
Biblical scholars have noted that the words elder, bishop, presbyter and pastor were used interchangeably when discussing the office of the church elder in the Bible; the word "elder" was used the one used the most, however. Most denominations have come to see all of these as separate and different church offices, but that is not the way it was in the beginning. The usage of the word "elder" in the Bible the word can mean either an older person (such as in the phrase, "Respect your elders") or a person in the position of an overseer or the office of overseer. Often one has to carefully look at the context where the word is used in the New Testament to understand its meaning.
We can see from the description of the office of elder in 1 Timothy 3 and in Titus 1 that this office involved teaching, overseeing, disciplining, exhorting and generally taking care of the church membership. It is believed that church office of elder was modeled after the board of elders which governed the Jewish synagogues of the day. The elders on a synagogue's board of elders were almost always older men, hence the name elder.
In case you were wondering, all elders were men. This followed Christ's model (all of his Apostles were men) and Paul's epistles (women were to not to be in authority over men, women were to keep silent in the church and the qualifications for an elder required that he be a man). There is clear evidence, however, that women were involved in other ways in the church and in other church functions. We will examine the issue of women in the ministry in another separate article.
No Priests?
New Testament elders (or any other Christians for that matter) were never referred to as "priests" while the Apostles roamed the earth. The Greek words that the New Testament authors used when talking about Christian elders, pastors, bishops, presbyters, Apostles, etc. could in no way be construed to mean "priest" or to refer to Old Testament priests. Many of the New Testament authors wrote about the Jewish priests of their day and always chose a specific Greek word that clearly meant priest (and this word was never used to refer to a minister of the Gospel). There is good reason for this, the legitimacy of the Old Testament priesthood ended with the ultimate sacrifice, that is Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
The title of priest only came into use after Roman Catholic clergy adopted the title in an effort to give themselves the prestige and privileges of the Old Testament priests. The first recorded example of the use of the term to refer to a clergyman in early church documents was when a clergyman was trying to justify reinstituting the Old Testament practice of tithing to the church (and naturally, a large portion of that tithe was expected to be used by the clergy)! Roman Catholic priests also portray themselves as Old Testament priests when they supposedly sacrifice the body of Christ anew, day after day in their Mass ceremonies; they use Old Testament scriptures about the priesthood and sacrifice of animals in an effort to justify the practice and their role in it.
Why So Many Elders?
From the Bible it is clear that unlike most denominations today, the office of elder (or bishop or pastor, etc.) was not filled by a single person, but a several men; having more than one minister for a single congregation was the norm. For example, it is no coincidence that elders are always mentioned in the plural in the Bible unless the message is addressed to a specific elder. The plural ministry was not a result of having to tend to large congregations; we know that the overwhelming majority of congregations were very small, generally the number of people who could fit into a single home.
From 1 Timothy 5:17 we can see that in the early years that not all elders were actively involved in preaching and teaching. Some of the first elders were probably included Christ's original disciples; no doubt the early church relied on them for their wisdom and leadership. On the other hand, Paul's description of this church office seems to indicate that preaching and teaching was more likely than not because teaching and exhortation abilities were listed as requirements of the position in Titus & 1st Timothy. Also, according to the tradition started by the Apostles, elders in the early church kept their positions until death or until they were unable to attend to their duties, as long as they were in good standing.
The plural elder model was followed by the early church, however, near the end of the first Christian century a practice began of placing one elder above the others, a "senior elder," type of position. This was probably a natural progression as it would be difficult to keep order if every elder had equal authority. There probably became a need for such a position after all of the Apostles had died and left a leadership vacuum. We can see from the New Testament that the Apostles had more or less acted in the capacity of "senior elders" while they were alive. It does not appear that the Apostles asked for any special status, but it came to them naturally out of respect for them as the first disciples of Christ.
