The Apostle Paul’s Income and What It Means for Today

Updated August 2022 

I’m usually not bothered by other people’s income, but the apostle Paul’s finances have caused me great angst.

The man who traveled extensively throughout the Roman world, preaching and teaching, also worked a day job. The man who wrote world-changing letters did so free of charge while earning money through manual labor.

Why did Paul roll up his sleeves and get to work? What was he thinking? And why are so few ministers today following his example?

Let’s begin by considering three passages: 1 Corinthians 9:1-14, 1 Timothy 5:17-18, Galatians 6:6.

Reaping a Material Harvest (1 Cor 9)

In 1 Corinthians 9 Paul asks, “If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?” (v. 11).((Unless otherwise stated, Scripture quotations are from NIV, 2011.)) This question reveals a key point: Paul believes he has the right to receive “a material harvest” from the believers in Corinth.What do we know about ancient Corinth? 

E. P. Sanders comments, “Corinth was the capital of Achaia, which was the Roman province that included most of Greece. Its location made it an extremely important city.”((E. P. Sanders, Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought, 225)) In particular, Corinth was located between two harbors so it became “a center of trade and travel and hence commerce of all sorts.”((Stanley E. Porter, The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters, 245)) Gordon Fee even calls it “the New York, Los Angeles and Las Vegas of the ancient world.”((Gordon Fee, cited in Porter, 245)) Additionally, Corinth was the host city of the Isthmian games, held every two years, and “second only to the Olympic games in importance. This event . . . attracted large crowds and generated additional revenue for the city.”(((Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians: Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, 2))

What was Paul’s relationship to these believers? 

According to Acts 18, Paul went to Corinth after preaching in Athens. In Corinth “every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks” (v. 4). Some Jews rejected Paul’s message, even with violence, but “Crispus, the synagogue leader, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard Paul believed and were baptized” (v. 8). Hence, the church in Corinth was founded, probably around AD 50.

In total Paul stayed in Corinth for eighteen months (v. 11), departing around AD 52. Richard Hays writes, “The letter known to us as 1 Corinthians was written some time later, probably during the interval 53–55 C.E. The letter itself indicates that it was written from Ephesus during the spring of the year, prior to Pentecost (1 Cor. 16:8).”((Ibid., 5)) Thus, the church in Corinth was no more than five years old when Paul wrote 1 Corinthians.((Ibid., 6)) 

Now let’s zoom in on the quote in 1 Corinthians 9 by considering the wider literary context in 1 Corinthians 8-10. In this section, relinquishing rights or “authority” (Greek: exousia) for the sake of others is a primary theme. In chapter 8 Paul teaches that a strong believer who eats in an idol’s temple may wound a weak believer’s conscience. Therefore, Paul instructs, “Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak” (v. 9). At the end of chapter 10 Paul is still emphasizing this point:  

“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others. . . . Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— even as I try to please everyone in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved. (vv. 23–33)

In 1 Corinthians 9, then, Paul uses himself as an example of laying aside rights for the sake of others, which fits into his overall argument. 

Verse 11 falls in the middle of Paul’s personal defense, which unfolds this way:  

  • I am an apostle (vv. 1-2).
  • We (Barnabas and I) have the right to food and drink, to take along a believing wife, and to not “work for a living” (vv. 3-6).
  • Soldiers, farmers, shepherds, and even oxen have a right to be compensated for their labor (vv. 7-10).
  • “If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?” (vv. 11-12)
  • Those who serve in the temple (priests) get their food from the temple and those who serve at the altar (Levites or priests) share in what is offered on the altar (v. 13).
  • “In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.” (v. 14)

Six examples are used in this section—soldiers, farmers, shepherds, oxen, priests, Levites—followed by a divine command in verse 14. This argument is meant to persuade the Corinthians of one point: workers have a right to receive material benefits for their labor. Additionally, Paul supports this contention with an appeal to fairness: “If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?” (v. 12). Paul makes his case, then, using the following principles—reciprocity (illustrated by everyday examples), fairness, and a divine command. 

At this point, a qualification is in order: Paul is not arguing that he has the right to enjoy an extravagant lifestyle for sowing spiritual seed in Corinth. “These analogies refer only to maintenance for basic subsistence.”((David Garland, 1 Corinthians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Kindle, 868.)) 

How should the Corinthians answer Paul’s questions in verse 11? The entire thrust of his argument points to one response, “No, it is not too much for you to reap a material harvest from us.” Paul has “sown spiritual seed” among them, meaning he has preached the gospel in Corinth, so material reciprocity is appropriate. 

The principle of giving material blessings in return for spiritual blessings is also expressed in Romans 15: 

For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem. They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings. (vv. 26-27)

Now let’s consider 1 Corinthians 9:13-14:

Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. 

What does “receive their living from the gospel” mean? The Greek says, “So also, the Lord has commanded (or instructed) those who proclaim the gospel to live from the gospel.” Based on this verse alone, the Greek word zoe (live) is ambiguous. However, almost all English versions convey the idea of “livelihood.” For instance,

  • “get their living by the gospel” (CEB)
  • “earn their living by the gospel” (HCSB)
  • “receive their living from the gospel” (NIV)

A minority of versions leave things more ambiguous:

  • “should live by the gospel” (The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition)
  • “should live from the gospel” (NKJV, MEV)

So what does “live from the gospel” mean? Since the phrase itself is vague, we must consider the context. In verse 4 Paul asks, “Don’t we have the right to food and drink?” He proceeds by listing his four examples then asks, “If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?” In verse 13 Paul adds two more examples involving the right to receive food. The immediate focus of Paul’s argument, then, is his and Barnabas’s right to receive a “material harvest” or food. Hence, at a minimum zoe includes the provision of food for those who are traveling and preaching. Again, the emphasis is on subsistence not accruing wealth. 

The Instruction of Christ (Lk 10 & Matt 10)

When did the Lord command that those who preach the gospel should “live from the gospel”? Many believe Paul is referencing the sending out of the seventy-two in pairs to preach. Prior to their departure, Jesus gave these instructions,

When you enter a house, first say, “Peace to this house”. . . Stay there, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. (Lk 10:5-7)

This statement gives us the following insights:

  • Those who have been sent out by Christ to proclaim his message are called “workers.”
  • All workers deserve wages for their labor.
  • The concept of wages is connected to lodging, food, and drink.

Likewise, in Matthew, Jesus told the Twelve,

Acquire no gold or silver or copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food. (Matt 10:9-10 ESV; cf. Mk 6:8-9)

Based on these instructions, Jesus expected his disciples to be provided for while they were carrying out his mission. Verlyn Verbrugge and Keith Krell conclude: 

the Lord Jesus himself did not expect his disciples to set up some shop in a new town in which they would practice a trade or sell goods at a profit; they were workers in the kingdom of God, and such workers should expect that their work was valuable enough to warrant a μισθóς.((Verlyn Verbrugge and Keith Krell, Paul and Money: A Biblical and Theological Analysis of the Apostle’s Teachings and Practices, 42))

The Greek word μισθóς (misthos) can be translated as “reward” or “wage.”

The idea of receiving material support from others would not have been unusual for the disciples. In Luke 8 we read,

After this, Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God. The Twelve were with him, and also some women who had been cured of evil spirits and diseases: Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out; Joanna the wife of Chuza, the manager of Herod’s household; Susanna; and many others. These women were helping to support them out of their own means. (vv. 1-3)

Mark 15 also mentions female supporters:

Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there. (vv. 40-41)

Finally, Verbrugge and Krell write:  

Moreover, we know from John 12:4–6 that Judas was the caretaker of the money bag, which means the disciples must have received some voluntary contributions from those who could afford to give, in order to help pay for the ongoing living expenses of Jesus and his disciples.((Ibid., 40))

I think it’s better to state this with less certainty. Couldn’t the disciples have pooled their money together at the start of the journey and kept it in a money bag? Nevertheless, this scenario is reasonable as a possible third example of Jesus and the disciples receiving from others. 

Elders Deserve Double Honor (1 Tim 5:17-18)

In 1 Timothy 5 Paul applies Jesus’ statement about workers and wages once again, but this time in the setting of church leadership:

The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” (vv. 17-18)

The early church had a leadership structure: Christ is the head; Christ’s apostles were authorized to preach the good news; elders were appointed to direct the affairs of local churches. (See this post for a summary of the NT references to elders.) The plural “elders” shows that Paul is not talking about a solo pastor position. Several people were leading the church in Ephesus. While not every elder preached and taught, the preaching and teaching was carried out by more than one person. 

