The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,” and “The worker deserves his wages.” (1 Timothy 5:17-18)

Scripture defines the gospel ministry as work, and the preacher as a worker. Referring to the ministry of his disciples, Jesus says in Matthew 10, “the worker is worth his keep,” and in Luke 10, “the worker deserves his wages.” Paul echoes this way of thinking in our passage. And when he writes on this subject in a letter to the Corinthians, he illustrates this point by comparing the minister to one who “serves as a soldier,” or who “plants a vineyard,” or who “tends a flock,” or who “plows” or “threshes.” He even uses the image of a priest who receives food from the altar (1 Corinthians 9). In other words, the ministry is an occupation in its own right, and it must be regarded as such in any discussion about ministry and wages. One who works in the ministry, regardless of the way he is viewed by the state or the church, is an employed person.

Since the ministry is an occupation, the minister must be paid for his work. The same passages that define the ministry as work, as an occupation, also inseparably associate this fact with the right of the minister to receive hospitality, food, shelter, and wages. Paul is explicit about this: “The Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14). Just as an accountant makes his living from accounting, or a chef makes his living from cooking, a minister equally makes his living from performing the work of ministry, especially preaching. Since ministry is an occupation, money paid to the minister is considered a wage.

By definition, a wage is something owed rather than voluntarily donated. It is not charity. Since the money paid to the minister is a wage, this means that it is something owed to the one who works by those who receive the benefit of the work. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul refers to the preacher’s right to receive material compensation for his work. From the perspective of the minister, it is a right. From the perspective of those who benefit from his ministry, it is a debt.

Although the biblical principle that a worker deserves his wages applies to all legitimate occupations, there is a difference when it comes to the ministry. Outside of the ministry, this principle is implemented by human agreement. If the one who receives the benefit of the work has never agreed to hire a worker or to pay him, then the worker cannot generate such a debt by performing the work anyway. In contrast, the debt owed to a minister arises not by human agreement, but by a divine command that transcends it. When Jesus sent his disciples to preach, and when Paul preached the gospel to people, those who received the benefit of their ministry never agreed beforehand to pay them for their work. Indeed, it would be impossible to secure a human agreement for wages from those they planned to evangelize before they evangelized them. The debt was generated solely because the work was done for their benefit. Therefore, the minister has not only an equal claim to a wage as workers in other occupations, but a superior claim to it.

Since a wage is owed to the preacher, those who fail or refuse to pay him are thieves and robbers, defrauders, oppressors, and sinners. God’s curse is upon them. As James writes, “Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you.” The money that you save by neglecting to pay the preacher testifies against you, and screams out your sin to the Lord day and night. The minister might have to take another job outside of the ministry because of your covetousness and oppression – his every ounce of effort, his every drop of sweat, his every sigh is a testimony of your guilt. The Lord counts every tear his wife sheds against you. He curses you for every pang of hunger his children feel. It is a wicked thing that you do, and the Lord promises to punish you because of your cruelty and hard-heartedness. Even greater is your condemnation if you attempt to persuade others that a preacher should always work without pay.

Sometimes covetous church members and self-righteous leaders seize upon Paul’s example, in that he ministered without charge. However, any reader of even minimal competence should perceive that this is the glaring exception that proves the rule. This is because the place where he explains the exception is also the place where he asserts most strongly and in the greatest detail the right of the minister to obtain material support (1 Corinthians 9).

First, he explained to the Corinthians that his policy of preaching without charge was the forgoing of a right. That is, he had the right to receive payment but did not exercise this right. If it was a right that he did not exercise, then it was a right that he could have exercised. Thus the Corinthians indeed owed him, but he pardoned the debt. Second, if it was his right to receive payment, then he was the only one who could refuse payment. It was not up to the Corinthians to withhold from him. Third, he said that “the Lord’s brothers and Cephas” exercised this right. The exception was not universally practiced even among the apostles. Fourth, this policy of refusing payment was in effect toward only certain congregations. For example, he accepted money from the Philippians, and the language in his letter to them indicates that he did so at least twice, since it says that they sent him aid “again and again.”

