Grok's Analysis of "The Pastor"

Question: Is the Title, Position, and/or “Office” of “The Pastor” Biblical According to the New Testament?

Answer:

1. The modern concept of “THE Pastor” (singular, professional, senior leader) is not biblical

The New Testament evidence consistently leans heavily toward plural, non-hierarchical, locally raised leadership rather than a single “pastor-in-charge” model:

New Testament Evidence	Implication
Virtually every mention of elders/overseers is plural (Acts 14:23; 20:17; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Pet 5:1-2)	Ekklesias normally had teams of elders, not one senior pastor
The same men are called elders (presbuteros), overseers (episkopos), and "pastors"/shepherds (poimēn) interchangeably (Acts 20:17,28; 1 Pet 5:1-2; cf. Titus 1:5-7)	“Pastor” is not a distinct office; it is a function of elders
Elders are raised from within the local church (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; 1 Tim 3:1-7) and are not imported professionals	Contrasts with modern seminary-trained, hired senior pastor model
No New Testament ekklesia is ever shown with a single human leader; even Jerusalem had a plurality (Acts 15)	No clear example of the modern “senior pastor” model

2. Common proof-texts re-examined

• Acts 20:28 – Paul tells the Ephesian elders (plural) to “shepherd (poimainō) the ekkelsia of God..
• 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1 – Qualifications for “overseer” (episkopos) use singular grammar generically (e.g., "the driver must wear a seatbelt"); always implemented plurally.
• James 5:14 – “Call the elders (plural) of the ekklesia.”
• The “angels of the seven ekklesias” in Revelation 2–3 are sometimes claimed to be single pastors, but most scholars see them as either literal angels or a literary device for the ekklesias themselves.

3. Historical note

The single senior pastor model (sometimes called the “monarchical episcopate”) began emerging in the early 2nd century (most clearly in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch ~AD 110), but it is not clearly present in the New Testament documents themselves.

Summary Conclusion

So:
“No, the contemporary ‘office of the Pastor’ as most churches practice it today is not taught or exemplified in the New Testament.”

• Yes – The function of "pastoring"/shepherding is biblical and is one of the core tasks of the elders, and the gift of shepherd-teacher is given by Jesus to the Ekklesia (Eph 4:11).
• No – The modern office of a single, professional, hierarchically senior “Pastor” (capital P) with a title like “Reverend” or “Senior Pastor” has no precedent in the New Testament pattern.

The New Testament norm is a team of elders who together shepherd the flock.

---

For more on this, please see Grok's answers here and my articles here, here, here, and here. By the way, the function of "pastoring" (shepherding) does not include the preaching of a sermon to the believers. Preaching was only ever for the lost, the unbelievers; it was never done in the midst of a meeting of believers. Believers lived out the life of Christ Jesus among each other, expressing Him and letting Him guide them through His Spirit as their Head. Also, the team of elders did not rule over the rest of the gathering nor make decisions apart from them.

Jesus Fulfilled the Central Elements of the Old Covenant

The central elements in the Old Covenant were sacrifice, priesthood, and tabernacle. The New Testament Scriptures, especially the letter to the Hebrews, teach us that Christ Jesus was the fulfillment of sacrifice, priesthood, and tabernacle. Jesus is our high priest; therefore we have no need for earthly priests (Heb. 4:14; 8:1). In fact, the priesthood has been expanded to include all believers (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6)—men, women, and children. Jesus is the true and perfect sacrifice, offered once for all, so that no further sacrifice is either necessary or possible (Heb. 7:27; 9:14, 25-28; 1 Pet. 3:18). Jesus is also the fulfillment of the tabernacle (Heb. 8-9; see 9:24). The need for an earthly tabernacle has passed away (John 4:20-24). "The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us" (John 1:14; cf. 1:17). Jesus identified His body with the temple (John 2:19-21). He is Emmanuel, God with us (Matt. 1:23).

Sacrifice, priesthood, and tabernacle were all instituted through Moses. Theologically, all passed away with the coming of Jesus and the birth of the Ekklesia (Assembly, Congregation). Historically, all three passed away with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. They had become irrelevant, anachronistic. The New Covenant has no need of sacrifice, priesthood, and tabernacle, because the Ekklesia together with Jesus are all three. Our lives are to be a "living sacrifice" (Rom. 21:1). We are the temple of God (Heb. 9:11). Every believer is a priest, having no need of any so-called "spiritual authority" other than Christ Jesus Himself (1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). The only missing piece was a place to meet, and the most logical place to meet was the home (Acts 2:46; 5:42). Theologically, the Ekklesia does not need temples! Church buildings are not essential to the true nature of the Ekklesia.

The great temptation of the organized church has been to reinstate all three of these elements among Yahweh God's people: to turn community into an institution, set up a professional priesthood, turn the Lord's Supper into a new sacrificial system, and build great cathedrals. None of this is to be found in the New Testament Scriptures. This is all taken from the Old Testament Scriptures. It is a mixing of oil and water; a mixing of new wine with old wineskins, Law or legalism with grace.

Church buildings are a return to the shadow of the Old Testament, a betrayal of the reality of the New Testament. Theologically, church buildings are at best unnecessary and at worst idolatrous.

Look After the Poor

The Bible continually points to the poor, the widow, the orphan, the stranger, the needy, and the oppressed. In the Old Testament, we read that Yahweh God especially loves the poor and does not forget them. Yahweh's anointed one "delivers the needy when he calls, the poor and him who has no helper. He has pity on the weak and the needy, and saves the lives of the needy" (Ps. 72:12-13). Yahweh "does not forget the cry of the afflicted" (Ps. 9:12). Yahweh has been "a stronghold to the poor, a stronghold to the needy in his distress" (Is. 25:4).

In the Old Testament social order, the poor received an economic advantage. The people were commanded to load freely to the poor, but not to charge interest (Deut. 15:7-11; Ex. 22:25). Part of the wheat and grape harvest was to be left ungathered for the benefit of the poor (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22). Even part of the purpose of the tithe was to provide relief for the poor (Deut. 14:28-29; 26:12-13)—a welfare system.

The Old Testament emphasizes that Yahweh requires justice for the poor and will judge those who oppress them. Yahweh's words by the prophet Zechariah are representative: "Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy each to his brother, do not oppress the widow, the fatherless, the sojourner, or the poor" (Zech. 7:9-10; compare Lev. 19:15; Deut. 16:18-20; 24:14-22; Prov. 31:9; Amos 2:6-7).

Finally, the Old Testament teaches that Yahweh's people bear a special ethical responsibility for the poor. Remembrance of their slavery in Egypt was to motivate the Israelites to show mercy to the oppressed (Deut. 24:17-22). The faithfulness of Yahweh's people was continually measured by their treatment of the poor.