Paul says that elders “who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor.” What is “double honor”? Although a few translations convey the idea of money, such as “double pay” (GNT), “ample honorarium” (HCSB), “double compensation” (ISV), most translations read “double honor.” The Greek word for “honor” is τιμή (time) and in its 41 NT occurrences it is mostly translated as “honor,” though it is rendered “price” in Matthew 27:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:20.((See this link for every NT occurrence of time.)) Hence, money or pay is not inherent in the meaning of this Greek noun.

Since Paul continues by saying, “Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses” (v. 19), some argue that “double honor” refers to being especially careful when handling accusations against elders. According to this interpretation, the phrase does not convey anything related to finances. However, the law required two or three witnesses for an accusation against anyone (Deut 19:15) so how would following Paul’s instruction be giving “double honor” to elders? 

“Double honor” in 1 Timothy 5:17 probably includes the concept of remuneration for two reasons. First, the verb form of time is used in the same chapter and linked with the concept of financial support. Paul writes, “Honor widows who are truly widows” (1 Tim 5:3 ESV) then he identifies the widows that should be materially supported by the church: “Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband” (v. 9 ESV). Thus, “honor” or “proper recognition” (NIV) a few verses earlier most likely includes financial support. Keep in mind that at this time government welfare programs did not exist for widows and others who were destitute.

Second, following Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 5:17, he combines two quotations—Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7—both expressing the concept of remuneration. He writes, “For Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,’ and ‘The worker deserves his wages’” (v. 18). Why should an ox not be muzzled? Because while an ox is working, it should be allowed to eat. In sum, although “double honor” by itself does not necessarily entail remuneration, the previous use of “honor” in relation to widows and the link with Jesus’ quote—”the worker deserves his wages”—invests it with this meaning.  

In what sense, though, should elders be given double honor? It’s difficult to know for certain, but several commentators settle for the dual ideas of respect and remuneration, which is how John Chrysostom (AD 347-407) understood this instruction. Bill Mounce writes, 

Elders who were carrying out Paul’s instructions were not only supposed to receive their due respect from the church; they were also to be paid for their labor . . . This makes good sense of the double nuance of “respect” and “payment” in both the meaning of τιμή, “honor,” and the context.((Pastoral Epistles: Word Biblical Commentary, 309))

I should add that Mounce believes it is more likely that the payment refers to an honorarium rather than a full-time salary. In other words, Paul was not saying “elders must be paid a full-time salary.” How do we know? First, the historical record shows little to no evidence of full-time compensation for early church leaders. Russell Earl Kelly writes, “My research revealed that church historians, regardless of denomination, often agree that it is highly unlikely that early Christian leaders received full-time compensation for ministering to churches.”((Russell Earl Kelly, website)) Second, Timothy was living in Ephesus so these were instructions for how to treat the Ephesian elders. In Acts 20 Paul directly addresses the Ephesian elders with these words:

You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (vv. 34-35)

Hence the same group of leaders who are “worthy of double honor” and deserve their “wages,” were also expected to work hard and provide for others. They were not expected to receive a full-time salary for their work of ministry. On the other hand, the early church leaders were given some type of remuneration for their labor and Paul encouraged this practice. 

In sum, the context shows that a material harvest is included in the concept of “double honor.” But we cannot use these ancient instructions to argue about the details of twenty-first century paychecks for pastors. 

Sharing with Instructors (Gal 6:6)

In Galatians 6 Paul states, “the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor” (v. 6). What is “all good things”? Many believe “all good things” must include material support of various kinds. 

Martinus de Boer writes,

The imperative of the verb “share” is in the present tense in Greek . . . which can be taken to mean either “Let the one who is instructed continue sharing,” or “Let the one who is instructed make a habit of sharing.” . . . The “word” is the message of “the gospel” . . . whereas the “good things” . . . are probably material goods such as food, shelter, and money. In short, the one who is taught the word is to support the one who teaches it.((Galatians: A Commentary: The New Testament Library, 384.)) 

Regarding the instructors, Peter Oakes says, “Presumably the implication is that such people give up time when they could be working in ways that earn money or produce food, and so forth.”((Galatians: Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament, Kindle, 4472)) This fits the context of Galatians 6:6. Four verses earlier, Paul says, “Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ” so the learners should carry the financial burden of the teachers. 

Oakes continues with insightful comments about Paul’s world,

However, in the Greco-Roman economy, relatively few people had regular wage-earning employment. This means that the issue of financial support of teachers often involves other parties. If the teacher is, say, the adult daughter of a craft-working householder, her teaching time would reduce the amount of her economic contribution to the household. Financial support of her as a teacher would contribute to the household as a whole. The general effect of Paul’s instruction would be to share the cost of teaching among all the households in the house church, rather than letting it devolve solely on the household to which the teacher belongs.((Ibid., Kindle, 4480))

With the difference noted between modern individualism and ancient communalism, Galatians 6 seems to be clear on this issue—share “all good things” with your instructors. 

The Case for Financial Support

Those who argue that there is no biblical support for compensating church leaders or those teaching and sowing spiritual seed have a difficult task. They must face the following verses honestly and explain why they don’t say what they seem to say:  

  • If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? . . . In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. (1 Cor 9:11-14)
  • The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For Scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” (1 Tim 5:17-18)
  • the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor. (Gal 6:6)

Now let’s consider specific examples of Paul accepting material support. 

Paul Receives Aid from Philippi and Phoebe

Paul accepted material aid from the church he founded in Philippi, a city in northern Greece. He writes:

You Philippians know from the time of my first mission work in Macedonia how no church shared in supporting my ministry except you. You sent contributions repeatedly to take care of my needs even while I was in Thessalonica. . . I am full to overflowing because I received the gifts that you sent from Epaphroditus. Those gifts give off a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice that pleases God. (Phil 4:15-18 CEB)

Paul is reflecting on his time in Thessalonica and how the Philippians faithfully supported his mission. Even when he was about a four-days’ journey west in Thessalonica, the Philippians continued to send aid. And this aid was not merely a one-time donation because Paul says, “You sent contributions repeatedly.” Paul was grateful that these contributions or gifts met his personal needs. 

This shows that Paul had no problem accepting money from some of the churches he had previously established. But he did not view this support as compensation. Rather, he calls it “gifts” and “a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God” (Phil 4:18).

The reference to Epaphroditus draws our attention to Paul’s current situation. He is writing from prison, probably in Rome, and the Philippians sent Epaphroditus on a long journey with material aid for Paul. Earlier in the letter, Paul writes, “But I think it is necessary to send back to you Epaphroditus, my brother, co-worker and fellow soldier, who is also your messenger, whom you sent to take care of my needs” (2:25).

So the Philippians consistently sent aid to Paul when he was in Thessalonica and they continued sending aid when he was imprisoned. As a result of their repeated and unique support—”no church shared in supporting my ministry except you”—Paul acknowledges their generosity as a sacrifice to God. 

Confusingly, the NIV and ESV read, “I have received full payment” (v. 18). Did Paul think he was being paid? If so, how does that correspond with his acknowledgement of receiving “gifts”? This is a translation issue. The idea is fullness not necessarily payment and most translations do not include the word “payment.” The NET reads, “For I have received everything.” What did this “everything” include? We can’t be certain, but perhaps money, food, clothing, etc. 

The final chapter of Romans provides another example of Paul receiving contributions. He says Phoebe has “been the benefactor of many people, including me” (vv. 1–2). By definition benefactors give benefits to their beneficiaries so Paul must have received support from Phoebe.

