- Thread starter
- #141
-
-
-
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/
-
-
-
-
Paul the Tent Maker
- Thread starter Slider
- Start date
Deborah13
Member
- Nov 30, 2012
- 14,684
- 1,936
Look what I found on the new Blue Letter Bible Beta 3 site that was introduced in the threads A timeline of Paul's life and ministry, I would say it is as trustworthy as any considering the source. http://v3.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm
- Thread starter
- #143
Deborah, I did quote and suggest you look at that exact reference.... Please have a look at post #140.
That reference along with some maps, an understanding of geography, and the book of Acts and some serching of the epistles bears out what I've said. I've learned a lot from this discussion, and some of the things I've said in the past I've had to change. But it's clear that Paul's ministry was not supported by tent making, neither was his personal well being. He did make tents and I suspect he either learned that trade or refined it in Ephesus. He used it in Corinth, but not as a means of survival or supplying his personal needs. Perhaps it did help, but he credits the giving of the Philippeans in the financing of his travels. Because his life was preaching the gospel and it was always spent "on the road", his personal needs were met chiefly not from tent making, but from preaching.
Paul was a great humanitarian. He did relieve a famine that was prophesized, but that was before he went to Corinth or Europe. He later continued financial support for Jerusalem, but he had plans to preach in Rome and later Spain. He called for collections for both. His third missionary journey was three fold in nature: Preach the gospel where ever he went, bring relief to Jerusalem and then go onward to Rome and Spain. A careful study of the timeline will show he did in fact preach in new territories (Troas and the western coast of Turkey) and eventually did reach Jerusalem. The status of his aid to Jerusalem (from my studies and what I see) is unknown. He was arrested in Jerusalem and eventually did reach Rome, but not as he planned. He was sent there under bonds.
However, his travels were not funded by tent making. The Phillipians as well as the Corinthians provided and did so because he preached. So there is no reason to call Paul a tent maker or to believe that what his livelyhood and his personal support. At best, it may have helped. Personally, I beleive he made tents to help Aquilla and his business. He was just being a brother....
The practical implications for us are as follows: The Apostle Paul was willing to work with his own hands, but his journey and well being were not funded by tent making. They were funded by preaching. Likewise, anyone today should follow suite. It's not a bad thing if a Pastor or anyone else in the ministry must work to make ends meet for himself and the ministry he is in. It may be needed at times. It may also be an education to the congregation. But if the congregation learns and grows, it is beneficial more so to the congregation that the preacher be supported than it is to the preacher. The preacher will get the means to support himself and not have to take out a second job, and if he's a real man of God, will spend his time wisely. In prayer and research and preaching. That spiritually benefits us! Would you rather your preacher having to work 40 hours at a job or spending 40 hours in prayer for you and preparing a great sermon?
No.... The Preacher needs to be supported. And he deserves the same respect Paul, Peter and John got. If I could raise any of them from the dead and organize a preaching in the Superdome or Shea Stadium, I'd sell the place out and be a rich man! Yet, there are those that are preaching the same thing they do, and more so, and they struggle.
So don't despise the preacher of today. Paul even admitted that he knew in part. He never had the Bible like we do. Today's ministers and preachers aren't more intelligent than Paul, they aren't more talented than Paul and aren't more annointed that Paul. but they DO know some things Paul didn't.
That reference along with some maps, an understanding of geography, and the book of Acts and some serching of the epistles bears out what I've said. I've learned a lot from this discussion, and some of the things I've said in the past I've had to change. But it's clear that Paul's ministry was not supported by tent making, neither was his personal well being. He did make tents and I suspect he either learned that trade or refined it in Ephesus. He used it in Corinth, but not as a means of survival or supplying his personal needs. Perhaps it did help, but he credits the giving of the Philippeans in the financing of his travels. Because his life was preaching the gospel and it was always spent "on the road", his personal needs were met chiefly not from tent making, but from preaching.
Paul was a great humanitarian. He did relieve a famine that was prophesized, but that was before he went to Corinth or Europe. He later continued financial support for Jerusalem, but he had plans to preach in Rome and later Spain. He called for collections for both. His third missionary journey was three fold in nature: Preach the gospel where ever he went, bring relief to Jerusalem and then go onward to Rome and Spain. A careful study of the timeline will show he did in fact preach in new territories (Troas and the western coast of Turkey) and eventually did reach Jerusalem. The status of his aid to Jerusalem (from my studies and what I see) is unknown. He was arrested in Jerusalem and eventually did reach Rome, but not as he planned. He was sent there under bonds.