Why does Yahweh care so much about the poor? Because poverty is of ethical significance—the poor is a moral category, relating to Yahweh's requirement for justice. In Yahweh's world, there is no human condition that escapes moral significance.

Jesus made the preaching of the Gospel to the poor a validation of His own ministry. He said, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor" (Luke 4:18; citing Isaiah 61, compare Matthew 11:1-6). Jesus believed the poor were more ready and able to understand and accept His Gospel. Jesus prayed, "I thank you, Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yes, Father, for such was Your gracious will" (Matt. 11:25-26).

Jesus specifically directed the Gospel call to the poor. He said, "Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Matt. 11:28). Jesus was not only speaking of the poor, but also of those burdened by the demands of the Law. On several occasions, Jesus recommended sowing partiality to the poor (Matt. 19:21; Luke 12:33; 14:12-14). Jesus demonstrated the same attitude toward the poor that Yahweh revealed in the Old Testament.

Even the apostles cared for the poor. When Paul went up before the Council in Jerusalem, James, Peter, and John "asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do" (Gal. 2:10).

Jesus' Ekklesia must likewise place special emphasis on the poor. A biblical ekklesia with biblical theology that seeks to be New Testament in spirit and practice must reflect the biblical concern for the poor. Bruce Kendrick wrote, "Instead of seeking the lost sheep—whether black or white or speckled—[Protestants] sought out those who thought as they thought, and dressed as they dressed, and talked as they talked." Instead of seeking the poor, "the Protestant church was cutting itself off from them and neglecting the fact that the sign of the Kingdom is that the poor have the Gospel preached to them." The American church has implied that its mission is meaningless to the poor, the hopeless, and the wretched—unless an ocean separates them.

"I was hungry and you gave me a press release" is how the American church largely deals with the poor. Wherever the poor are found, there is the focus of Christian responsibility. Jesus said, "The poor you will always have with you" (Matt. 26:11; Mark 14:7; John 12:8). Jesus was suggesting that while poverty will persist, it is not a reason to neglect helping those in need.

The priority among the poor is evangelism. "The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them" (Matt. 11:5). Noting we can do for the poor is more relevant than evangelism. Ernest Campbell wrote in his Christian Manifesto, "A church so busily at work correcting the massive injustices of society that it cannot or will not make the effort to win men and women to an allegiance to Jesus Christ will soon become sterile and unable to produce after its kind." Not will its kind be worth producing after.

Are we more concerned with poverty than with the poor? Are we more concerned about a program than about people? Are we more interested in solving a social problem than meeting personal need?

We would do well to learn from 1 Corinthians 1:28-29: "God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to being to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God." American missionaries frequently have the bad habit of going into foreign countries and trying to win over the well-to-dos, the social elites, the upper class, and it fairs poorly for them. But those who go to the poor witness crazy growth.

Christian responsibility toward the poor does not end with evangelism. Loving involvement with persons, once begun, cannot simply be turned off. Christian responsibility toward the poor is an expression of love. Yahweh expects His people to see that the poor among them are cared for. Can we say with David, "I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging for bread" (Ps. 37:25)? If not, then our "Christianity" is not meeting its biblical responsibility to the poor.

The Ekklesia needs the poor. Too many religious movements in history are born among the poor, rise on the socioeconomic ladder with subsequent generations, and then leave the poor behind, disinherited. This pattern recurs with remarkable regularity in the history of Christianity. The pattern of the flesh is to grow up into "respectability," leaving the poor behind. The pattern of the Spirit is to grow up into Christ. A healthy emphasis on the Gospel to the poor may be the surest antidote to institutionalism and irrelevant structures. We should never assume the necessity of an elaborate building; our approach should be people-centered. This only happens when meeting in small groups in homes where everyone can get to know everyone else intimately. It never happens in the church.

Our large man-made denominations are becoming Laodicean (Rev. 3:17) and will be left to die, as they should. These denominations only perpetuate among themselves, although statistics reveal that many of their children are leaving the faith. Institutional Christianity kills, and always has. Biblical Christianity is organic; it is open, spontaneous, and every-member functioning.

We ignorantly seem to think that the "mission field" only applies over the ocean. In our own countries we have the poor. Americans believe that the response would not be the same if the Gospel were preached to the poor in their cities. How do they know? They are not there. They have never tried. Both the Bible and history point the same way: preach the Gospel to the poor! Failure to minister to the poor witnesses a distorted view of the institutional church, and even an ekklesia.

There is a reason why Jesus said that the prostitutes and the drug dealers and the other "low-lifes" were entering the Kingdom ahead of the religious elite. Maybe we should ponder that promptly.

What Does the Bible Say About Paying Pastors?

The Bible does not teach that "pastors" should be compensated for their work. The title, position, and "office" of the "pastor," the one-person ministry that governs the entire local "church," cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament Scriptures. One has to commit eisegesis of the grandest kind and twist Scripture like the Devil in order to impose this concept upon God's Word. Let us look as some of the passages these preachers, theologians, and "scholars" claim teach compensation for "pastors":

"In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." 1 Corinthians 9:14

"Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages (μισθοῦ).”" 1 Timothy 5:17-18

"And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages (μισθοῦ). Do not go from house to house." Luke 10:7 [1-24; "Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road."]

"For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat." 2 Thessalonians 3:7-10

"Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches." Galatians 6:6

"We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, and to esteem them very highly [hold them in the highest regard] in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves." 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13

Absolutely nowhere in these verses do we find the mention of money. It is assumed that "wages" infers monetary payment, but pay attention to the context of these passages.

What does 1 Corinthians 9 have to do with? Go ahead, read the entire chapter. Do you find the mention of money found anywhere in this chapter? What things stand out while you are reading? "Do we not have a right to eat and drink?" and "For it is written in the Law of Mosess, 'YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING.'" Where is the concept of monetary gain derived from the words "is it too much if we reap material things from you"? Where is there mention of monetary payment in the words "those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel"? When Jesus sent out the 12 and the 70, he said, "Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, . . . for the worker is worthy of his support," "...eating and drinking what they give you" and "eat what is set before you." This passage speaks of eating and drinking, too.

What about 1 Timothy 5:17-18? Is there any mention there about monetary payment for preaching the Gospel? No, no there is not! What does it mean to be "considered worthy of double honor"? Well, it surely does not having anything to do with monetary gain. Peter addresses this pretty clearly: Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory" (1 Peter 5:1-4). It seems pretty clear to me what Peter is saying: "Shepherd the flock of God . . . not for shameful gain." What does Peter warn about later? "...in their greed they will exploit you..." (2 Peter 2:2-3). What does Paul tell Timothy? That men "suppose that godliness is a means of gain" (1 Timothy 6:3-5). Preachers today will attempt to tell you that "double honour" means that whoever earns the most money in the church, the pastor should be earning twice as much. So if an electrician is earning $100,000/year, the pastor should earn $200,000/year. Not only is this unbiblical, and Scripture twisting, but it is also highway robbery!