Paul Receives Travel Assistance from Rome and Corinth

Paul also expected fellow believers to assist him on his journeys. He writes: 

  • But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to visit you, I plan to do so when I go to Spain. I hope to see you while passing through and to have you assist me on my journey there, after I have enjoyed your company for a while. (Rom 15:23–24)
  • Perhaps I will stay with you for a while, or even spend the winter, so that you can help me on my journey, wherever I go. (1 Cor 16:6)
  • I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia and to come back to you from Macedonia, and then to have you send me on my way to Judea. (2 Cor 1:16)

James Dunn says “help me on my journey” entails “food, money, letters of introduction, arranging transport, accompanying part of the way, etc. . . . In earliest Christianity it becomes almost a technical term for the provision made by a church missionary support.”((Cited in Paul and Money, 81)) 

The final two statements to the Corinthians are especially noteworthy because, as we will see, Paul adamantly declined compensation from the believers in Corinth. This leads Kenneth Bailey to conclude, “Travel costs appear to be in a special category for Paul . . . Paul’s working principle seems to be: I will not accept financial assistance for serving you, but you can help me serve others.”((Kenneth Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes, Kindle, 533)) Bailey paraphrases Paul’s thinking this way: 

I can earn my own keep—as I told you. But when it comes to travel—yes—while traveling I lose a lot of time and cannot make or mend tents while on the move. For travel expenses I (and my ministry team) need help, and for such costs I am eager for your financial assistance. I did not accept funds for my preaching. Surely you can help with my travel costs as I reach out to others.((Ibid., Kindle, 1059)) 

Paul Receives Lodging from Philemon, Gaius, Lydia, and Jason

In addition to travel assistance, Paul requested and received lodging. He writes to Philemon, his “dear friend and fellow worker”: “And one thing more: Prepare a guest room for me, because I hope to be restored to you in answer to your prayers” (Phlm 22). Philemon’s house was probably in Colossae. 

At the end of Romans, Paul acknowledges Gaius’s hospitality: “Gaius, whose hospitality I and the whole church here enjoy, sends you his greetings” (Rom 16:23). This may be the same Gaius mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1: “I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius” (v. 14). If so, Paul received Gaius’s hospitality in Corinth. Also in Corinth, Paul “stayed and worked with” Priscilla and Aquila (Acts 18:3). 

In Philippi, Paul and his co-workers also enjoyed Lydia’s accommodations:

One of those listening was a woman from the city of Thyatira named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth. She was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us. (Acts 16:14-15)

Note, however, that Lydia “invited” them then had to “persuade” them. Verbrugge and Krell comment, “It seems clear that Paul strenuously resisted the invitation to lodge at Lydia’s house even though he knew she had the room, but eventually, reluctantly, he gave in.”((Paul and Money, 92)) Perhaps while Paul accepted lodging from other believers, he was reluctant to accept Lydia’s hospitality because of her recent conversion. Or maybe it was not his policy to accept lodging on his first visit to a city. 

In Thessalonica, Paul and Silas stayed in Jason’s home:

But other Jews were jealous; so they rounded up some bad characters from the marketplace, formed a mob and started a riot in the city. They rushed to Jason’s house in search of Paul and Silas in order to bring them out to the crowd. But when they did not find them, they dragged Jason and some other believers before the city officials, shouting: “These men who have caused trouble all over the world have now come here, and Jason has welcomed them into his house. (Acts 17:5-7)

In sum, Paul received assistance from fellow believers, and, at times, even requested it:

  • He accepted repeated contributions from the Philippian believers.
  • Phoebe was his benefactor.
  • He expected travel assistance from the Roman and Corinthian believers.
  • He asked Philemon to provide him with a guest room. 
  • He received lodging from Gaius (possibly in Corinth), Lydia in Philippi, and Jason in Thessalonica.

Paul Refuses Contributions 

We have arrived at a straightforward conclusion: In line with the practice of Jesus and the disciples, Paul believed that gospel preachers should receive basic life necessities for their work of preaching. However, in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul complicates this simple conclusion. Immediately after arguing for his right to receive compensation from the Corinthians, who lived in southern Greece, he states,

But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. . .

But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me . . . What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel. (1 Cor 9:12-18)

If the Lord gave this command, shouldn’t Paul simply follow it? David Garland says, “The verb διατáσσειν, however, need not convey some absolute regulation or law . . . but may simply mean ‘to arrange’: ‘the Lord arranged that those who proclaim the gospel live from the gospel.'”((Garland, Kindle, 881.)) 

Garland continues, “Paul did not understand himself to be disobeying a decree from the Lord but interpreted it as a right that he was free to accept or refuse.”((Ibid., Kindle, 881.)) While Paul agrees with Christ that “the worker deserves his wages,” he believed that the gospel would spread more quickly in Corinth if he relinquished this right. Hence, Paul affirmed Christ’s command or arrangement and he affirmed his exception.

Moreover, the historical setting sheds light on Paul’s divergent approach. Jesus sent out the seventy-two in pairs throughout the land of Israel “to every town and place where he was about to go” (Lk 10:1). They were going ahead of Jesus to announce the arrival of God’s kingdom and to heal the sick. Thus, they were preparing the way for Jesus to effectively minister within Israel prior to his death and resurrection. In contrast, Paul traveled throughout the Gentile world with the goal of establishing communities of believers in the crucified and risen Messiah. The disciples’ mission lasted a few days or weeks; Paul’s lasted for years. Garland adds,

We might imagine that preaching in pioneer areas in pagan environment would also have required greater flexibility. Paul could hardly go to a new community and say, ‘The Lord commanded me to be supported by you.’ Jesus’ words did not apply in the context of spreading the gospel in the Hellenistic world.((Ibid., Kindle, 882.))

If Paul was not compensated from the Corinthians, how did he survive financially? After all, he stayed in Corinth for eighteen months, and presumably, he would have needed housing, food, and essential items. He also probably needed writing materials, which were not cheap. Here’s what he says in 2 Corinthians:

Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by receiving support from them so as to serve you. And when I was with you and needed something, I was not a burden to anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied what I needed. I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way, and will continue to do so. (11:7-9)

Although Paul uses hyperbole— “I robbed other churches”—the answer is clear: other churches provided for Paul so he could minister free of charge in Corinth. (Since Philippi was a city in Macedonia, “the brothers who came from Macedonia” may be another reference to Philippian believers.) This support enabled Paul to consistently refuse compensation from the Corinthians, allowing him to say:

  • “I was not a burden to anyone”
  • “I have kept myself from being a burden to you in any way”

Ironically, this noble practice appears to have hurt Paul’s reputation in Corinth. Listen closely to his question: “Was it a sin for me to lower myself in order to elevate you by preaching the gospel of God to you free of charge?” (11:7). Someone was disparaging Paul because he preached “free of charge” so he feels the need to defend himself.

The same paragraph in 2 Corinthians 11 begins with a reference to Paul’s competition: “I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way” (vv. 5–6). It’s helpful to recognize that in Paul’s world “public speaking was a major competitive sport, where successful rhetoricians and sophists were treated like superstar athletes or Hollywood celebrities”1 Apparently, these “super-apostles” and celebrity speakers were accepting money from the Corinthians. Since Paul’s message was free of charge, it seems the Corinthians thought it was less valuable than others.

Giving to philosophers would not have been unusual for the Corinthians. They would have been exposed to a variety of financial arrangements for itinerant teachers. Ronald F. Hock explains, “four options . . . were open to philosophers: charging fees, entering the households of the rich and powerful, begging, and working.”((Cited in Paul and Money, 55)) Paul’s rivals chose option one and Paul chose option four. Verbrugge and Krell state,

That Paul’s refusal to accept help especially from the Corinthians hurt his image is understandable when we look at the social-cultural situation in the Greco-Roman world. Paul’s rivals did apparently accept money from the Corinthians, and because of cultural expectations, it actually boosted their social status.((Ibid., 64))

The Corinthians placed more value in teachers they paid than teachers like Paul who spoke free of charge, which we must admit is typical human behavior. In addition, wealth was highly valued in the city of Corinth, “whose citizens took pride in its wealth and aspired to upward mobility.”((Ibid., 80)) This was due in part to its location and population. After destroying the city in 146 BC, the Romans resettled it in 44 BC

primarily by ‘freedmen,’ former slaves who had earned or had been given their freedom. Many of them became the new rich, the entrepreneurs and wealthy business people of this prosperous trade city. . . . Archeological discoveries and the literature of the period indicate that Corinth was as hierarchical as any other Greco-Roman city of the period, and was unusual only in that status was defined more by wealth than by family name.((Lyle D. Vander Broek, cited in Ibid., 241))

In this context it makes sense that a poor preacher who toiled daily in the marketplace would not have been highly esteemed. And yet Paul’s downward movement in toiling daily fits with Christ’s descent: “you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich” (2 Cor 8:9). And it corresponds with the foolishness of his “message of the cross” (1 Cor 1:18). 

