How Paul used Luke 10 strategically
In the last article I showed that Luke 10, the sending of the 70, was used in the early church and specifically by the Apostle Paul as a guideline in ministry. In this note, I want to return to that theme and look at how Paul used Luke 10. As I pointed out, Paul quotes from Luke 10:7 in 1 Timothy 5:18. It is interesting to me how he used it.
First look at the 2 verses.
Luke 10:7-"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house."
1 Timothy 5:18-"For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages"."
Paul quotes Jesus from Luke 10:7 and calls it Scripture, indicating that by the time he wrote 1 Timothy, Luke had already written his gospel, and that Paul saw it as Scripture. This is a point that has been noted by a number of conservative scholars in their commentaries on the book of 1 Timothy. Even several more liberal scholars seem to see it as Paul quoting Jesus, perhaps from an oral tradition or earlier written source. The point is that it is not unreasonable to see Paul deliberately quoting Jesus from Luke 10.
Secondly, Paul is quoting this scripture to defend his commands to Timothy concerning financial remuneration for elders in the churches. He is basing this command on the words of Jesus. If one thinks about it, he is not only quoting Luke 10, but using it in proper context as he applies it to Gentile churches. In Luke, Jesus is telling his workers to get their supplies from the harvest itself, eating what is given to them in the homes of the person of peace, thus making bringing supplies unnecessary. They are to be supplied from the harvest field. Paul is saying that teaching elders should be supported the same way in churches. The local church itself should support the teaching elders.
Thirdly, let's take a wider view and see other ways that Paul and the early church addressed the specific issue of support of gospel workers. Let us use the phrase "strategic instructions" to think about instructions to workers such as we find in Luke 10 (or Matthew 10 and Luke 9, in the sending of the 12). In examining the New Testament (not exhaustively, but briefly in terms of the reflections shared in this note), I see 3 models given for the support of christian gospel workers. Here they are:
a. The original model (Luke 10: the 70, Matthew 10, Luke 9: the 12): The worker goes into the field without many supplies, and is supplied from the harvest group itself. (This model is then applied to existing local churches and their elders in 1 Timothy 5:18).
b. The Pauline Revision: 1 Corinthians 9, etc.: The bi-vocational worker, Paul as tent-maker. Paul has a "right" to the support of the original model, but does not exercise this right in order to move into other contexts without opening the door for suspicion.
c. The sending church model: 3 John 8: The apostle John, in one of the New Testament's last documents seems to discuss a model that churches like the one at Phillipi had practiced, that of an existing church giving resources to workers in other fields.
My conclusion is that Paul (and the New Testament church) used the model (and the very words) of the sending of the 70 in terms of strategic instructions, at the very least, concerning financial support of gospel workers. AND that Paul and the church applied these instructions in a libertarian rather than a legalistic way. They were the basic strategic instructions, but could be modified in application depending on the context. In fact Jesus, Himself seems to give us this liberty as He modified them at the very end of His ministry, looking toward a global rather than a local application (compare Luke 10:4 and Luke 22: 35-38).
I believe that this specific case illustrates that:
a. Luke 10 is a strategic paradigm for gospel advance.
b. There can be liberty of application of the strategy in missional context.
c. Church planting movement use of Luke 10 is consistent with early church use of it.
I know that there is much more to explore on all of these fronts, but hope that this contribution can help us to see the biblical legitimacy of cpm practice.
First look at the 2 verses.
Luke 10:7-"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house."
1 Timothy 5:18-"For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages"."
Paul quotes Jesus from Luke 10:7 and calls it Scripture, indicating that by the time he wrote 1 Timothy, Luke had already written his gospel, and that Paul saw it as Scripture. This is a point that has been noted by a number of conservative scholars in their commentaries on the book of 1 Timothy. Even several more liberal scholars seem to see it as Paul quoting Jesus, perhaps from an oral tradition or earlier written source. The point is that it is not unreasonable to see Paul deliberately quoting Jesus from Luke 10.
Secondly, Paul is quoting this scripture to defend his commands to Timothy concerning financial remuneration for elders in the churches. He is basing this command on the words of Jesus. If one thinks about it, he is not only quoting Luke 10, but using it in proper context as he applies it to Gentile churches. In Luke, Jesus is telling his workers to get their supplies from the harvest itself, eating what is given to them in the homes of the person of peace, thus making bringing supplies unnecessary. They are to be supplied from the harvest field. Paul is saying that teaching elders should be supported the same way in churches. The local church itself should support the teaching elders.
Thirdly, let's take a wider view and see other ways that Paul and the early church addressed the specific issue of support of gospel workers. Let us use the phrase "strategic instructions" to think about instructions to workers such as we find in Luke 10 (or Matthew 10 and Luke 9, in the sending of the 12). In examining the New Testament (not exhaustively, but briefly in terms of the reflections shared in this note), I see 3 models given for the support of christian gospel workers. Here they are:
a. The original model (Luke 10: the 70, Matthew 10, Luke 9: the 12): The worker goes into the field without many supplies, and is supplied from the harvest group itself. (This model is then applied to existing local churches and their elders in 1 Timothy 5:18).
b. The Pauline Revision: 1 Corinthians 9, etc.: The bi-vocational worker, Paul as tent-maker. Paul has a "right" to the support of the original model, but does not exercise this right in order to move into other contexts without opening the door for suspicion.
c. The sending church model: 3 John 8: The apostle John, in one of the New Testament's last documents seems to discuss a model that churches like the one at Phillipi had practiced, that of an existing church giving resources to workers in other fields.
My conclusion is that Paul (and the New Testament church) used the model (and the very words) of the sending of the 70 in terms of strategic instructions, at the very least, concerning financial support of gospel workers. AND that Paul and the church applied these instructions in a libertarian rather than a legalistic way. They were the basic strategic instructions, but could be modified in application depending on the context. In fact Jesus, Himself seems to give us this liberty as He modified them at the very end of His ministry, looking toward a global rather than a local application (compare Luke 10:4 and Luke 22: 35-38).
I believe that this specific case illustrates that:
a. Luke 10 is a strategic paradigm for gospel advance.
b. There can be liberty of application of the strategy in missional context.
c. Church planting movement use of Luke 10 is consistent with early church use of it.
I know that there is much more to explore on all of these fronts, but hope that this contribution can help us to see the biblical legitimacy of cpm practice.
Comments