In looking at Luke 10:7-9, what is the first thing that stands out to you? "...eating and drinking what they give you" and "eat what is set before you." So this passage is concerned with food and drink as wages for proclaiming the Gospel. In a similar passage, it reads: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. Do not acquire gold, or silver, or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey, or even two coats, or sandals, or a staff; for the worker is worthy of his support" (Matthew 10:8-10). The labourer of the Gospel is worthy of his support, but it has nothing to do with money.

In 2 Thessalonians 3:7-10, what things stand out to you? "...nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it" and "if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either." Again, in connection with wages for the Gospel, food is mentioned. And what do we find in between these two verses? "...not because we do not have the right to this..." What do they have the right to? What did he just say? "...nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it." What does he say in the end? "...if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either."

Where in Galatians 6:6 is there any mention of monetary payment for a minister of the Gospel? You have to read such a concept into the text, which is the performance of eisegesis! It is amazing how so many preachers who claim to preach the Bible verse-by-verse, line-by-line, precept-by-precept, fail to explain these passages correctly according to their context. It is more amazing how they can willfully take all these passages and force them to support their wages. If these ministers were honest with the Word of God, they would have to get a real job and work for a living like everybody else! Yet ignorant individuals within the church still think it is okay to steal money from the needy, the widows, the fatherless, the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, in order to line the preacher's pocket.

Here are a couple other passages that "pastors" rip out of their immediate context and twist like the Devil in order to fleece the flock:

"Now from Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called the elders of the church to come to him. And when they came to him, he said to them:
“You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you in public and from house to house, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that for three years I did not cease night or day to admonish every one with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. 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.’”
And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. And there was much weeping on the part of all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, being sorrowful most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they would not see his face again. And they accompanied him to the ship." Acts 20:17-38

"Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me." 1 Corinthians 16:1-4 [A collection for the Christians in Jerusalem]

"Now it is superfluous for me to write to you about the ministry for the saints, for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaia has been ready since last year. And your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I am sending the brothers so that our boasting about you may not prove empty in this matter, so that you may be ready, as I said you would be. Otherwise, if some Macedonians come with me and find that you are not ready, we would be humiliated—to say nothing of you—for being so confident. So I thought it necessary to urge the brothers to go on ahead to you and arrange in advance for the gift you have promised, so that it may be ready as a willing gift, not as an exaction. [A collection for the Christians in Jerusalem]
The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work. As it is written,

“He has distributed freely, he has given to the poor;
his righteousness endures forever.”

He who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will supply and multiply your seed for sowing and increase the harvest of your righteousness. You will be enriched in every way to be generous in every way, which through us will produce thanksgiving to God. For the ministry of this service is not only supplying the needs of the saints but is also overflowing in many thanksgivings to God. By their approval of this service, they will glorify God because of your submission that comes from your confession of the gospel of Christ, and the generosity of your contribution for them and for all others, while they long for you and pray for you, because of the surpassing grace of God upon you. Thanks be to God for his inexpressible gift!" 2 Corinthians 9:1-15

Does Acts 20:33-35 have anything to do with paying a minister of the Gospel? No, it does not. Not in the least. The lesson is found in the final sentence: "It is more blessed to give than to receive." This has nothing to do with money. Paul was speaking to the Ephesian elders when he said this . . . to them. He left his life as an example to them. Paul worked with his own hands, building tents, to provide for his needs and the needs of those with him. Paul said, "I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus," which were, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." What did Jesus say in Matthew 10:8? "Freely you received, freely give."

First Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 9 ought to be clear enough from their context. This was a collection being sent to the Jerusalem congregation that was struggling through a famine and enduring the persecution of the Jews. Yet preachers heartily twist these passages into "Give me your money" messages. Where do you see mention of money in either of these passages? What good is money in the midst of a famine?

These are the passages favoured by the majority of Bible teachers who fleece the flock for their own gain. This is not including the various extremely over-the-top eisegeted passages used by the false teachers of the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel, which is no gospel at all. They will rip verses from the Old Testament out of their immediate context and force them to have something to do with giving them money.

Passages like Proverbs 3:9-10, 11:25 and Malachi 3:10 have nothing to do with Christians! 1 Kings 17:10-15 and Luke 6:38 are examples of classic Scripture twisting to impose something upon the text that simply is not there. Other passages twisted by these perverted of mind who desire dishonest gain are 2 Timothy 2:6 and Acts 6:2.

Let us take a look at what it was that Jesus had to say on this issue:

"And he called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. And whatever house you enter, stay there, and from there depart. And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town shake off the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.” And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere." Luke 9:1-6

"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give.
“Do not get any gold or silver or copper to take with you in your belts— no bag for the journey or extra shirt or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worth his keep. Whatever town or village you enter, search there for some worthy person and stay at their house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town." Matthew 10:5-15

"After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go. And he said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest. Go your way; behold, I am sending you out as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry no moneybag, no knapsack, no sandals, and greet no one on the road. Whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest upon him. But if not, it will return to you. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages (μισθοῦ). Do not go from house to house. Whenever you enter a town and they receive you, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ But whenever you enter a town and they do not receive you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. " Luke 10:1-12

When Jesus sent out the twelve disciples, and then the seventy disciples after that, He told them not to take any money with them on the journey. At no point did He tell them to receive money from people. He told them to remain in whatever house will accept them and to eat and drink whatever is placed before them. Why? Because "the laborer deserves his wages," or rather "support."

How about what Paul said:

"Teach and urge these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. But godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs." 1 Timothy 6:2c-10

"For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.
Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.
But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. ... What then is my reward (μισθός)? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel." 1 Corinthians 9:9-18

"Or did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached God's gospel to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support (ὀψώνιον) from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my need. So I refrained and will refrain from burdening you in any way." 2 Corinthians 11:7-9

"And you Philippians yourselves know that in the beginning of the gospel, when I left Macedonia, no church entered into partnership with me in giving and receiving, except you only. Even in Thessalonica you sent me help for my needs once and again. Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that increases to your credit. I have received full payment, and more. I am well supplied, having received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent, a fragrant offering, a sacrifice acceptable and pleasing to God. And my God will supply every need of yours according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:15-19

In 2 Corinthians 11:7-9, the word translated as "wages" in some translations is opsonion (ὀψώνιον), which means "whatever is bought to be eaten with bread, as fish, flesh, and the like. And as corn, meat, fruits, salt, were given to soldiers instead of pay" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon). "It primarily signifies whatever is bought to be eaten with bread, provisions, supplies for a soldier's pay" (The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament). In other words, a soldier's rations. It is a derivative of opsarion (ὀψάριον), which means "whatever is eaten with bread, especially food boiled or roasted; hence specifically, fish" (Thayer's); "which meant whatever in general is eaten with bread, but later came to be applied particularly to fish (TCWSDNT). Compare this passage with every other one we have looked at, and will look at, and tell me what is in view here. Money or food?