Paul’s Job

While Paul received support from Macedonian believers, he also had another source of income, which he indicates in this way: “We work hard with our own hands” (1 Cor 4:12) and “Is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living?” (9:6). What type of work was Paul doing? The book of Acts supplies this information:

After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome. Paul went to see them, and because he was a tentmaker as they were, he stayed and worked with them. (18:1-3)

Paul, Aquila, and Priscilla were “tentmakers by trade.” Jeffrey Weima writes, “Since tents of antiquity were usually made of leather, it may be better to describe Paul as a ‘leatherworker,’ one who not only made and repaired tents but also a range of leather and woven goods.”((Weima, Kindle, 379)) And Hock explains:  

Leatherworking involved two essential tasks: cutting the leather, which required round-edge and straight-edge knives; and sewing the leather, which required various awls. These tasks would have been done at a workbench, with the leatherworker sitting on a stool and bent over forward to work.((Cited in Verbrugge and Krell, 53))

Garland adds,

Pliny the Elder . . . notes that tentmakers made sailcloth awnings for temporary shelters, stalls, and shops in the forum area before permanent buildings were erected to provide shade. In a seaport, Paul also could have worked at making and repairing sails. Murphy-O’Connor . . . suggests that as a leather worker, Paul may have made thongs, gourds, harnesses, saddles, and shields.((Garland, Kindle, 886.))

Paul’s Status

How was Paul’s type of work perceived at the time?

In general,

Craftsmen were held in low regard by the leisured class in the ancient world . . . Cicero (De officiis 1.42) remarks, “Unbecoming to a gentlemen, too, and vulgar are the means of livelihood of all hired workmen whom we pay for mere manual labor, not for artistic skill; for in their case, the very wage they receive is a pledge of their slavery. . . . And all mechanics [craftsmen], too, are engaged in vulgar trades, for no workshop can have anything liberal [genteel] about it.” Cicero regards working with one’s hands to be a dirty business that coarsens body, soul, and manners. He calls craftsmen “the dogs of the city” (Pro Flacco 18). Civilized existence, he thought, required leisure. Naturally, only those belonging to the propertied upper class, having tenants and plenty of slaves to do all the work, could afford to live out this view.((Garland, Kindle, 888))

Kenneth Bailey writes,

Intellectuals were expected to be financially independent. Only with the leisure that comes from such independence was it possible to cultivate the mind. How could Greeks accept the intellectual and spiritual leadership of a tentmaker?((Bailey, Kindle, 524))

However, since leatherworking involved some artistic skill, there is debate about the precise status of someone performing this type of work. Stanley Porter says, 

A person in this line of work was probably considered to be skilled and hence above the social level of the general populace, which was engaged in menial or physical labor on the land, although there is much debate on whether a tentmaker was considered to be a lower-level occupation or lower/middle-class worker or artisan.”((The Apostle Paul: His Life, Thought, and Letters, 24))

In either case, Paul was doing work that was demeaning in the view of upper class citizens. Douglas Campbell comments,  

Handworkers were pretty unimportant in ancient society. They were badly educated, horribly poor, and had to work from dawn to dusk with their hands to eke out a living. The upper classes despised them because they were just one step above slaves and beggars. Anyone who had to work with their own hands for a living was a social nonentity, and no one with any class would do anything that was manual.((Pauline Dogmatics, 239))

Regarding the Corinthians in particular, Hock explains,

To those of wealth and power, the appearance (schema) of the artisan was that befitting a slave . . . To Corinthians who, relative to Paul, appeared to be rich, wise, powerful, and respected (cf. 4:8, 10), their lowly apostle had seemed to have enslaved himself with his plying a trade.((Cited in II Corinthians: A Commentary: The New Testament Library, 314))

Even though many of the Corinthian believers may have been craftsmen, “they may have regarded such exhausting work as incongruous with Paul’s status as an apostle of the glorious gospel in the same way that persons today might regard labor as laudable but be offended if their pastor refused a salary and sold vacuum cleaners door to door.”((Garland, Kindle, 889)) 

Paul’s Travels

Since Paul combined his work with his mission, he was a traveling worker, going from place to place and setting up shop. In total it is estimated that Paul traversed 10,000 miles (16,100 kilometers) by land and sea. Raymond Brown writes: 

Paul was an itinerant artisan who would have had to struggle to get money for food. . . . Paul would not even have been able or willing to spend money for a donkey to carry his baggage. . . . So we have to picture Paul trudging along the roads . . . at a maximum covering twenty miles a day . . . . He had to sleep somewhere near the road, amidst cold, rain, and snow.((Cited in Verbrugge and Krell, 62))

Campbell highlights Paul’s hardship in travel in the ancient Mediterranean world: 

The sheer physical challenge of walking, day after day—an in Paul’s case with no shapely modern boots, walking poles, and lightweight all-weather gear—on stony ground, then sleeping in some hard, noisy bed, and resuming walking the next day has to be experienced to be understood. The damage to feet and muscles and joints, also to the gastrointestinal tract, done by foreign roads and food and water—the blisters, cramps, sunburn, cold, diarrhea, hunger, and dehydration—would have been constant.((Pauline Dogmatics, 388))

Paul, then, received gifts from certain churches and he performed difficult and possibly degrading manual labor along with constant travel.

We’re now ready to answer the key question: Why did Paul work a day job?

Paul’s Reasons for Working a Day Job

#1 – Paul did not want to obstruct the advance of the gospel.

Why was Paul so adamant about refusing payment in Corinth? He writes, “But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ” (1 Cor 9:12). He believed accepting payment would “hinder” (NIV) or “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ” (ESV). Paul does not want his approach to impede the spread of the good news. The word translated obstacle is 

a graphic and somewhat unusual word (only here in the New Testament). It means literally a “cutting into”, and was used of breaking up a road to prevent the enemy’s advance. Paul had avoided doing anything which might prevent a clear road for the gospel advance.((C. K. Barrett, Cited in The Message of 1 Corinthians, Kindle, 269))

Although Paul doesn’t explain how receiving pay would be an obstacle to the gospel, many have reasoned along these lines: “The obstacle is that his hearers may view him as just another itinerant lecturer whose coming was rooted in a ‘motive for greed.'”((Weima, Kindle, 380))

Additionally, if Paul charged fees, the poor would have been excluded from hearing the message. Even if they could have somehow heard what was being said, they would have clearly understood that Paul’s preaching was not really for them. As we have seen, Paul had four options: “charging fees, entering the households of the rich and powerful, begging, and working.” The poor could not have afforded option one, they would not have access to him with option two, and they would not have anything to give to him with option three. Further, the first two options posed another problem: 

“He must be free to rebuke, and his praise must be above suspicion of being bought.” He did not want to get trapped in the sticky web of social obligations that would hinder his freedom to preach and admonish . . . He refused to become anyone’s “kept apostle” or “house apostle.”((Garland, Kindle, 891))

This is not merely an ancient problem. Bailey says,

I have a friend who served for some years as pastor to an English-language fellowship in a wealthy Middle Eastern country. On returning to American he had enough resources to pastor any congregation without a salary. He imagined that many struggling congregations would be eager to have him as their pastor. But he was mistaken. He is a fine pastor and a superb preacher, but churches were not interested. If they did not pay him they could not control him.((Bailey, Kindle, 1061)) 

What about a fifth option—relying on support from another community of believers? Paul did this in part, but at this early stage of the Christian movement, communities of Jewish and Gentile believers were just beginning, so support was limited. Thus, to ensure that the gospel reached everyone, Paul primarily went with option four, which we should note was not entirely novel. Working and teaching for free was promoted by the Stoic philosopher Musonius Rufus (c. AD 30-100).((Lecture XI))

At the end of 1 Corinthians 9, Paul restates the principle of not hindering the gospel:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. . . . To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. (vv. 19–23)

Paul wants to avoid being an obstacle so that he can “win as many as possible” and that includes the weak. Regarding the weak, Richard Hays observes,

he does not say, ‘I became as the weak,’ but rather, ‘I became weak.’ This is not a matter of pretending or mere analogy. Paul actually took on the lifestyle and condition of the weak. In the context of 1 Corinthians 1–10, that means two things: he accepted for himself their strictures against eating idol meat, and he lowered himself to the social status of the weak by refusing the patronage of the rich and becoming a manual laborer.((Hays, 154)) 

The word “weak” can refer to those weak in faith or the economically weak. For instance, it refers to the poor in Acts 20 where Paul says, “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (v. 35).