Fifth, he was clear in his reasons for declining payment from the Corinthians and certain other congregations. When the reasons did not apply, then the exception did not apply. He said that he did not exercise his rights when to exercise them would have hindered the gospel. And the reasons it might have hindered the gospel was because of their immaturity, bad attitude, and lack of discernment. Perhaps there were some who would have become suspicious of his motives. This would have distracted them from hearing the message of the gospel. Or, perhaps some would have tried to place Paul under their control if he had accepted payment from them. In contrast, the Philippians considered themselves partners with Paul in the spread of the gospel, repeatedly sending money and supplies to him. They had a right understanding of the nature of the work and of their relationship with the preacher. By all indications, Paul did not accept payment from some people because he considered them either unbelievers or believers who suffered from retarded development. In fact, Paul’s ministry to them was a case of charity. You do not ask retarded people to pay you – if possible, you help them without charge.

It is true that Jesus said to his disciples, “Freely you have received, freely give.” However, immediately after this, he told them not to bring any money or extra supplies, because “the worker is worth his keep.” The statement concerned how they were to dispense the message and the powers of the gospel, and not whether they could accept material support from the people. That is, Jesus instructed them to perform their ministry “freely,” but at the same time to expect all their needs to be supplied by the people who received the benefit of their work. His point was not that the disciples should refuse hospitality and payment, but that they must not demand compensation for each unit of work done or for each instance of ministry.

It is a prescription for how a person should approach the work of ministry. The statement, “Freely you have received, freely give,” was made right after the commission to preach, heal, and cast out demons, and again, right before the instruction to expect those who received the ministry to pay for everything. In other words, Peter could not say to someone who had a demon, “I have received power from Christ to cast out this demon, but you must pay me this amount of money, or I will not do it.” No, he must cast out the demon without charge, but afterward, the person who was set free was morally obligated to compensate Peter for his work. In doing so, he would not be only supporting Peter, but he would have testified by his action that he endorsed the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Suppose someone comes to me and say, “What must I do to be saved?” I must not reply, “I know how you can be saved. Pay me this amount of money and I will tell you, but if you do not pay me, I will let you go to hell.” No, I must preach the gospel to this person freely, without consideration as to whether I will obtain any material reward. My responsibility is to teach him the truth, and to do it without favoritism, withholding nothing. His responsibility is to recognize me as a messenger from God who brings him good news that can save his soul, and then to offer me his material support. As Paul writes, “If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?” and “Anyone who receives instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor.” Whether he does his part or not, I will do my part. If he is retarded, then I will forgo my rights for the sake of the gospel. Nevertheless, this does not relieve him of his responsibility before God.

Clearly, all of this means that it is possible to cheat the minister of his rightful wages, and this is often what happens. But God is faithful. He will meet all our needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. He will vindicate his servants, and curse those who rob and oppress them. Therefore, pay your ministers. If they perform their work well, pay them well, especially if they work hard at preaching and teaching.

To those who work in the ministry, you should feel no shame in accepting financial support from believers. If possible, the amount of support should be sufficient to sustain your entire family and ministry. By God’s command, this is your right and their obligation. In making your living from the work of the gospel, at least as much as possible, you are following the example of all the apostles, including Paul, and also of the Lord Jesus, who according to Luke, received support from a group of women. The amount of money involved must have been considerable, as it was sufficient to sustain the living and traveling expenses of at least thirteen people (Luke 8:3). This does not necessarily mean that all their money came from these women, but the point is that they accepted funds from supporters, and that they took in enough to meet the needs of more than a dozen men. In fact, they had enough money to require a money bag (John 12:6), and enough to give some of it to the poor (it seems the disciples considered this as routine; John 13:29), and even enough for Judas to steal from it without being discovered by anyone (at least at first, since it seems reasonable to assume that the other disciples would have reacted if they had known; John 12:6), except the Lord, who knew his true nature since the beginning (John 6:64, 70).