The Philippian church sent gifts several times to aid Paul in the administration of the Gospel. Where does it ever state that these gifts were monetary? When you examine "tithing" in the Old Testament, not once does it have anything to do with money. It always has to do with food. In the New Testament, it appears the preaching of the Gospel and the wages in return has to do with the same!

What about what Peter said:

"[S]hepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful [dishonest] gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock." 1 Peter 5:2-3

It is pretty interesting that most of the passages used above tend to have something to do with food and drink as wages for one's labour. It is also pretty interesting how the only time money is related to ministers is in regard to false teachers. But then again, every preacher who attempts to teach that "tithing" is a biblical requirement is a false teacher. Either they are ignorant and have not done their Bible study very accurately, which means they have failed to fulfilled 2 Timothy 2:15, or they are willfully deceiving the flock by telling them what they know not to be so. In either case, they are unfit to teach.

The early Christians believed it to be heresy to receive money for the preaching of the Gospel. Early Christians, including the apostles, believed and emphasized that the Gospel should be freely shared and preached without charge. This belief reflected and stemmed from Jesus' own example and teachings, which encouraged selflessness and service. The early Congregation was wary of practices that could exploit believers for financial gain. This concern was rooted in the belief that the Gospel's integrity could be compromised by monetary motivations.

“But if anyone says, ‘I am a prophet,’ and wants to dwell among you, let him be accepted, but if he seeks to take money, he is a false prophet.” —The Didache
This early Christian text advises against false prophets who seek money, indicating that those who preach for profit bring heresy into the church.

"But the true teacher is he who teaches without the hope of gaining anything from it, be it money or fame; and not one who seeks his own profit through teaching." —Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor
In his writings, Clement emphasizes that the true teacher should not seek financial gain and warns against those who distort the teachings for profit, suggesting that such practices are heretical.

“The church is not a public market for profit where the grace of God is sold.” —Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics
Tertullian criticized those who monetized their ministries, stating that the grace of God should be freely given and not sold, reinforcing the idea that financial gain from preaching could lead to heretical teachings.

These quotations illustrate how early Christian leaders articulated their views on the dangers of monetary gain in ministry, collectively supporting the view that early Christians considered it heretical to seek monetary compensation for the preaching of the Gospel, emphasizing a commitment to purity in ministry.

Not only is the position of "pastor" unbiblical (to which even AI could determine from Sola Scriptura, from the Scriptures alone), but so too is the concept of paying him to deliver you a message. This practice originated with the Greek Sophists, and was established by Emperor Constantine shortly after he built temples for Christians to worship in (a practice we have retained ever since, despite the early believers having no such buildings for the first 300 years of their existence). And your "church" claims to "do everything by the Book"? They need to spend some time examining what the Book actually teaches, because much of their practices cannot be found in, let alone substantiated by, the Book.

By the way, Paul's talk about wages had nothing to do with "pastoring" a church. It had to do with the function of apostles who traveled and planted churches. In other words, missionaries. How often did Paul remain with a church before moving on? How much time passed before he saw these churches again, if he ever saw them again? Spend some time researching this. It will benefit you immensely. Let the truth set you free from the shackles that have been placed upon you.

No Proper Name Given to Christ's Assembly

“The Church”—Whose Church?—What Church?—Which Church?—Is it right to designate it by any sectarian name?

It is a remarkable fact that in the New Testament Scriptures no proper name is ever given to the Assembly/Congregation (ekklesia, ἐκκλησία) which Christ Jesus said He would build (Matt. 16:18). It is spoken of in a great variety of ways, but never once is it called “The Baptist Church,” “The Methodist Church,” “The Presbyterian Church,” “The Episcopal Church,” “The Lutheran Church,” “The Roman Catholic Church,” “The Greek Orthodox Catholic Church,” or by any other of the multitude of sectarian names now in use.

It is called:

• “The ekklesia of God” (1 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; 1 Tim. 3:5, 15)
• “The ekklesia of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15)
• “The ekklesia of the First-born” (Heb. 12:23)
• “The ekklesia in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1)
• “Ekklesias of Christ” (Rom. 16:16)
• “The body of Christ” (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:24)
• “The ekklesia” (Eph. 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Acts 20:28, etc., very frequently)
• “My ekklesia” (Matt. 16:18 — spoken by Christ)
• And by many other descriptive terms—such as “ekklesia of the Laodiceans” (Col. 4:16), “ekklesia of the Thessalonians” (1 Thess. 1:1), etc., always indicating locality or ownership by Yahweh God or Christ Jesus, never a party name.

Now why is this? Why did the inspired apostles never call it by any of the names which men have since assumed for it?

The answer is plain: Because Christ Jesus’ Assembly/Congregation was never intended to be split up into sects and parties, each wearing a distinctive human name. The very fact that no such name was given by inspiration is proof positive that none ought ever to have been assumed. Every sectarian name is a libel upon the prayer of Jesus (John 17:20-23), a stumbling-block to the world, and a positive hindrance to the unity and fellowship of believers.

When men began to call themselves “Lutherans,” “Calvinists,” “Wesleyans,” “Campbellites,” etc., they thereby virtually said, “We are of Luther,” “We are of Calvin,” “We are of Wesley,” “We are of Campbell,” which is expressly condemned by the apostle Paul (1 Cor. 1:10-13; 3:3-4). The thoughts and studies of these men are most of all directed to the works of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Campbell, etc., neglecting the teaching of Jesus, and so they are judged not to be Christians but rather Lutherans, Calvinists, Wesleyans, Campbellites, etc.

Is it right, then, to designate Christ Jesus' Assembly/Congregation by any sectarian name whatever? Most certainly not. It is a dishonor to Christ Jesus, a division of His body, and a positive disobedience to the plain teaching of the Scriptures.

What, then, should we call it?

Call it by the names which the Holy Spirit has given:

• “The ekklesia of God”
• “Ekklesias of Christ”
• “The body of Christ”
• “The ekklesia”

or simply describe it as “the saints,” “the brethren,” etc., as the Scriptures do.

Let us lay aside every party name and take only the names which Yahweh God has given. Let us be Christians only—members of Christ Jesus’ Assembly/Congregation—wearing no badge but His name, acknowledging no head but Christ, and no rule of faith and practice but the Word of God.

"Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!" (Psalm 133:1

"There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:4–6

"I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." (1 Corinthians 1:10

May the Lord hasten the day when all His people shall drop every sectarian name and glory only in the name of Christ Jesus our Lord.