So here is the point: Paul is a true apostle because he is more concerned with the advance of the gospel than with his right to receive material benefits from the gospel. Like Jesus, he set aside his rights for the sake of others. And he is basically asking the Corinthians, “Who else has done this for you?” 

In the words of Gordon Fee,

Paul is a man of a single passion, “the gospel of Christ.” As he will soon go on to explain (vv. 19-23), everything he is and does is “for the sake of the gospel.” When it becomes a choice, therefore, between his “rights” and others’ hearing of the gospel, there is no choice at all; anything that would get in the way of someone’s hearing the gospel for what it is, the good news of God’s redeeming grace, can be easily laid aside.((The First Epistle to the Corinthians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament, Kindle, 1065-1066)) 

Preachers of the gospel should consider how their daily lives may be impeding the gospel.

#2 – Paul did not want to be a financial burden to his immediate audience.

According to the book of Acts, after Paul preached in Philippi he traveled about 150 kilometers west to Thessalonica, where he preached in the synagogue with some success. According to Acts 17, “Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women” (v. 4). As a result of this success, Paul was targeted by a jealous mob and forced to escape in the night. With the Thessalonian community still on his heart, he wrote two letters to them. In the first letter, he writes,

You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed—God is our witness. We were not looking for praise from people, not from you or anyone else, even though as apostles of Christ we could have asserted our authority. Instead, we were like young children among you.

Just as a nursing mother cares for her children, so we cared for you. Because we loved you so much, we were delighted to share with you not only the gospel of God but our lives as well. Surely you remember, brothers and sisters, our toil and hardship; we worked night and day in order not to be a burden to anyone while we preached the gospel of God to you. You are witnesses, and so is God, of how holy, righteous and blameless we were among you who believed. For you know that we dealt with each of you as a father deals with his own children, encouraging, comforting and urging you to live lives worthy of God, who calls you into his kingdom and glory. (1 Thess 2:5-12)

In this key passage we are given access to the thinking behind Paul’s unique approach. Paul says that he, Silas, and Timothy, acted like caring mothers and encouraging fathers. Instead of asserting their rights, they were caring, encouraging, and comforting. They were careful not to be a burden to anyone while preaching the gospel. This approach required them to work “night and day.” Likewise, in 2 Thessalonians, Paul writes, “nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it . . . so that we would not be a burden to any of you” (3:8). As the context shows, Paul and his coworkers sought to avoid being a financial burden to those to whom they ministered.

According to Acts, Paul’s custom was to go to the synagogue on the Sabbath and reason from the Scriptures. He did this for three Sabbath days in Thessalonica (17:2). What was he doing on the other six days of the week? Working. 

Paul didn’t enter new cities with a plan to rely on his ministry for material support. He entered new cities with a plan to work with his own hands. And those hands, which probably became calloused over time, enabled him to stand in line and buy food with his own hard-earned money.

But there’s another piece of information we shouldn’t overlook. As we have seen, Paul received aid from the Philippian believers when he was in Thessalonica: “You sent contributions repeatedly to take care of my needs even while I was in Thessalonica” (Phil 4:16). Combining this information with the statement above shows that Paul operated in Thessalonica as he did in Corinth—he worked and he accepted assistance from another community of believers. Moreover, we may even have an indication that Paul received contributions from the Corinthians after he left Corinth. Writing from Ephesus, he tells the church in Corinth:

You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the Lord’s people. I urge you, brothers and sisters, to submit to such people and to everyone who joins in the work and labors at it. I was glad when Stephanas, Fortunatus and Achaicus arrived, because they have supplied what was lacking from you. For they refreshed my spirit and yours also. Such men deserve recognition. (1 Cor 16:15-18)

These three men came from Corinth and “supplied what was lacking” from the Corinthians and refreshed Paul’s spirit. Since these are general expressions of support, we can’t say for certain, but it’s likely that Stephanus and company brought supplies to Paul from Corinth. 

When we go to unreached areas with the gospel we should seek to avoid being a financial burden to our immediate audience, but we should be willing to receive from believers who want to support our work.  

#3 – Paul wanted to enjoy the pleasure of preaching free of charge.

Paul reveled in preaching for free. It was his reward, payment, and pleasure. He says,

What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel. (1 Cor 9:18)

Initially I thought Paul meant that he was looking forward to his future reward from God because he preached without pay. But after checking several translations and considering the context, I think it makes better sense to conclude that preaching for free was Paul’s reward.

So what is my pay? My pay is to tell the good news and not be paid for it! That is why I do not use my right to take pay for telling the good news. (1 Cor 9:18 WE)

Like Paul, we may experience more joy by preaching freely.

#4 – Paul wanted to serve as an example of diligence.

Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians gives us a fourth reason why he worked. He says,

For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. (2 Thess 3:7-9)

Paul assumes that the Thessalonian believers remembered him as the same man who cut leather in the marketplace with sweat-soaked brow. And he wants them to imitate him and his companions: “you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example.” Certain things are caught rather than taught and Paul wants his audience to catch his work ethic.

Why did Paul care so much about the Thessalonians’ work ethic? Because idleness was a pervasive problem in their city. He continues,

For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. (2 Thess 3:10-12)

The new community of believers could not flourish with idleness unchecked so Paul and his companions sought to thwart this problem by their teaching and example.

The upper classes of Rome and Greece despised manual labor. That is why they owned so many slaves. They hated to work with their hands. But Christianity brought in a new ethic based on personal responsibility and hard work. Jesus was a carpenter and Paul himself was a tentmaker/leatherworker.((Verbrugge and Krell, 209))

Some people look down on church leaders because “they only work one day a week.” How can pastors today serve as examples of diligence? Daily consistency and visibility in work are two elements that come to mind. 

#5 – Paul wanted to personally provide for those in need.

After Paul’s year-and-a-half stay in Corinth, he sailed to Ephesus (western Turkey), where he stayed for three years (Acts 20:31), working and teaching daily. In his farewell speech to the Ephesian elders or church leaders, Paul declares,

You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” (Acts 20:34-35)

According to this statement, Paul worked so that he could give. Paul’s gospel, the message of God’s sacrifice, was displayed in his lifestyle of sacrifice: “by working hard . . . we must help the weak.” This fifth reason is closely linked to the fourth because Paul wants his audience to imitate both his work ethic and his habit of giving: “I showed you that . . . we must help the weak.” And this particular audience was composed of church leaders.

Recap

Paul’s declaration in Acts 20 brings a third city into view—Corinth, Thessalonica, and now Ephesus. From the cities involved and the time spent in these cities, a pattern emerges: Paul’s mode of operation was to travel, enter new cities, work, and preach free of charge.((Acts may also indicate that Paul followed this pattern in Athens. Acts 17:17 says, “he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” Hock suggests that Paul had these conversations while working because workshops were located in or near the marketplace.(Cited in Verbrugge and Krell, 54))

In sum, Paul acknowledges that he accepted support from the Philippians, which may be equivalent to “the brothers who came from Macedonia.” But receiving support did not cause him to retire from his day job. He was proud of his manual labor in Corinth, Thessalonica, and Ephesus because it:

  • helped to advance the gospel
  • gave him the pleasure of preaching for free
  • prevented him from being a financial burden
  • allowed him to serve as an example of diligence
  • empowered him to personally provide for those in need

Six Caveats

Before attempting to apply Paul’s approach to our world, we should note the following caveats.

1. Paul’s teaching and example show that he was not following a rule nor giving a rule. On the one hand, since Paul accepted material assistance from the Philippians, we know he didn’t refuse all support on the basis of a particular principle. He didn’t think there was something wrong with receiving from those who wanted to give. On the other hand, Paul refused assistance from the Corinthians. Why would we turn one of these approaches into a universal rule and not the other?

Further, we must carefully consider what Paul says about the second approach. Paul actually acknowledges that his refusal to be compensated was unique. He asks, “Is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living” (v. 6)? And “If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?” (v. 12). Who are the “others” Paul is thinking about? He mentions “the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas” in verse 5. The names of the Lord’s brothers are given in Mark 6:3: James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And Cephas is another name for Peter. So the total number of “others” was sixteen and apparently none were following the example of Paul and Barnabas, but Paul does not disparage them. 

Hence, the uniqueness of Paul’s approach means we shouldn’t elevate it to a universal rule, but since he draws attention to it with pride—”I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast”—neither should we ignore it. Keep this in mind: Paul was talking about his (and Barnabas’s) personal practice. And he never commands others to follow every detail of this practice.