This is the form of church government in the Apostolic Christian Church, that is, there is one elder to oversee the local church and several elders beneath him (though to avoid confusion, the elders beneath the "senior elder" are not called elders, but simply "ministers" and the "senior elder" is just called "elder"). All ministers are chosen from among the brothers in good standing in the church. And ministers generally keep their position for life, as long as they are in good standing and able to keep up with their ministerial duties. Typically, elders serve some years as ministers before being promoted to the position of elder. Promotion to elder happens when the local church approves it through an election and the subsequent nod of approval from the national elder body.
How Ministers Were Chosen
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. (Titus 1:5)
And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (Acts 14:23)
If we look to the Bible, we can see that ministers were always chosen from the members of the local congregation. We can look to several Biblical examples to determine exactly how to choose the minister in the local church. For example, in Acts 1 we see that a replacement for the missing Apostle (Judas) was chosen by first allowing a group of about 120 disciples to nominate two worthy individuals. One of his qualifications was that he had to be a disciple of Jesus from His baptism to His resurrection. The final selection was made by casting lots. Some Anabaptist denominations have a used variation of this process for choosing their ministers. However, it is debatable if this process for electing a onetime replacement for one of the twelve Apostles should extend to choosing ministers and elders.
In the new churches that Paul and the other evangelists started, it appears that all of the ministers were appointed by Paul or one of the Apostles or one of their fellow evangelists. The word "ordained" in the King James version of the Bible is better translated into modern English as "appointed." This is a logical means of choosing leadership for a brand new church, as the only ones firmly rooted in the faith in the young church were Paul, the Apostles and their associates; they were best qualified to determine who was sound and firm in their faith and ready for a leadership position. We know from early church writings that this practice continued, although in most cases, an informal vote or "testing of the waters" was made to make sure that the candidate had the support of the laity. However, there is at least one early account of the selection of a bishop which seems to indicate that the candidate was arrived at purely by the vote of the congregation (but this was certainly an exception to the rule).
In the earliest days, as best as can be discerned from the records that were passed down, many ministers in the Apostolic Christian Church were appointed or at least singled out by existing elders as potential candidates for the ministry. However, a vote of confidence was held to see if the potential minister had the support of the congregation before ordaining him into the ministry. However, the common practice these days is for the ministers to be elected by the congregation, however, the candidate is subject to the approval of the elders of the denomination before he can be ordained.
The Church As A Social Agency?
The early church provided food and housing for the sick, the poor, orphans and widows, especially for those within the church itself. The Christians' great compassion was one of the things that their contemporaries noticed about them, it stood in stark contrast to the selfish ways of the pagans. They did this because they took the example of Jesus to heart; that is, His compassion for the poor and sick.
From the Bible we see that the first Christian martyr, Stephen, had been selected to take care of the needs of widows (Acts 6). And very first church elders sent relief to others in need (Acts 11:29-30). Paul collected money from the churches for these charitable causes (the subject pervades 2 Corinthians) and exhorted the churches to support their widows if they are in need (1 Timothy 5:3-16).
One needs to remember that the modern safety nets we are have come accustomed to such as health, property & life insurance plans, government social agencies and welfare programs did not exist at the time. To belong to a compassionate church was a great asset in those times. However, ironically, it appears that it may have been this act of church benevolence that eventually led, in part, to the corruption of the ministry, because it put the ministry in direct contact with money.
The Church Building
Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. (Colossians 4:15)
Phi 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house. (Philemon 1:2)
In the beginning, all church services were held in private homes. When the church membership would exceed the capacity of a home (about 20-30 people by most estimates), large homes were often converted into buildings to be used exclusively for worship by removing all unnecessary walls. We know from archaeological excavations of these converted church-houses that the typical room in which they assembled could only accommodate a maximum of about 70 people at one time (though there were smaller rooms which could may have been concurrently used for religious instruction and the like) The small size of churches was probably in part because few in their contemporary pagan society looked unfavorably on the new religion (thus a high likelihood of persecution), so it was best to not draw attention to one's self by constructing special buildings for worship. And of course, being new, the number of followers were very small in the beginning.
