1 Timothy 5:18

In 1 Timothy 5:18, we read: "for the Scripture says." Two quotations follow, one from Deuteronomy and one from Luke. So both count as part of "the Scripture." In the same way, Peter speaks of Paul's writings "and the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16) — implying that Paul's writings are inspired.

First, it shows that Luke's Gospel was already known when Paul wrote the First Epistle to Timothy. Second, it proves that Christians at once received the Gospel of Luke as a canonical book, part of the Holy Scriptures. The introductory words of the Apostle Paul, "for the scripture says," put both references from Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 upon one level, the level of the inspired Word of God.

He might have quoted Matt. 10:10 from one who was an apostle like himself; he was led of God to quote from one who was a prophet, not an apostle. For we are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20). So Luke was no mere secretary writing out Paul's mind, as the tradition of Eusebius held. He was an inspired writer, and the apostle cites him while writing in the Spirit.

All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. The rightness of this, according to man, is beyond dispute: did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction. If He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out grain, He did not have cattle in view, but His people, His servants in the word.

The ox speaks of one who labors for the Lord. He is therefore entitled to the consideration of being allowed to live by his labors. Though one guilty of serious crime was to be punished (vs. 1-3), one who labored for the Lord was to be rewarded.

So there is no fair doubt that the English version is right: salary or pay is not the main idea, or even the true one — the idea is "honour." Still, what follows makes plain that this includes every loving consideration for the elders who lead or preside well. It is a gift of honour rather than a wage. On the one hand, it degrades the service of Christ to make it a question of earning, as in a trade or profession. On the other hand, it dishonours the saints who reap the fruit of tireless and unselfish care in spiritual things if they show no sense of it. That is true not only where the servants are needy, but in mutual loving regard where no such need exists. ... In the verses before, the apostle told Timothy to "honour widows"; here he claims honour twice over for elders who take the lead well.

Suppose one devotes so much time to the work of the Lord that other regular employment cannot support him. Then the saints of God are to consider themselves responsible for this: "The laborer is worthy of his reward."

What they gave, it was to God they gave it, and it was his privilege to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference: for you cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" (in this sense of offering) to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.