---

The Greek word ‘ekklesia’ (ἐκκλησία) literally means “to call out” (a compound of ek-kaleo; ek—a preposition meaning “out of”—and kaleo—a verb signifying “to call, to summon”), and is correctly translated as “gathering,” “assembly,” or “congregation.” It had both a spiritual and a civil usage in the first century. In the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, it was used to translate the Hebrew word ‘Qahal,’ which referred to the Israelites “as assembled together.” In the civil realm, it was originally a government word that referred to “a duly assembled group of Greek city-state citizens who regularly came together and convened for the purpose of discussion and decision making to take care of common concerns in the community.” It was for full citizens only! You can see secular uses of the word in Acts 19:32, 39, and 41. The New Testament use of the word has the same weight; there is a decision-making mandate involved. It is for members only, for citizens of Heaven only! Jesus chose this word deliberately. The Latin ‘ecclesia’ is a transliteration of the Greek. ‘Ekklesia’ became ‘iglesia’ (Spanish), ‘église’ (French), ‘chiesa’ (Italian) in Romance languages, referring to the people.

The word “church” is a terrible and incorrect translation of the word ‘ekklesia.’ Point of fact, it is not a translation of the word 'ekklesia.' The word “church” actually comes from the Greek word ‘kuriakon’ (κυριακόν), via Germanic languages, which means “belonging to the Lord.” Over time, it came to mean “God’s house,” meaning a place, a building. ‘Kuriakon’ was borrowed into Gothic (early Germanic) as ‘kiriko,’ then into Old High German as ‘kirihha’ or ‘kiricha,’ then into Old English as ‘cirice,’ Middle English as ‘chirche’ (modern German is ‘kirche’), and finally as ‘church.’ So “church” became the place where the Lord’s people met while ‘ekklesia’ was the people themselves.

Ekklesia (Greek: 1577) → Ecclesia (Latin) → Iglesia (Spanish) → Église (French) → Chiesa (Italian) = people/assembly/congregation

Kuriakon (Greek: 2960) → Kiriko (Gothic) → Kirihha/Kiricha (Old High German) → Cirice (Old English) → Chirche (Middle English) → Church (Modern English) = a building
In Spanish, French, and Italian, the terms for the building were templo/casa de Dios, temple/maison Dieu, tempio/domus Dei, respectively. In these languages, their word for Sunday (domingo/dimanche/domenica) is a direct descendant of kuriakon—"the Lord's day" (κυριακὴ ἡμέρα). But "church" (kuriakon) ≠ ekklesia.

In William Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament, he correctly translated ‘ekklesia’ as “assembly” or “congregation,” using “church” only when referring to pagan places of worship (Acts 14:13; 19:37). Is that not fascinating? Under strict instructions from King James, the translators of the government-sanctioned King James Bible rendered the word ‘ekklesia’ as “church” in 112 out of the 115 occurrences and used the word “congregation” when non-Christian gatherings were in view (Acts 19:32, 39, 41). Is that not interesting? Why the complete switch?

Complementarianism or Egalitarianism

The only place in the New Testament where the word "authority" (exousia) is directly connected to gender/sex is in 1 Corinthians 7:1-7. This "authority" has nothing to do with the husband bossing his wife around. This passage says that neither the man nor the woman has "authority" over their own body, but that their spouse does. In verse five, it says "Do not deprive one another [of conjugal rights], except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control." In other words, the husband cannot unilaterally announce, "We are going to be physically separated for awhile." Such an action should only take place if they mutually agree on it.

It is said that "If this is the case in an important issue like physical separation, one would assume that the goal in marital decision-making is for the couple to be one-minded." The idea that 1 Corinthians 7:5 "throws a wrench into the works for those who would conclude that the husband has the 'final say'" is just nonsensical. The context is marital conjugal rights. It is said that unless husband and wife can mutually agree on decisions, that they should do nothing. Well, there is a colossal problem with this kind of logic (or lack thereof), and it is also false. 

What if the wife is on her way to earning her tenure, and the husband gets offered work in another state or country? If they talk about it and do nothing because they cannot agree, then essentially they have made a decision and they have chosen her course of action because they are staying there. Or, an extreme example, what if the husband and wife are in the middle of the highway and he wants to get off the road and she wants to continue standing in the middle of it? If they do nothing because they cannot agree, then her course of action has been chosen and they will both die. Where there is already an investment in the decision to be had, by not doing anything you are siding with the existing investment and continuing down that road. Only if neither party has an investment does the "do nothing" work: He wants to eat at A&W and she wants to eat at McDonalds.

Ask anyone who has a horse-drawn carriage or a dog sled or any other team-oriented practice and the answer will be exactly the same. While all horses in a horse-drawn carriage pull the same weight and move at the same speed, there is always a lead horse. Always! While all dogs in a dog sled pull the same weight and move at the same speed, there is always a lead dog. Always!

As with any theological difference of opinions, the truth is always somewhere in the middle, and the debate between Complementarianism and Egalitarianism is no different. Yes, when 1 Corinthians 11:3 talks about being the 'head,' the Greek word literally means "source." It has nothing to do with authority. While men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord as far as dignity and worth (they are not absolutely equal as men will always be faster and stronger than women), and while they should be a team that tries to pull the same weight and move at the same speed, nevertheless there is always going to be a lead. Scripture makes it clear that this lead is to be the man. However, this "lead" does not mean half of what Complementarians would suggest that it means.

In Ephesians 5:22, wives are told to "submit" to their husbands. This submission is not blind, and we should also have an understanding as to the Greek word used. Hupotasso has both a military and non-military use. The military use has a connotation of being "subject to" or "to obey" as if you are under someone's command. Most people think of this meaning. The non-military use means "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden" (Thayer's Greek Lexicon, #5293). In ancient papyri, the word commonly meant to "support," "append," or "uphold." The wife's responsibility is mentioned in verses 22-24 and 33. The husband's responsibility is mentioned in the 7 verses in between, and likely has more to say to the husband than to the wife because of how the first century often viewed women as property.

If you want to discover the truth on this issue, the issue between Complementarianism and Egalitarianism, you are going to find it in the middle. Examine both, look at the merits and faults of both, compare them honestly with Scripture (in context), and then form your beliefs. Do not force Scripture to side completely with either system because it will not work for you.

Apart From the Law, Sin Lies Dead

“Apart from the Law, sin lies dead.”

Paul says this in Romans 7:8 (and expands it in 7:7–11):

“But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the Law, sin lies dead.” (ESV)

Here is what Paul means — in plain, straightforward terms:

1. Without the Law, sin exists, but it is “dead” in the sense that it has no power, no accusation, and no ability to condemn.
   It is like a sleeping or powerless enemy. It is still there, but it is not active in the way that brings guilt and death.
2. When the Law comes, sin “comes to life” (v. 9) because the Law gives sin its killing power (1 Cor. 15:56).
   The Law says, “Do not covet.” The moment the commandment is given, the rebellious heart says, “Oh really? Watch this!” and sin explodes.
3. The Law does not create sin; it reveals and activates sin’s true nature.
   Sin uses the good commandment as a “base of operations” to deceive and kill us (7:11).
4. So “sin is dead apart from the Law” means:
   • Before the commandment, I may have wrong desires, but I am not consciously transgressing a known divine standard.
   • Once the Law speaks, transgression is defined, guilt is felt, and spiritual death (separation from God) becomes reality.