One possible exception to the house church was in Rome where some believers met in the catacombs; we don't know if this occurred regularly or just for memorial services (the meeting areas were usually set up next to niches where Christian martyrs were buried); in any case, these spaces were very small and probably could not accommodate any more people than the house churches.
By the third century, there were a handful of church structures that were not homes, modified homes or alcoves in the catacombs. The church had grown so much in some of the largest cities that some larger buildings were purchased and modified for their own use. This, of course, could only happen if there was a lengthy lull in the persecution of the church. We know from historical records that by the time Constantine took the throne, most, if not all of this church property had been confiscated by the government. The large sumptuous, ostentatious church buildings that we associate with the early church did not appear until Constantine (the first Roman emperor to openly embrace Christianity) built some large churches for the Christians; the buildings were based on the Roman basilicas of the day.
Where Did Salaried Pastors Originate?
Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:8-10)
There was no such thing as a salaried minister in the early church. The idea of a minister not doing anything to support himself and expecting his fellow members, (many of them slaves or from the working poor) to pay him a salary would have been scandalous and unthinkable in the first two centuries of the church. However, this later changed because of a synergy between the actions of Emperor Constantine towards the church and the various emerging new trends in the church.
Constantine's Benevolence To The
Church: Probably the most important influence
was
the Roman emperor Constantine's benevolence to the church. Not only did
he build church buildings for the Christians, but he donated large sums of money
to the church charities, released the clergy from all of their secular civic
duties so that they could work full-time in the church---and he instituted
the practice of providing state-funded salaries for the clergy.
Before this, there were some early church examples of bishops mooching off of food contributions for the poor (apparently with the approval of the laity), but examples of bishops expecting to live completely off of the church were unknown. However, once Constantine changed the pattern, the church did not deviate from it; clergy in all but the smallest and poorest of churches began to expect their congregations to support them in totality.
And we should not minimize the effect that the new church buildings had on the church. After Constantine, the large, lavish church buildings became the norm, not the small house churches. Instead of visiting in homes in their immediate area, believers were encouraged to travel to the new church buildings in the center of town. This change meant that large groups of people were now concentrated in one church.
The large buildings became a source of town pride and each successive one built tended to be larger and more ostentatious so that it rivaled those of neighboring towns. The buildings required huge sums of money for their construction and to maintain them. Incidentally, this change was one of the things which spurred the Reformation about a thousand years later (the pope's extravagant building program and reckless spending had forced the church deep into debt, leading him to aggressively sell indulgences to raise funds, which got the attention of Luther and other potential reformers).
Concentration Of Power: The new large churches only added to a trend that had already started, the concentration of power around bishops, particularly those in large cities. At first, the effort was at creating a bishop who would be in control of a geographic territory or "bishopric." After Constantine, the hierarchy was eventually expanded to include archbishops who were in control of several districts and ultimately a single archbishop who was in control of the entire church (the pope).
The new hierarchical form of church government meant that the charitable contributions from the laity in vast regions got funneled up to the top of the hierarchy. Because the regions were so large, the amount of money flowing up to the top was enormous. Originally, the money was only meant to be used for charitable causes, but the huge sums of money proved to be too much of a temptation for many. It did not take long before most in the ministry, particularly those in control of large districts, succumbed to the temptations of money and were living quite lavishly at the expense of their parishioners (and attempting to justify their actions). There were some efforts to reform this over the centuries, but without success. This practice has continued in the Roman Catholic Church until this day (for example, most Roman Catholic bishops live in lavish mansions and many ride in chauffeur-driven limousines).
We have seen recent examples of what can happen when
clergy are faced with large amounts of money, just look at has happened to many
televangelists who bring in millions 
of dollars with their "ministries."