However, his travels were not funded by tent making. The Phillipians as well as the Corinthians provided and did so because he preached. So there is no reason to call Paul a tent maker or to believe that what his livelyhood and his personal support. At best, it may have helped. Personally, I beleive he made tents to help Aquilla and his business. He was just being a brother....
The practical implications for us are as follows: The Apostle Paul was willing to work with his own hands, but his journey and well being were not funded by tent making. They were funded by preaching. Likewise, anyone today should follow suite. It's not a bad thing if a Pastor or anyone else in the ministry must work to make ends meet for himself and the ministry he is in. It may be needed at times. It may also be an education to the congregation. But if the congregation learns and grows, it is beneficial more so to the congregation that the preacher be supported than it is to the preacher. The preacher will get the means to support himself and not have to take out a second job, and if he's a real man of God, will spend his time wisely. In prayer and research and preaching. That spiritually benefits us! Would you rather your preacher having to work 40 hours at a job or spending 40 hours in prayer for you and preparing a great sermon?
No.... The Preacher needs to be supported. And he deserves the same respect Paul, Peter and John got. If I could raise any of them from the dead and organize a preaching in the Superdome or Shea Stadium, I'd sell the place out and be a rich man! Yet, there are those that are preaching the same thing they do, and more so, and they struggle.
So don't despise the preacher of today. Paul even admitted that he knew in part. He never had the Bible like we do. Today's ministers and preachers aren't more intelligent than Paul, they aren't more talented than Paul and aren't more annointed that Paul. but they DO know some things Paul didn't.
Deborah13
Member
- Nov 30, 2012
- 14,684
- 1,936
Oh my I forgot about it as it was late last night and I hadn't read your post.
I hope you are not speaking to me as in despising the preacher of today (or evangelist or any other disciple) as I have always agreed with you that a preacher should be financially supported by the congregation and maybe even others that see the good work he is doing. Personally, I feel we should support television ministries, etc that we see are preaching the Word of God, colleges that teach, missions and missionaries, food banks, ministries that reach out to all those in need, the list goes on and on. So we try to do what the Lord instructs each one of us to do, personally. If we have a church with a pastor that should be in my opinion, the first place we give to.
I hope you are not speaking to me as in despising the preacher of today (or evangelist or any other disciple) as I have always agreed with you that a preacher should be financially supported by the congregation and maybe even others that see the good work he is doing. Personally, I feel we should support television ministries, etc that we see are preaching the Word of God, colleges that teach, missions and missionaries, food banks, ministries that reach out to all those in need, the list goes on and on. So we try to do what the Lord instructs each one of us to do, personally. If we have a church with a pastor that should be in my opinion, the first place we give to.
- Thread starter
- #145
No Deborah... I wasn't implying that about you nor anyone else on this board or who has responded. It's a general statement made by me not to forget about them that preach. Unless you were born under a rock and God personally talked to you and you wandered around a library or book store until you found a Bible, we all owe our salvation to someone who took the time to preach. Ultimately, yes... To Jesus, but someone took the time to preach about him to you.
We DO live in a world where people make merchandise of the Gospel. We have ministers who pervert it and make money on it. We have ministers who pray on unsuspecting Children -- in the flesh; pedophiles! And thus, society looks at them with a skeptical eye. May God deal with those devils as he sees fit! But my point and a big thing I want to get accross to people is that the feet of one who preaches the truth are beautiful! I owe my eternal life to Jesus, but also to a man of flesh and blood who represented him and preached the truth.
Paul said he was Jesus' ambassador and spoke in Christ's stead. Thus, if Paul said it, it might as well have been Jesus. If you ignore Paul (or Peter or John) you are ignoring Jesus. I honestly believe it's no different today. They were apostles with a specific. But as in all eras of God (and all eras being in God), there are men who still preach and speak for Christ Jesus. Just like Paul, they are now speaking for Jesus and are his ambassadors.
That is my ultimate motive....