I think it’s fair to say, though, that Paul thought his approach was a more effective way to spread the gospel. Why else would he boast about it? Also, it appears that he influenced his coworkers, namely Barnabas, Silas, and Timothy, to adhere to the same approach. And he encouraged the elders in Ephesus to work hard and give, rather than merely receive: “In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’” (Acts 20:35).

2. Paul’s world and the modern Western world are not the same. First, while Christianity is the dominant religion in some countries today, it was not even recognized as a distinct religion in Paul’s time. Originally, it was considered to be an offshoot of Judaism. After being persecuted by Jewish authorities, followers of this new movement were persecuted by Roman authorities.((Although this is a major difference with Western countries, believers in countries that restrict the spread of the gospel have much in common with first-century Christians.)) Varying levels of freedom help to explain different activities and opportunities. Second, the early followers of Jesus met in homes not church buildings.((For more information on house churches, see this post.)) Since ancient homes could only accommodate a few people, perhaps thirty to fifty people at most, early church leaders did not work with several hundred people at one time. In fact, at the time of Paul’s writing, Corinth may have had no more than 150 to 200 Christians and “these figures may be on the high side.”((Hays, 6)) 

3. Ancient and modern study of Scripture are not the same. In many ways, Bible study is more cumbersome and time-consuming for us than it was for Paul. Think of it: Paul was fluent in Hebrew and Greek, and he simply preached and wrote from his understanding of the Scriptures and from his understanding of God’s revelation to him. And since he lived in the ancient world, he didn’t need to study it. Instead of spending five years writing a dissertation on two verses in Galatians, he simply wrote the letter to Galatia perhaps in a couple days. (I understand that he had years of study behind him at that point.)

Today, Bible scholars spend a lifetime studying ancient Hebrew and Greek, ancient manuscripts, the ancient world, and a two-millennia history of Bible interpretation in order to properly understand what Paul was saying before applying it to our twenty-first century world. Our study of the Bible involves climbing mountains that Paul never had to set eyes on. Consequently, if we want someone to understand the Bible in a scholarly way, they will probably need to receive formal training, which will require time and money. In the process, that person will be giving up an opportunity to learn other financially viable skills.

4. The New Testament doesn’t talk about contractual relationships in ministry. Things were less formalized in this early period. The NT instructions regarding compensation are general in nature—”deserves his wages” or lodging, food, and drink. Salary and contract details cannot be found in the New Testament. 

5. Paul was not alone. This post is about Paul’s income, but he didn’t work independently from others. He acknowledges Barnabas in 1 Corinthians 9, he worked with Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth then sailed with them to Ephesus, and he wrote his Thessalonian letters with Silas and Timothy. Paul enjoyed support from coworkers as well as a partnership with the Philippian church. 

6. Paul had a unique role. He was the apostle to the Gentiles, who traveled from place to place and started new communities of believers. Paul was literally founding churches. Here is what he said to the Corinthian church: “Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel” (1 Cor 4:15). 

Applying Paul’s Approach

With those caveats stated, I still have a nagging suspicion that Paul’s example means something for ministers today. Here are eight ways that Paul’s example can be applied today.

1. Prioritize the advance of the gospel. Paul’s priority was not himself. He was a servant of the gospel. “How will this affect the spread of the good news?” is a powerful filter through which to press our decisions and daily lifestyle. Accepting payment in certain contexts may obstruct the advance of the gospel. Likewise, accepting too much pay may hinder the good news because some may despise the Christian leader for his or her extravagant lifestyle. For those who accept payment, it’s wise to be content with an average lifestyle among the people to whom they minister. 

2. Don’t be lazy. Paul was a hard worker. He labored daily in Corinth, Thessalonica, and Ephesus. And as we have seen, he had good reasons for doing so. Moreover, Paul encouraged others to follow his example of diligence. This may be an especially important point for those in full-time paid ministry. I have heard stories and seen firsthand how those in such positions can fall into the snare of slothfulness.

3. Don’t have a self-sufficient mentality. It’s easy for those who work hard to rely on themselves and think, “I can do it all by myself.” Others may cover up this self-centered pride with spiritual language, “I don’t need anyone to help me because God will provide for me.” But Paul avoids the pride of the self-sufficient person who is unwilling to receive from others and the pride of the “spiritual” person who only talks about God providing. Paul made sure to mention the people who helped him.

  • In Corinth, he worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:1-3), received help from Macedonian believers, and mentioned the aid he received (2 Cor 11:8; Phil 2:25; 4:14–18).
  • In Thessalonica, he “worked night and day,” (1 Thess 2:9), received support from the Philippian church, and wrote about it with gratitude to God (Phil 4:15–16).
  • In Romans 16 he acknowledged Phoebe for serving as his “benefactor,” or “sponsor,” or “patron” (v. 2) and Gaius for his hospitality (v. 23).

Why did Paul need so much help? Probably because he spent a considerable amount of time in prison—when he wrote Philippians he was imprisoned. And ancient prisons were not like modern ones with daily meals and bedding provided. Also, he was injured from being persecuted, traveled frequently, and may have missed time working to focus on preaching. From the account in Acts, it sounds like Paul may have stopped working as a tentmaker to devote himself to preaching: “Now when Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul became wholly absorbed with proclaiming the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ” (18:5 NET). Finally, ancient letters were not free to produce. Expenses included the price of materials, such as parchment, the need to pay a secretary for several drafts and copies, and the cost of transportation. E. Randolph Richards estimates the cost of writing the letter to the Romans at $2,275.00 in current dollars. And that does not include the cost of  transporting the letter to Rome.((Cited in Paul and Money, 101))  

4. Don’t have an entitlement mentality. Rather than asserting our rights, Paul’s example encourages us to lay aside our rights. Those in full-time paid ministry should consider the following questions: 

  • Am I serving primarily for the paycheck?
  • Would I be willing to serve free of charge?
  • Am I being a financial burden?
  • How does receiving a paycheck impact the effectiveness of my ministry?
  • How do I feel about earning money by using another skill while still fulfilling ministry work?

These kinds of questions undermine an entitlement mentality. Rather than thinking he should be compensated for preaching and teaching, Paul refused remuneration. And this wasn’t just a one-time occurrence as in, “I’ll preach this one sermon without pay.” He lived and ministered in Corinth for more than a year and during that time he served free of charge. What does this mean for today? Consider the following questions posed by Richard Hays:

Is it possible that we have arrived at a moment in the life of the church where salaried ministers have become so domesticated by “patronage” that they are no longer able to preach the gospel effectively? Are they, like some servile household philosophers of the ancient world, rendered excessively dependent on those who provide for them? Paul’s model of tentmaking self-support poses an alternative that might be worthy of consideration in some circumstances. Certainly Paul’s strategy was not required of apostles and other preachers in the first century church, nor should it be mandatory now. But anyone whose vocation is to proclaim the gospel should stop and ask from time to time, “Who is footing the bill for me to do this, and what implications does that have for the content and integrity of my ministry?” Or again, “Have I become the house chaplain for the wealthy members of my congregation to the detriment of the less affluent?”((Hays, 157))  

5. Don’t be greedy. Paul could have received a lot more than he did, but he was not preaching for the money. Since “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil” (1 Tim 6:10), an overseer must not be “a lover of money” (1 Tim 3:3). How should church leaders serve? Peter writes:

Just as shepherds watch over their sheep, you must watch over everyone God has placed in your care. Do it willingly in order to please God, and not simply because you think you must. Let it be something you want to do, instead of something you do merely to make money. (1 Pet 5:2 CEV)

6. Don’t despise ordinary jobs or manual labor. The apostle Paul worked a regular job. Working with leather was not an extraordinary occupation. Paul wasn’t too spiritual to roll up his sleeves and work beside others. He wasn’t too spiritual to sell his products in the marketplace, interacting with all sorts of individuals. Moreover, the man who said “Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position” (Rom 12:16) practiced what he preached.((In a study published in 1980 titled The Social Context of Paul’s Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship, Ronald F. Hock argues that Paul held disparaging views of physical work due to his aristocratic background. Why else would Paul mention his manual labor so often? He must have felt that it was beneath him. Hock also uses demeaning views of labor expressed by ancient Greco-Roman writers to support his argument. However, Todd Still disagreed with Hock’s thesis in a 2006 article titled, Did Paul Loathe Manual Labor? Revisiting the Work of Ronald F. Hock on the Apostle’s Tentmaking and Social Class. Still argues that Hock overlooks Paul’s positive statements about work as well as his satire and irony. He also contends that Hock relies on Greco-Roman views of work rather than highlighting the importance and goodness of work, which would have permeated Paul’s Jewish upbringing. E. P. Sanders does not go as far as Hock and so cuts something of a middle ground between the two: “the way in which Paul referred to using his own hands to work is revealing: the poor do not find working with their hands to be worthy of special remark. We suggested that, though he had learned a craft, he had probably been trained for ownership or management. He knew how to use a secretary, and he dictated his letters, as we see in Gal. 6:11, where he notes when he writes in his own hand, and Rom. 16:22, where his scribe sends his own greetings” (Paul: The Apostle’s Life, Letters, and Thought, 144). Sanders is probably right that Paul was primarily trained for something other than physical work.))