Much of the money, supposedly designated for charities and for constructing
buildings for various religious institutions mysteriously ends up in the hands
of the preachers and their families, leading to such abuses such as the infamous
air-conditioned doghouse and gold faucets of the Bakkers of the Praise The Lord
ministry. Of course, probably the ultimate abuse of money by the clergy can
be seen at the Vatican where the Roman Catholic Church built not just a lavish
mansion, but an entire city for their top clergy; the buildings are clad
in marble, silver, gold and precious stones and decorated with paintings and
sculptures worth at least several trillion dollars; a glaring tribute to the
long, sordid history of abuse of money in the Roman Catholic Church.
Formal Religious Education: In the earliest days, there was no such thing as formal religious education. But by the end of the second century, a few religious schools had been founded. Many of them incorporated the philosophy of the day and other secular topics into their curriculum along with Christian teaching in an effort to entice students. It wasn't long before graduates of these schools started to be held in greater esteem than their colleagues. Before long, it became an accepted practice to expect those seeking a position in the clergy to first attend some kind of formal religious education.
During the first centuries of the early church, nearly every boy was expected to learn a trade, whether from his father, or as an apprentice or through formal education of some sort. If someone sought formal religious education, that pretty much sealed his vocational fate, he was going to be a clergyman or work for the church in some capacity and few would expect him to do otherwise, because he had not learned another trade.
This idea has followed us into modern times, where many see formal religious education ("divinity" and theological programs at seminaries and universities) as a career choice and the ministry as just another vocation. And as with all secular careers, one naturally expects to be paid for his efforts while employed in that vocation.
Elevation Of The Clergy: The strict church hierarchy would have been nearly impossible, if the clergy had not been elevated in prominence above the laity. And there can be no doubt that formal religious education added to this trend. The elevation of the clergy led to the eventual complete separation between the laity and clergy; the clergy became to be seen as much more holy and in tune with God than the laity (the priest was only second in power and holiness to God Himself, according to Roman Catholic doctrine). This meant that the reverse was also true, that is, the laity were generally expected to be less holy and less religious and less in tune with God than the clergy; sadly, this has become a self-fulfilling prophecy in many denominations.
As this idea became commonplace, the idea of promoting a common, hard-working, working-class person who sat in the pews to stand behind the pulpit and teach and preach religion (without some kind of special calling and a substantial, formal religious education) was not even within their scope of reason. Because of the exalted position of the clergy in the minds of most of the laity and the assumption that the clergy were not going to hold down a regular job, it became accepted to give money to the clergy for their religious services.
Do The Scriptures Advocate A Salaried Minister?
1st Corinthians 9: The efforts to justify salaried clergy with Scripture are fairly recent, relatively speaking. Let's take a look at the scriptures most denominations use in an effort to justify their salaried clergy. First, we start with 1 Corinthians 9:4-18, the reference that is most convincing:
Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
If you are familiar with this passage (which pastors often conveniently bring up in their sermons around the time their compensation is being considered), you probably never got to hear the last two paragraphs, where Paul states that he preaches the Gospel "without charge" and will not "abuse" his "power" by asking for something in return for his evangelistic efforts!
However, let's summarize what he has said here, the words he wrote here were very carefully chosen. First, he talks about his "power" several times, what is meant by this? This word was also translated as "authority" or "right" in other places in the King James version of the Bible and they may better choices here (incidentally, the NASB, NIV and NJK versions have all translated this word as "right"); in other words Paul is saying that he has the right "to eat and to drink" and their wives and siblings too, if they are taking them along (i.e., "leading them about"). His uses several analogies to demonstrate his point; for example, no warrior provides his own rations (rations being the literal meaning of the Greek word translated as "charges" here, according to Strong's Concordance; also translated as "rations" in the Transline translation, a literal, word-for-word translation of the Bible). We know that the Roman military rations were food and drink (and is still true for most modern armies). He then goes into various agricultural analogies showing that of those who raise animals for their milk or cultivate vineyards and grain, expect to eat the produce from their farms and even the ox grinding at the mill was to be allowed to eat the grain that spilled out into his path as a reward for his work.