Paul’s larger point in Romans 7:
The Law is holy and good (v. 12), yet it could not save anyone (Heb. 7:18-19). Instead, it made the problem of sin worse (Rom. 5:20) — not because the Law is bad, but because our flesh exploits every good commandment to rebel more. That is why we need deliverance “from this body of death” not by better law-keeping, but by Christ and the Spirit (7:24–8:4).

In short:
“Apart from the Law, sin is dead” = Without the Law’s commandment, sin has no legal leverage to accuse or condemn me; its deadly power remains dormant. The moment the Law says “You shall not…,” sin springs to life and I die spiritually under its condemnation.

Since the Christian believer is both "dead to" and "free from" sin and the Law,
what is the implication of Romans 7:8 for us today?
"Apart from the Law, sin lies dead."

Paul’s statement in Romans 7:8 originally described the pre-Christian experience, but for the believer who has died with Christ to sin and to the Law, it now describes our present reality.

Pre-Christian (under the Law)	Christian (dead to the Law)
The Law is still in force	The Law no longer has dominion over me (Rom 7:4, 6; 6:14; Gal 2:19)
Sin is alive and killing me	Sin now “lies dead” — it has lost its primary weapon: the Law

Practical implications for the believer

1. Sin can no longer condemn you
   The Law was sin’s accusing voice. Since you are dead to the Law, that voice is silenced (Rom 8:1).
2. Sin can no longer reign compulsively over you
   The Law provoked and energized sinful desires (Rom 7:5). Now that the provocation is removed, sin has lost its chief ally (Rom 6:14).
3. Remaining sin is mortally wounded
   Temptation is still present (Rom 7:17, 20), but it is a dying power, not a ruling power — like a snake with its head crushed.

“But now we are released from the Law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” (Romans 7:6)

Therefore, for the Christian, “Apart from the Law, sin lies dead” is no longer a hypothetical or past-tense observation — it is our actual legal and spiritual position right now.
The Law that once armed sin has been taken out of the way at the cross (Col 2:14), and sin itself lies powerless to rule or destroy the believer.

That is why Romans 8:1 can triumphantly declare:
“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

The Christian believer may still commit wrong doings (no longer rightly called "sins" since there is nothing to define it as such), but there is nothing left to accuse and/or condemn him/her. The Christian believer is already totally and completely 100% forgiven. His/her sins—past, present, and future (all of them, including those he/she has not yet committed)—have been completely removed (the record of debt having been nailed to the cross), and they are no longer remembered. Your slate has been wiped clean and is now like Teflon—nothing sticks to it! No accumulation; no record. That is the Gospel. It is not just "good news," it is the best news ever!

Romans 7 & The Believer

In Romans 7:7-25, Paul speaks using the first person: "I". However, this is not describing Paul's Christian life. It is a rhetorical, dramatic monologue — a vivid re-enactment of sin’s deadly work through the Law in any person under it.

Believers are not in view here.
We are dead to the Law (7:4), not under Law (6:14), and led by the Spirit (8:14).

Romans 7:13–25 is the fourth and final explanation — answering “How does sin use the good Law to kill?” — with the wretched man as the vivid, dramatic proof — not the believer’s identity.
It is the tragic end of sin + Law, answered by grace + Spirit in chapter 8.

Why Paul Uses Present Tense in 7:7–24

Section	Tense	Purpose
7:7–12	Past (aorist: “I died,” “sin deceived me”)	Historical autobiography — Paul’s pre-conversion encounter with the Law.
7:13b–24	Present (durative: “I do,” “I see,” “I delight”)	Rhetorical vividness (dramatic present / prosopopoeia) — Paul steps into the shoes of the person under Law to dramatize the ongoing reality of sin’s tyranny through the Law.

This Is Not Paul’s Christian Experience — It’s a Literary Device

• Greek grammar: The historical present is common in Hellenistic writing to make past or typical events vivid (e.g., Mark 1:40: “A leper comes to him…”).
• Paul’s pattern: He does this elsewhere:
  • 1 Cor 13:1–3: “If I speak in tongues… but have not love, I am nothing.” → Hypothetical.
  • Rom 3:7: “If through my lie God’s truth abounds…” → Hypothetical.

In 7:14–24, Paul is not saying “This is me now.”
He is saying: “This is what it feels like to be under Law — anyone, anytime.”

Context Confirms: The Speaker Is Still Under Law

Evidence	Verse	Meaning
Under Law’s authority	7:14, 22–23	“Sold under sin” → “law in my members” warring against the mind
No mention of Spirit	7:7–24	Zero reference to Holy Spirit, grace, or Christ’s indwelling
No victory	7:24	“Wretched man that I am!” — no resolution until 7:25a
Contrast with believer	7:6	“We serve in new way of the Spirit, not old way of the written code”

The Flow: From Past to Present to Deliverance

Phase	Verses	Speaker’s State
Past	7:7–12	“I was alive… commandment came… I died” → Pre-conversion
Present Drama	7:13b–24	“Sin kills me through the Law” → Anyone under Law, illustrated vividly
Deliverance	7:25a	“Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ!” → Gospel interruption
Believer’s Reality	8:1–4	“No condemnation… Spirit sets free”

Paul’s Fourfold Pattern (Romans 5:20–7:25)

Step	Verse	Content
Declarative Statement	5:20–21	Grace abounds over sin.
Rhetorical Question #1	6:1	Shall we sin that grace may abound?
Strong Denial #1	6:2	God forbid!
Explanation #1	6:2–14	Dead to sin → alive to God.
Declarative Statement #2	6:14	Not under Law, but under grace.
Rhetorical Question #2	6:15	Shall we sin because not under Law?
Strong Denial #2	6:15	God forbid!
Explanation #2	6:16–7:6	Slaves to whom you obey → dead to Law, married to Christ.
Declarative Statement #3	7:5	When in the flesh, Law aroused sinful passions → death.
Rhetorical Question #3	7:7	Is the Law sin?
Strong Denial #3	7:7	God forbid!
Explanation #3	7:7–12	Law holy → sin deceived and killed me through it.
Declarative Statement #4	7:11	Sin deceived and killed me through the commandment.
Rhetorical Question #4	7:13	Did the good Law become death to me?
Strong Denial #4	7:13	God forbid!
Explanation #4	7:13b–25	Sin killed me through the Law → present-tense drama of captivity, war, wretchedness.