Paul’s example encourages us to see regular jobs as sacred. Many today may be serving in a similar manner to Paul—working common occupations while reaching out to others free of charge. A few years ago, I met a custodian who used to serve as a senior pastor. After telling me that he was happy with what he was doing, I encouraged him to return to the pastorate. But who knows, maybe he was following Paul’s approach more closely as a custodian than as a senior pastor.

7. Don’t assume there is a one-size-fits-all model for ministry. Paul’s example provides us with another option than the traditional Western route of going to Bible college or seminary then finding a full-time paid position in a church or ministry. And this non-traditional track may be the only path available for those in poor countries or countries where the Christian faith is officially rejected. If Bible teachers in poor countries are waiting for a full-time salary before teaching, teaching may never begin. For those on the traditional path, Paul’s career as a tentmaker is an encouragement to consider developing a financially viable skill outside of traditional “ministry” work.

Regarding compensation, ministries can function in a variety of ways. For those who believe they should teach without accepting material benefits, that is between them and God. Likewise, for those who believe they should teach and accept material benefits, that is between them and God. And those in either group can decide to change their approach and join the other group. Finally, a proponent of one view should not attempt to convince everyone else to follow his or her personal practice. Paul was proud of his approach, but he didn’t argue that Cephas and the Lord’s brothers should follow it.  

8. Be careful when teaching about giving. Unlike televangelists, Paul never coerced people to give to him nor specified an amount that should be given. Likewise, we have no record of Paul instructing any church to tithe. In fact, instead of requiring a set percentage, Paul encouraged believers to give as much as they wanted. He writes, “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor 9:7). (For more information on tithing, see this post.)

Remember, however, that Paul also gave this instruction: “the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor” (Gal 6:6). Here is a statement with which I concur: 

If a church can support full-time ministers and missionaries without teaching error to do so, then I pray that God will richly bless them. However, I am opposed to anybody who teaches that full-time ministry is a Biblical command (which Paul chose to disobey). I am even more opposed to those who teach that full-time ministers must be supported by so-called “tithing”!((Russell Earl Kelly, website))

Conclusion

This is an especially tricky topic. Money and giving is a sensitive issue. When we add the history of financial abuse and scams, differences between the ancient and modern world, the Old Testament practice of tithing, and Paul’s personal example into the mix, we are walking on a theological tightrope with heavy winds blowing. Even the terms we use are problematic because there are no exact equivalents between ancient and modern “pastors,” “wages,” or “pay.” Here’s my attempt to walk this theological tightrope. 

Paul’s example in refusing remuneration was exceptional. And it is not wise to make the exception the rule. Moreover, Paul’s unique circumstances and mission help to explain his approach. In general, those who work in preaching and teaching should receive wages. And those who benefit from such teaching “should share all good things with their instructor” (Gal 6:6).

Receiving wages or having basic needs met for spreading the good news corresponds with Jesus’ teaching and example. According to 1 Timothy 5:17-18, remuneration should be given to church elders as well. The reality is this: teachers, whether they are traveling or not, are giving up time to focus on preparing and delivering content and their time is valuable. Since they could have been earning money in another endeavor, they should receive something for their work. 

At this point, four qualifications must be added.

  1. When reaching new areas with the gospel it’s not be wise to expect or receive payment from the immediate audience. This no-payment model may continue for some time. In Paul’s case, it continued for a year and a half in Corinth. This approach may help the gospel advance more efficiently.
  2. While workers should be compensated, this does not mean they must be paid a full-time salary with benefits. As we have seen, in Paul’s time, it is “highly unlikely” that a “material harvest” or sharing “all good things” referred to a full-time salary. That concept would have been foreign to first-century believers who met in small house churches. A lack of a first-century precedent, though, does not necessarily mean that a full-time salary is wrong for church leaders today. It simply means that the New Testament was written during a time when that concept wasn’t considered, or perhaps, even possible. Nevertheless, those who spend their time in training, then researching, preparing, and delivering teaching should receive something for their work.
  3. Since church leaders should not be greedy, they should not be paid exorbitant sums of money to support lavish lifestyles.
  4. Like Paul, church leaders can lay aside their right to compensation at any time and teach or preach free of charge. This approach has certain advantages. 

Although Paul boasted about his unique practice, it’s important to note that he didn’t refuse all support from believers. He received contributions from the Philippian believers and Phoebe, as well as lodging and travel assistance from others. Those who decide to teach or preach for free should still be willing to receive from fellow believers. The I-can-do-it-all-by-myself attitude does not correspond with Paul’s approach. Reciprocity is essential to healthy relationships. 

While Paul’s example was unique, it is still instructive because it helped him avoid common ministry pitfalls, such as laziness, being a financial burden, demeaning views of manual labor, a self-sufficient mentality, an entitlement mentality, and greed. I wonder how different things would be if Christian leaders had avoided the same dangers down through the centuries.

——————

P.S. Compensation for ministry has been a deep issue in Christianity since its inception. The Didache (c. AD 100), considered by some church fathers to be a part of Scripture, includes these statements: 

Let every apostle that comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain except one day; but if there be need, also the next; but if he remain three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges; but if he ask money, he is a false prophet. . . But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him; but if he says to you to give for others’ sake who are in need, let no one judge him. (Ch. 11)

But every true prophet that wills to abide among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have not a prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment. (Ch. 13)

Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money . . . (Ch. 15)

——————

If you would like to discuss this topic, please send me an email at biblebridge@gmail.com.

Footnotes

 

  1. Jeffrey Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Kindle, 359 []

13 thoughts on “The Apostle Paul’s Income and What It Means for Today”

  1. I used to support paying the pastor. Initially I thought it was wrong and stingy for anyone not to pay a pastor. But I read the treatise here and had to agree the biblical answer is that after the close of the apostles Era there is no room for a salaried pastor to be paid to preach the gospel usually for 3 days work a week or less for a couple of hours.

    I wised up after understanding this. Now I see it as a burden to help pay for another man’s family, house, his kids education, vacation, college. Then help pay for his kids wedding and resulting kids, on top of taking care of my own family. I was kept ignorant of scripture and didn’t grow spiritually in this type of church, I was just a pew sitter focused on the pastor the star of the church.

    I didn’t start to grow until I left this kind of church, and read the Bible for myself. Sadly the one man rule paid pastor is the norm.

    • Dolores,

      Thanks for your comment. My understanding of this topic has been developing since I first wrote this post 11 years ago. I have recently revised this post again. I know it is a long article, but I encourage you to read it again, or at least reread the conclusion. A main point for me now is not whether or not a church pays someone a full-time salary (I don’t think the NT gives us enough data on that topic so we need to use wisdom), but what the church teaches about giving. See the quote from Russell Earl Kelly right before the conclusion. Kelly has written an important book on the subject of tithing.

      P.S. I have recently changed my comment policy to only allow one comment per person per post. You are always welcome to send me an email if you want to continue communicating.

    • Correct!

      And the good old boys club doesn’t want pew sitters to know the truth about “What saith the Scriptures.” Paul, nor any of the other disciples ever instructed believers to go forth and construct buildings specifically for the purpose of gathering together for worship. Had Christians adhered to the Word of God and followed the numerous examples about gathering together we would have a house church on every street. Following the Biblical examples would negate any need to have a “salaried” staff.

      The salaried crowd is simply following after a manmade tradition and they will fight to maintain their sacred cow.

      I was a pastor and like other Bible College graduates, I followed the traditions. But I soon learned about the problems that come with owning a building. Eventually, I discovered it to be a hindrance in the lives of believers who just wanted to learn more about the Bible in a place where they could interact with others.