Next he uses some Old Testament illustrations, for example, those who attended to the sacrifices on the altar were allowed to eat the meat from the animals sacrificed there. He finishes with his most convincing argument, that even the Lord Himself has ordained that those who preach the Gospel should "live of the Gospel." What does this mean? And when did the Lord say anything like that? Well, we can get some important clues from Paul's words here. Note that he starts out by saying that he has the power to "eat and drink." Note that every single analogy and scripture reference involves food and drink, including the Old Testament references.
1st Timothy 5: Let's take a look at another Scriptural reference from Paul that many like to use, 1 Timothy 5:3-4,17-19:, it may give us a few more clues regarding the statement from the Lord ordaining the practice Paul is referring to. I have omitted verses 4-16 so that this article does not get excessively long, they deal mainly with determining which widows should be supported by the church.
Honour widows that are widows indeed. Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
The "honor" that was given to the widows without any means of support (such as other family members in the church) was support from the church. Then he goes on to say that the elders, especially if they did much preaching and teaching, were worthy of "double honor." At this point, the argument that these verses (and those in 1 Corinthians) demonstrate that ministers should be salaried may look rather convincing. But let's not be too hasty! Consider the fact that the "honor" does not necessarily refer to monetary support, it very well could refer to providing food and drink and perhaps even lodging, if necessary. And also, when it comes to elders, did this mean that they were to receive support from the church only if they were destitute (like the widows discussed in the verses just before this), or in all cases? His train of thought would appear to lend support to the first option.
Old Testament Citations In Context: Then he repeats the same Old Testament passage about the ox he used in 1 Corinthians. What does this mean? I think it is time to look this verse in context (Dueteronomy 24:19 - 25:4):
When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.
If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his fault, by a certain number. Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.
I have included the larger context of this Old Testament verse so that one can see the overall theme of these scriptures, otherwise the verse about the ox (25:4) looks completely out of place. The overall theme appears to be showing mercy to Gentiles (strangers), widows and orphans by leaving a small portion of the crop behind for them, and also if your brother died leaving a widow behind, by providing her with children (children were highly valued in ancient times because they could help with the field work and provide for you in your old age).
And this charity apparently extended to the ox that was used to grind grain. There is no doubt that this verse was well-known to those conversant in the Jewish Scriptures because this verse about kindness to animals is interjected among verses about kindness to people; it is the type of verse that stands out! So it is very likely that this was a witty way for Paul to refer to all of the surrounding verses regarding charity to widows, orphans and strangers and it certainly fits here, as Paul is talking about showing kindness to widows! Incidentally, the parallel with this Old Testament passage may further extend to 1 Timothy 5:19, "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses..." as this is very similar to "if there be a controversy between men and they come unto judgment..." This parallel with this Old Testament passage helps explain the rather abrupt transition between the two unrelated subjects (charity and accusations) in Paul's letter to Timothy.
Paul's New Testament Citation: Okay, let's finish our discussion of Timothy 5:3-19. Paul referred to one other Scripture, "The laborer is worthy of his reward." Where did this come from? You could look at the Old Testament until you are blue in the face and not find it, because it is not there! Paul is actually paraphrasing a verse from the New Testament (Luke 10:7, also Matthew 10:10). This seems to indicate the early presence of a detailed oral history or that at least one of the Gospels had been written, distributed and well-known in Paul's time! Here is the Scripture in context, (Luke 10:1-12, see also the parallel account in Matthew 10); I have used the NASB here for clarity's sake:
Now after this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them two and two ahead of Him to every city and place where He Himself was going to come. And He was saying to them, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. Go your ways; behold, I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry no purse, no bag, no shoes; and greet no one on the way. And whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace be to this house.' "And if a man of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him; but if not, it will return to you. And stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.
"And whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat what is set before you; and heal those in it who are sick, and say to them, 'The kingdom of God has come near to you.' But whatever city you enter and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.' I say to you, it will be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.