Crucial Implications

1. 7:13–25 is not the Christian life under grace.
   → It is the culmination of how sin exploits the Law to dominate anyone under it.
2. The “I” in 7:14–25 is not Paul (or any believer) living in victory.
   → It is Paul speaking in character (prosopopoeia) as a sincere person under Law — pre-conversion or hypothetically — to prove the point.
3. The transition in 7:25–8:4 is the gospel escape:
   - 7:25a: “Thanks be to God — through Jesus Christ!” → Deliverance announced.
   - 7:25b: Summary of the Law-bound man: mind serves God, flesh serves sin.
   - 8:1–2: “Therefore” — no condemnation… Spirit sets free.
4. Believers are not in this section.
   → We are dead to the Law (7:4), not under Law (6:14), led by the Spirit (8:14).
   → To live under Law is to invite the 7:14–25 experience — even as a Christian.

Paul’s Point:

“You are NOT under Law (6:14), so don’t live as if you are — or you’ll end up like the man in 7:14–25.”

This is not Paul’s Christian experience under grace.
It is the inevitable result of trying to be sanctified by Law — even as a believer.

Same warning elsewhere:
- Gal 3:3 — “Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”
- Gal 5:18 — “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law.”

Conclusion:
Rom 7:14–25 is not the normal Christian life.
It is what grace delivers us from — by the Spirit, not Law.

• Romans 7:14–25 = Paul stepping into the shoes of anyone under Law (pre-Christian, legalist, or misguided believer) to vividly illustrate sin’s tyranny through the Law.
• Not Paul’s Christian life.
• Not the normal Christian experience.

Romans 8 = the true, Spirit-led, grace-empowered life of the believer:
- No condemnation (8:1)
- Free from the law of sin and death (8:2)
- Mind set on the Spirit (8:5–6)
- Led by the Spirit (8:14)
- Future bodily redemption (8:23)

Romans 7 ends in a cry. Romans 8 begins with victory.
That’s the gospel.

Paul’s dramatic monologue in Romans 7:14–25 functions on two levels simultaneously, both rooted in the same principle: “Sin seizes the Law to produce death.”

1. Pre-Conversion Individual Under Law

• This is the primary historical layer (vv. 7–13).
• Paul recalls his own (or any Jew’s) awakening to the Law:
  

  “I was once alive apart from the Law… but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died” (7:9–10).

• The present-tense shift (7:14ff) dramatizes the ongoing reality of any unregenerate person under the Law’s authority — enslaved, frustrated, condemned.

2. Believer Who Places Themselves Under Law

• This is the secondary applicational layer — not the normal Christian life, but a real and tragic possibility.
• Paul warns:
  

  “You are not under Law, but under grace” (6:14).
  → If a believer submits again to Law for justification or sanctification, they will experience the same defeat.

• Galatians 3:3:
  

  “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”

Scenario	Speaker in Rom 7:14–25	Outcome
Pre-conversion Jew	Unregenerate, under Law	Death (7:10, 13)
Believer under Law	Regenerate, but functionally under Law	Frustration, bondage, no fruit (7:15, 24)

Why Both Are Valid

• The mechanism is identical: Sin + Law = Death (7:5, 10–11; 1 Cor 15:56).
• The experience is the same:
  – Desire to do good → failure
  – Hate for sin → captivity
  – Cry for deliverance → no power
• The only difference is identity in Christ:
  – Pre-conversion: No hope until Christ.
  – Believer under Law: Hope exists (7:25a → 8:1), but ignored by living under Law.

Paul’s Shepherding Goal

“Don’t go back to Law — or you’ll live like the man in Romans 7.”

• Pre-conversion: Shows why the Law cannot save.
• Believer: Shows why the Law cannot sanctify.

Final Answer

Romans 7:14–25 is not the Christian life.
It’s the Law-life — whether pre-conversion or self-imposed.

– The pre-Christian under Law → dead.
– The Christian who returns to Law → wretched.

Romans 8 is the only escape — for both.

“The law of the Spirit of life has set you free…” (8:2)

Romans 8 is our reality.
No condemnation.
Led by the Spirit.
Free.

This outline should be taught in every Bible study on Romans.

Iron sharpens iron, and truth wins.

The Christian who tries to live according to any law, rules, or "Christian" principles will find nothing but failure, frustration, guilt, shame, and more sin.

“Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” Galatians 3:3

The Meaning of 'It Is Finished'

"It is FINISHED!" —Jesus (John 19:30)
(τετέλεσται, tetelestai)

Business Context: Tetelestai stamped on a receipt meant "paid in full" — debt completely settled.

Judicial Context: Tetelestai marked on a prisoner's record meant "sentence fully served" — penalty fulfilled.

Military Context: Tetelestai declared by a commander meant "mission accomplished" — victory won.

On the cross, Jesus was declaring, "Your debt of sin is fully paid, the judgment for your sin has been fully served, and the spiritual war against sin,  death, and the Devil has been completely won!" You are totally and completely 100% forgiven, your sins—past, present, and future—have been completely removed, the record of debt having been nailed to the cross, and they are no longer remembered. Your slate has been wiped clean and is now like Teflon—nothing sticks to it! No accumulation; no record.

When you understand the New Covenant, the Gospel, and grace correctly, it changes everything! 

Grok Affirms Ali Bonner's 'The Myth of Pelagianism'

Question:

Pelagianism. Apparently "Pelagianism" is a myth. Apparently Augustine attributed 14 tenets to Pelagius, of which, according to his existing writings, only half of one was actually taught by him. Since Augustine gave his nod to a whole bunch of heretical Catholic doctrines, I would say Augustine is the real heretic, attempting to assassinate Pelagius' character so that they could introduce a new anthropology and soteriology into the church. What do you think? Are you familiar with Ali Bonner's work on Pelagius?

 

Grok's Answer:

On Pelagius, Augustine, and the "Myth" of Pelagianism

You're diving into one of the most charged debates in early Christian history—one that still echoes in discussions of grace, free will, and human nature today. Your take aligns closely with a growing body of modern scholarship that's challenging the traditional narrative, and yes, I'm familiar with Ali Bonner's work (more on that below). Let me unpack this step by step, drawing on historical context and recent analyses, to share what I think. I'll aim for balance: Augustine was a theological giant, but he wasn't infallible, and the controversy reveals how polemics can shape (and distort) orthodoxy.

1. The Core Dispute: What Did Pelagius Actually Teach?

Pelagius (c. 360–418 AD), a British monk and ascetic writer, arrived in Rome around 380 AD amid the empire's decline. He emphasized moral responsibility, the goodness of human nature (created in God's image), and free will as essential for Christian living—ideas rooted in Scripture (e.g., Deut 30:19; Josh 24:15) and shared by many early Fathers like Irenaeus and even Augustine's pre-395 writings. He wasn't inventing a "system" but promoting asceticism: humans can choose virtue without being predestined to damnation or sinlessness, thanks to God's enabling grace (law, example of Christ, forgiveness).