      And when I began attending a house church I also saw there was no need for a hierarchy of leadership. So I asked the brothers and sisters to not introduce me as “Pastor Hall.”

      When the traditional pastors, missionaries, and evangelists learned that I refused to take a salary and rejected the notion of using the title “Pastor,” well…they stopped inviting me to preach at their camp meetings, crusades, and conferences.

      In a manner of speaking, I was excommunicated from the good old boys club.

      By the grace of God I have been able to reach out to a greater number of people than I ever could have had I continued to follow after the traditions of men.

      • David,

        Thanks for your comment. I would love to hear more of your story and what you are doing now. Feel free to send me an email.

  2. You make some good points, but wind up making inspired scripture optional.

    You take a metaphor from Jesus regarding the provision for TEMPORARY hospitality from unbelievers towards the disciples and want to turn it into a paycheck for Bible lecturers in perpetual dependency for believers every week. Jesus is NOT teaching that.

    In 1 Tim. 5:17,18 Paul uses the same metaphor and doubles it with an ox metaphor to teach that “double honor” is to be CONSIDERED for those who “labor in the word and teaching.” Metaphors DO NOT change the literal meaning of an instruction into something else. They enhance the significance of the literal meaning. It is ESSENTIAL for the ox to not be muzzled and it is ESSENTIAL for marketplace laborers to be paid, thus it is ESSENTIAL for “double honor” for spiritual leaders. 

Honorarium is ONLY an english idiom. It has NO CONNECTION to ancient Greek use of honor. This is phony exposition to garner paychecks for clergy.

    The alleged “command” from “the Lord” that those who preach the gospel should “receive their” living. is a GROSS translation error. There are no Greek words for “receive their.” The mood of “living” is INFINITIVE which means there is no pronoun connected. But they put one there. That is a lie. Jesus is commanding that “those who preach the gospel should LIVE the gospel. The gospel must be INCARNATED in life, not just lectured in a pulpit building. EVERY believer is a preacher of the gospel, not just the number you can afford to pay. The majority of places around the world are too poor to pay even one preacher. The false command does not work except for the wealthy. Jesus does not give commands just to the wealthy. Do you understand this? There is much more to say.

    • Tim,

      Thanks for your comment. My understanding of this topic has been developing since I first wrote this post 11 years ago. I have recently revised this post again. My interaction with three key NT passages (two of which you mention in your comment)—-1 Corinthians 9:14, 1 Timothy 5:17-18, and Galatians 6:6–is now near the beginning of the post. For the reasons listed in the post, I don’t think your interpretation of the first two passages is correct. In particular, I think some sort of compensation or material benefits are involved in 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5. Galatians 6:6 is also especially clear on this issue: “the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor.” This does not mean that we can use Paul’s statements to support the idea of a full-time salary for pastors. I don’t think the NT gives us enough data on that topic, but the principle of giving to teachers is expressed. And this idea was carried on after the completion of the New Testament. (See the quotes from the Didache at the bottom of the post.) A primary issue for me now is what a church teaches about giving not how much they give to the pastor.

      P.S. I have recently changed my comment policy to only allow one comment per person per post. You are always welcome to send me an email if you want to continue communicating.

      • 1Timothy imho is not referring to payment and if someone truly believes this should be paying widows.
        Corinthians does not refer to pastors but to traveling evangelists.
        Galatians is not talking about the physical.
        2 thessalonians seems to say one that does work does not eat and applies to ministers.

        Giving in the New Testament is when a need arises where someone cannot work. It also teams preaching the gospel is not considered work.

        • Steve,

          This is a very challenging topic. I’ve been trying to strike the right balance between the biblical data and the real world for a long time. I wish you were right about this because I would like to have a clear-cut answer, but I don’t think you are. As explained in the post, I don’t see how to exclude material benefits (Paul’s phrase is “material harvest”) from these passages. That doesn’t mean we can use them to support the idea of a full-time salary, but it does mean some type of material goods should be given to teachers. This corresponds with Jesus’ instructions in Luke 10 and Matthew 10, which is the basis for Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 9 and 1 Timothy 5. Also material benefits cannot be excluded from “all good things” in Galatians 6.

          Regarding the titles of Christian workers, Paul refers to those who have “sown spiritual seed” or “those who preach the gospel” in 1 Corinthians 9. And he was carrying out these functions for eighteen months in Corinth. In 1 Timothy 5, he calls them, “elders . . . especially those whose work is preaching and teaching” and in Galatians 6, “instructor.” While there are no perfect equivalents between ancient and modern roles, we can easily recognize those who carry out these roles no matter what we call them.

          Paul’s statement in 2 Thess 3:10: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat” does not exclude teachers from also receiving material aid from their listeners. Paul worked and he received material support.

          In summary then listeners should give to Christian teachers but that doesn’t mean they are required to give a full-time salary. Churches must decide for themselves what to give and teachers are free to refuse material benefits.

          Thanks for your comment. Feel free to email me if you want to continue the discussion.

  3. I rather support a missionary that has a skill to support self but at times needs some material supplies or money to cover his needs. Today, lots of churches are so corrupted with supporting their business plans then actually helping those that support them. It makes me angry seeing these pastors live a greedy luxurious lifestyle with their expensive homes and cars and clothing and taking their family to wonderful vacations that I myself can’t even afford for my family. The only way they can achieve their greedy lifestyle is by teaching a false truth about tithing.

    I believe in an assembly of saints where no one is the main or senior person that control the events within the gathering but our main focus is on Christ Jesus, and as we gather we are reminded in 1 Corinth 14:26: What then, brothers? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up.

    As you can see we are all involved one way or another in the body of Christ, and just a reminder, this assembly is not focus on one senior pastor or senior person but the family of God moved by the Holy Spirit as we focus on the head of the body which is Christ Jesus our Lord. As in 1 Corinthians 12:10-11 states, all these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who distributes to each one individually as he wills.

    Finally, in the early churches, elders played an important role within the family of God. They were elected by the apostles as shepherds or advisors to the churches. There were no singular head shepherd or senior positions, but the bible always stated elder in the plural reference. As stated in Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:21-23 that elders were appointed to guide the church. Notice it’s not calling a head position or a lead person but the elders of the church.

    I hope that one day a real revival will come and the Bride of Christ has made herself ready.

    • Bill,

      I appreciate your carefully worded comment, which shows nuance and a willingness to incorporate multiple streams of biblical data. If you had said “all churches are so corrupted” I would not have approved the comment. I’m glad that you included the reference to elders. Some objections to the traditional church are rooted in an issue with authority. Granted, some leaders have abused their authority leading to this distrust, but there’s no way of getting around the fact that the church started with Christ, then was led by the apostles in Jerusalem and Paul’s leadership in the Mediterranean world, and continued under the guidance of elders. From the very beginning, then, churches had an authority structure. I summarize the NT references to elders in this post.

      I agree that some churches have an unhealthy focus on the senior pastor and greedy leaders are a problem in many organizations, including the church. I also agree that tithing is not taught in the New Testament, but believers are encouraged to give generously. And Paul said, “the one who receives instruction in the word should share all good things with their instructor” (Gal 6:6).

      You may find what you are looking for in a house church. You can do an online search for house churches in your area. However, regarding your concern about one person being in control of the meeting, that can still occur in house gatherings, where no one is getting paid. Practically, someone must lead or chaos will likely ensue. Of course, leadership of the meeting can rotate to different people, but if no one is leading, What song should we sing? Who will pray? What will we discuss?

      While some people are power hungry, I think structure is eventually brought into organizations for practical reasons. And we see structure set in place in Acts 14 with the elders Paul appointed and then clearly in 1 and 2 Timothy. Like you, though, I would like to see meetings more open to the congregation. Robert Banks has written a good book on this topic. However, keep in mind that the larger the church the more structure is required. A meeting with 200 people needs more structure than a meeting with 20 people. The church in Corinth was composed of small home gatherings so spontaneity was easier to incorporate.

      I’m happy to continue the discussion through email if you want.

  4. Sir, what version of the Bible are you reading. I find Paul speak of money nowhere. In vs 5,6 & 7 he says:

    5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

    6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

    7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

    This is short and here is the conclusion. Do not mock God.

    • NIV, 2011 unless stated otherwise. Your quote is from KJV. The word “communicate” in KJV does not mean have a conversation. It means “share” as most English versions have. See the list here.

Comments are closed.