Let's look at what Jesus told his disciples. First, it is clear that He is not referring to someone just preaching in his home town; these were disciples sent out on missionary journeys, healing the sick and preaching the Word. These missionaries expected to be provided food and housing by those they healed and preached to; in short, it was a matter of hospitality. However, nowhere can it be construed that Jesus told the missionaries to expect monetary compensation for their efforts.
It is no coincidence that this was exactly Paul's position; he was a missionary traveling from church to church, preaching the Word and healing the sick. If you recall, in 1 Corinthians 9, Paul began stating his case by arguing that he had the right to food and drink (money was not mentioned) and went on to use analogies and Scriptural references to support this, every single one referencing food or drink! In addition, the context of both the Old and New Testament scriptures he cites in both of his letters refer to food or drink (although, to be clear, the New Testament scripture he cited also includes lodging as part of this hospitality). Incidentally, the Matthew scripture parallel to Luke 10:7 is even more specific, because it states that "the worker is worthy of his food..." (Matthew 10:10) (NKJ). So there is no doubt that the "worker" (i.e., the missionary) was to be "paid" with food and lodging, a form of hospitality.
Galatians 6: Let's take a look a final passage that supposedly supports the idea of a salaried pastor, Galatians 6:1-10:
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.
Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Do you see justification for the salaried pastor here? No? Okay, I admit that I showed the verse within its proper context for a reason. I will single out the verse in question, but with a newer translation so that you can see what those using more modern translations have read into this verse:
And let the one who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches. (Galatians 6:6) (NASB)
Some claim that the phrase "share all good things with him who teaches" refers to monetary compensation. This is quite a stretch because "all good things" means just that, the word choice is purposely ambiguous. Most likely, it is referring to brotherly love and moral support, considering the context about bearing one's burden's, particularly in the case of one's moral weaknesses and susceptibility to temptation. There is nothing in the context of this verse which would lead one to believe that this sentence is talking about providing a salary to the minister (but could appear that way if taken out of context).
1st Timothy 5 Revisited: 1 Timothy 5:17-18 could be construed as support for the idea of an elder getting some type of support from the church, though not a salary or one's entire living. However, the context of these verses seem to indicate something quite different from what many have attempted to read into them.
First, the larger context of this chapter is the church's support of widows who are destitute and which widows are qualified to receive support from the church; it is clear that the subject is the charitable institutions of the church.
Second, the main emphasis deals not so much with the idea of supporting widows, but weeding out the freeloaders, i.e., those who are young enough to work, those who have relatives who can support them, those young enough to marry and consequently could be supported by a husband, and those who are not in good standing with the church (see 1 Timothy 5:3-16). Paul finishes the instructions regarding widows with "Let not the church be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed" (1 Timothy 5:16) (NASB).
Third, we can not safely assume that the elders were the equivalent of the typical modern-day pastor, that is, preaching weekly to a congregation in single church. It is not unlikely that many of the elders Timothy was about to visit were involved in evangelistic and missionary efforts, following the example of Timothy, Paul, many of the Apostles and other evangelists. And there is certainly a precedent for a missionary to also identify himself as an elder, John identified himself as an elder in his introductions to 2nd & 3rd John and according to early church writings, John was involved with missionary work). If these elders Paul had in mind were involved in evangelistic efforts, then his instructions here could be seen as a reiteration of his much clearer comments from 1 Corinthians regarding hospitality to missionaries and evangelists.
Fourth, the context of 1 Timothy 5:17-18 do not support the idea of a salaried pastor. Immediately following the verses on not burdening the church with widows capable of support themselves in some fashion, Paul goes on to say that elders who labor in preaching and teaching are worthy of a double honor. This statement did not come out of the blue, the context clearly indicates that Paul is still talking about charity towards those who are truly destitute, so it would be completely illogical to assume that while only "widows indeed" were to be supported by the church, all elders, even those fully capable of supporting themselves, should expect to gain their entire living from donations of church members. A logical interpretation of these verses would lead one to understand that only elders that were destitute should expect to be given charitable support and that they were doubly due this kind of support because of their efforts at spreading the Gospel.