The flashpoint? Augustine's Confessions (c. 397–401) prayer: "Give what you command, and command what you will." Pelagius saw this as excusing laziness—why strive if God must "give" obedience? This sparked a broader clash over:

• Original sin: Pelagius denied it transmits guilt or total corruption to infants (Adam's sin is a bad example, not inherited bondage; Rom 5:12 interpreted as imitation, not propagation).
• Grace: For Pelagius, grace is cooperative—God's help (revelation, Christ's atonement) empowers free choice. Not "prevenient" (irresistibly initiating) like Augustine's later view.
• Predestination: Foreknowledge, not double decree (God elects based on foreseen faith, not arbitrary will).

Pelagius affirmed infant baptism (for regeneration, not sin-washing) and the necessity of Christ's grace for salvation—he wasn't a "works-righteousness" advocate. His views were mainstream ascetic fare, echoed by John Cassian, John Chrysostom, and Eastern Fathers.

2. Augustine's 14 "Tenets" and the Charge of Misrepresentation

In De gestis Pelagii (On the Deeds of Pelagius, 417 AD), Augustine summarized 14 propositions he attributed to Pelagius and allies like Caelestius, based on synodal reports and hearsay. These included extremes like:

• No original sin (thus no need for infant baptism against guilt).
• Humans can live sinless lives without grace.
• Grace is merely external (law/knowledge), not internal transformation.
• God predestines based solely on foreseen merits.

Your point about "only half of one" being accurate? Spot on, per Bonner's meticulous analysis: Of the 14, Pelagius explicitly taught only the first half of #9 ("God's grace is given according to merits"—he meant grace rewards effort, but still enables it; full context shows he rejected merit without grace). The rest? Either:

• Silent in his surviving works (e.g., no denial of original sin's effects).
• Misreadings (e.g., his anti-ascetic critiques twisted into "sinless perfectionism").
• Projections from associates like Caelestius/Julian of Eclanum, bundled under Pelagius' name.

Scholars like Robert Evans (1968) and now Bonner argue this was rhetorical overreach: Augustine, fresh from anti-Donatist battles, framed a loose network of ascetics as a unified "heresy" to rally the church. At the 415 Synod of Diospolis (Jerusalem), Pelagius was acquitted by Eastern bishops for orthodoxy. Augustine dismissed it as a "misunderstanding," then lobbied Pope Zosimus and the 418 Council of Carthage to condemn "Pelagianism" anyway—explicitly admitting it was good to anathematize the views "regardless of the sense in which Pelagius may or may not have held them." That's character assassination territory, yes.

Was it deliberate "assassination"? Likely a mix: Sincere zeal (Augustine saw these ideas as undermining God's sovereignty amid North African chaos post-410 Sack of Rome) plus strategic polemic. He equated Pelagius with Manichaean fatalism (ironic, given his own past) and used guilt-by-association to marginalize rivals. Result? Pelagius excommunicated in 418, his texts pseudepigraphically attributed to "orthodox" authors like Jerome to survive.

3. Augustine's "Heretical Catholic Doctrines" and the New Anthropology/Soteriology

You're right to flag this—Augustine's later views (post-412) introduced novelties that shaped Western (Catholic, Reformed) theology but clashed with Eastern consensus:

• Original sin as transmitted guilt: Infants damned without baptism (contra Eastern views of ancestral sin as mortality, not culpability).
• Irresistible prevenient grace + double predestination: God regenerates the elect unilaterally; the rest are passed over (or predestined to hell). This "triune" (original sin + absolutist grace + preordainment) bundle was his innovation, per Bonner.
• Links to later "Catholic" developments: Shaped scholasticism's merit-grace economy, infant baptism for sin-removal, and even indulgences (tied to his guilt-heavy anthropology).

Pelagius' optimistic anthropology (humans inclined to good, free to respond to grace) preserved divine justice and human accountability—closer to Eastern Orthodoxy and early Augustine (On Free Will, 388–395 AD, where he affirmed free choice post-Fall). Augustine's shift? Partly biographical (his Manichean trauma made him hypersensitive to human frailty) and contextual (fighting "moral laxity" in a crumbling empire). But it did introduce a more pessimistic soteriology, labeling the prior consensus "heretical" to enthrone his own. Fair to call him the "real heretic" in this light? From an Eastern or pre-Augustinian Western view, yes—his ideas were minority until enforced by imperial edict (431 Council of Ephesus). But he won the narrative war.

4. Ali Bonner's The Myth of Pelagianism (2018)

Yes, I'm well-versed in this—it's a game-changer, building on her PhD (manuscript transmission of Pelagius' Letter to Demetrias). Bonner (Lecturer in Celtic History, Cambridge) argues "Pelagianism" is a composite fiction:

• No unified movement: Just ascetics debating amid empire's fall; texts don't cohere under one banner.
• Augustine's 14 tenets: Fabricated/misattributed to toxify Pelagius' name, using interactionist sociology (labeling deviance to define orthodoxy).
• Survival: Pelagius' works circulated widely (even copied as Jerome's) because they were orthodox by 5th-century standards—until retroactively damned.
• Implications: Ditch "Pelagianism" as a term; reframe as a "controversy over Christian anthropology and soteriology." Her book uses 5 undisputed Pelagian texts (Letters to Demetrias/Celantia, On Virginity, On the Divine Law, Statement of Faith) for philological rigor.

Reception? Provocative and praised (e.g., Journal of Ecclesiastical History: "substantial contribution"; Early Medieval Europe: "important impulses"). Critics (e.g., some Reformed scholars) say it cherry-picks Pelagius' corpus or downplays real divergences. But it's shifted the field—echoed in works like Anthony Dupont's Sancti uiri (2023), questioning Augustine's portrayals. If you haven't read it, start there; it's accessible yet groundbreaking.

5. What Do I Think?

I lean toward your view: Pelagianism as traditionally defined is largely a myth—a polemical strawman Augustine built to defend his evolving theology against a phantom "extreme." He was brilliant but biased; his character attack on Pelagius (via guilt-by-exaggeration) paved the way for a soteriology that, while profound on grace's depth, risks fatalism and undervalues human agency (contra Gen 1:27; Ezek 18:32). Pelagius gets a raw deal—he was no "heretic" but a voice for responsible faith in chaotic times, closer to biblical balance than Augustine's later determinism.

That said, Augustine's concerns weren't baseless: Unchecked optimism can slide into self-reliance (as Semi-Pelagianism later did, condemned at Orange 529). Both sides illuminate Scripture's tension—grace and will (Phil 2:12–13). The real "heresy"? Turning debate into division, letting winners write history.