Q. 1. Is it traversing the truth of the Holy Ghost's presence in the church and His distributing to or by whomsoever He will, for a brother to have the room, used to break bread in, for preaching the gospel, either doing it himself or asking another?
I quite understand the saints saying, “We wish our room used only for open meetings;” but are they free by the word of the Lord to allow it for meetings that rest on individual responsibility? Does this encroach on the truth that saints gathered to the Lord's name own the guidance of the Spirit who dwells in the church—the house of God?
S.
A. It is evident from scripture that the difficulty could not have even occurred to the early saints. For the original breakings of bread were in private houses, the owners of which simply gave the use of a room for that purpose. The gospel may have been preached, as it was certainly freely elsewhere, within doors or without, to a few or to multitudes. The simpler are our thoughts as to both, the better. The same principles lead to the same practice under such circumstances still. It is never wrong to meet or to preach in a private house. And if brethren hire a larger and more central room to meet in more conveniently, they are perfectly free to give the use of it when not wanted for assembly purposes to one or more brothers in whom they confide to preach or lecture in. It is happy when one of known gift and good report accepts the responsibility, preaching in the room or finding one to do so, and thus closing what might otherwise be a source of question and difficulty for the meeting. The church of course neither preaches nor teaches, but owns and honors those who have the seals of such gifts from the Lord. So we see Paul choosing Silas and declining to have Mark at one time, however he might commend him later. This shows the action of a principle wholly distinct from the assembly and the working of the Spirit by one or another in it. It is mischievous to set one against the other; and there is no reason why the same building or room should not be used at one time for the assembly, at another for individual ministry. If there was no brother of such gift or moral weight as to command confidence, they might decline lending their room; if there was, to refuse would be their shame. But the Lord would soon find another room for His workman and work. Only the assembly might and must suffer for their lack of grace and wisdom. It is evident that anything which tends to sever the assembly from interest in the gospel, is to be deprecated. It promotes the divisive feeling of those who have no heart, save for their own work, be it ecclesiastic or evangelic. Wisdom and grace will hold to both firmly, and resist the narrowness which, if allowed, can only end in cliques with their leaders, schisms, or even worse.
Q. 2. It is alleged that in 1 Tim. 5:1717Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine. (1 Timothy 5:17) the word “pay” should stand instead of “honor,” and that those who were charged with the care of a local &lurch received stipends. Is this correct? S. B.
A. The word τιμή in the text does not mean “pay,” but “honor” as its radical and primary signification, that is, the due expression or payment of esteem or worship as the case might be; hence the dignity, or prerogative, of one so honored; and even the office, authority, or rank; and the present, or offering, commonly given in such cases. It was also used for the worth or price of a thing; for an assessment or even penalty, compensation or satisfaction. But “pay” in the sense of stipend or wages as expressed in general by μισθός, which, in strict application, would have been scouted by every Christian heart, is used in a free or simple way by the Lord in Luke 10, and by the apostle in 1 Tim. 5, not as a standing fee. (Cf. John 10) Later Greek, such as in the LXX or the Greek Testament, gives ὀφώνιον, military pay or rations, as may be seen in Luke 3, Rom. 6 Cor. 9 and 2 Cor. 11, to which the curious can add Esdras iv. 56, 1 Mace. iii. 28, and xiv. 82. As to the phrase, see what Josephus (Antiq. IV., iv. 114) says of Balak, ἀποπέμπει τὸν Βάλαμον μνδεμιᾶς τιμῆς ἀξιώσας and in classic Greek we read in Dem. περὶ στεφ., ed. Reiske, 297, 16, ἄπαντας ὁμοίως ἡ πὁλις τῆς αὐτῆς ἀξεὠσασα τιμῆς. It cannot then be fairly doubted that the English version is justified, and that salary or pay is not the prominent or even true idea, but “honor.” Still that there is included every loving consideration of the elders taking the lead or presiding well seems plain from what follows, but this rather as honorarium than as stipendium. On the one hand it is degrading to the service of Christ when it is made a question of the earnings of a trade or profession; but on the other it is a dishonor to the saints who reap the fruit of unremitting and unselfish care in spiritual things if they do not mark their sense of it, not merely where the servants are needy, but in the reciprocity of loving regard where no such want exists. The payment of “honor,” nay, “double honor,” might be questioned where there was not the apparent desire to prove it. The apostle had enjoined on Timothy, in the preceding verses, to “honor widows;” here he claims honor doubly for elders that take the lead well. That “double” was used for indefinitely great in good or evil, one sees in Matt. 23, Rev. 18:66Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. (Revelation 18:6), as in Isa. 40:22Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all her sins. (Isaiah 40:2). The “especially” (μἀλιστα) that follows is incompatible with a fixed salary, as indeed is all scripture. The general principle is equally true of those who teach (Gal. 6:66Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. (Galatians 6:6)), and of those who preach. (1 Cor. 9) Acts 28:1010Who also honored us with many honors; and when we departed, they laded us with such things as were necessary. (Acts 28:10) seems to distinguish the attentions paid during the stay at Melita from the provision of requisites on departing.
A. It was not merely “the tabernacle,” but of the “testimony” which was opened in judgment; nor yet the vads, house or “temple” only, but this “in heaven,” the fullest possible expression of the highest source from which the wrath of God was coming forth on the apostate earth before the Lord Himself appeared.
A. “The great city” I should connect with chapter xi. 8, which distinguishes it from the city which has rule or kinship over the kings of the earth, “great Babylon.” The one may be more the expression of worldliness in its Jewish form, the other in its Gentile confusion, unless we take the former for the proud center of the world's civilization in general, as we may understand, “the cities of the nations” in a subordinate degree.