What It All Means:
So to summarize, there is no New Testament Scriptural support whatsoever for the idea of a minister being paid a salary
or to obtain his entire living from the preaching of the Gospel.
Nor did the early church interpret the Scriptures as condoning or 
promoting the idea of paid pastors. However, there is Scriptural support for a missionary or
traveling evangelist to be supported (on a temporary
basis) by the churches he has founded with their hospitality, that is food,
drink and
lodging, but not financial support.
Now we need to state that the Bible does not specifically say that it is wrong to pay a pastor a salary (although there are plenty of warnings in Scripture about money and riches and greed). However, there is no precedent for it in the Scriptures or the early church. And history has shown us time and time again the corrupting influence of money on the church; it corrupts the morals of the clergy and the salary becomes an incentive to preach only those things which will allow them to keep their jobs and the collection plates full of cash.
Because of this, and very dubious Scriptural support for the idea, the Apostolic Christian Church has chosen to reject the idea of paying their ministers for their services, although they are compensated for missionary types of endeavors, for example, compensation for travel expenses to new churches long distances away (which have not yet installed a minister installed of their own because of their small size).
Other Church Offices
He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. (Ephesians 4:10-12)
And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. (Acts 6:1-4)
Apostle: Some churches claim to have "apostles" but this is contrary to the scriptures. We know from the choosing of Matthias to replace Judas as one of the twelve (Acts 1) that an Apostle had to be a disciple of Jesus while he roamed this earth, (although Paul also claimed the title due to his Damascus road experience with Christ). So the office of Apostle was destined to be a short-lived one.
Deacon: The only other formal church position other than Apostle and elder mentioned in the New Testament was the office of deacon (1 Timothy 3:8). The word translated as "deacon" literally means servant or helper and is actually translated as "servant" eight times in the New Testament (in the King James version). When comparing the duties of the deacon and the elder (or bishop) in 1 Timothy 3, one notices that the qualifications are nearly identical--with one exception: the requirement for teaching ability is conspicuously absent for the deacon.
Most scholars believe that this office originated with the seven disciples who were appointed to manage the charitable distributions of the church (Acts 6:1-7). Acts 6:2 makes it clear that the "ministry of the Word" was not part of the deacon's duties, but the Apostles. It is then no coincidence that the duties of the deacon in the early church were just that: managing the church's charitable contributions! And for many centuries, the church limited the number of deacons to exactly seven based on this chapter of Acts. However, by the third or fourth centuries, the duties of the office of deacon were starting to encroach on the duties of the bishops to include performing many of the church rites.
Others: Now the Bible makes it clear that church members could serve in other capacities, such as evangelists, prophets and teachers, for instance. One who would serve in this capacity was just exercising his spiritual gifts (see 1 Corinthians 12), but these were not leadership positions. These days, most so-called evangelists are also pastors of a church, but that was not the case in the beginning.
Teachers were in great need as Christianity was a new religion which few knew anything about; they taught the Gospel converts or potential converts in the church. These days, this function is fulfilled in part, by Sunday School teachers in most Protestant denominations. Prophets, however, seem to have died out not long after all of the Apostles had passed on. There were a few people later on that claimed to be prophets, but almost invariably, they were also promoting various heresies (i.e., false prophets); it seems as if this is still true today.
It can be seen from the Scriptures that some people exercised more than one spiritual gift and that a formal church office did not preclude one from also practicing his spiritual gifts. For example, Stephen, one of the original seven deacons, was apparently involved in evangelism (Acts 6:8-9).
For More Information
Want to know more? More information on the Biblical standards for ministry and the historical development of church organization can be found on our Beliefs, Articles, Library and History pages.
Bibliography
