Exegetical Practices: A Response to the Dorean Principle

My post content

On page 10 of the book, the author introduces us to his thesis:

"The Dorean Principle: In the context of the Gospel proclamation, accepting support as anything other than an act of colabor compromises the sincerity of ministry."

The book boasts that no one in the history of the church has addressed this "principle" before. Admitting this novelty, the author is under a heavy burden to prove his thesis. The primary argument is that support should come through a mediator who is a colaborer rather than directly through those are ministered to. The practical application of this is that, there should never be a charge to those who receive the benefit of the ministry.

In the forward of the book, the author mentions conferences, book stores, and seminaries and faults them for charging money. The missed major point here is that participation in all of these is voluntary. These institutions, right or wrong in themselves, fail to match the criteria of the examples he gives in his book. It is a far different thing to be a church under the compulsion to support a minister than an institution that is not mandated by Scripture, and therefore all participation is not by compulsion, but purely voluntary. Furthermore, Paul could not possibly be concerned about such things as they did not exist in his time.

There is much here to address. My intention is not to pluck ever leaf, not to chop each branch but to attack the root of the proposition. The systemic issue is an improper, and often inconsistent hermeneutic. The author’s treatment of the passages repeatedly demonstrates the failure of proper exegesis. It is not my intent, nor will it be necessary to address each verse and supporting reference. If there is failure to exegete the main texts it naturally follows that the supporting texts are invalid. And if the passages have not been treated with proper care but abused, then the totality of the argument fails.

Employer

Very early in the book we see the methodology of the author. Consider his treatment of a well known passage to establish his case. From page 7:

“Then he said to his disciples, ‘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.” Matthew 9:37-38

Immediately after siting this verse, the author says, “The employer of the laborers pays their wages... God is the employer, not the recipients of the Gospel.”

We must ask what is the purpose of this text? Every text has an author of speaker and that author has intent. We need also to say that words have meaning and their meaning is determined by the context. Throughout the book we will see that the author ignores the contest of the passages. The context of Matthew 9:37and 38 is that Jesus is traveling around healing the sick, casting out demons, and preaching on the kingdom (v.37). Immediately after verses 37 and 38, we see that Jesus commissions his disciples to the ministry like he was doing.

“Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.” Matthew 10:1

Jesus is not conducting a seminar on ministry support. He is not explaining the proper source of income for missionaries. In fact, there is nothing in the text about support, money, vocation, or employment. Rather, the intent of Christ is that there are many people who are sick and there are even more people who have not heard of the kingdom. Up until now, Jesus is the only one. And he commissions his 12 to ministry because the needs are great but He is only one.

The author completely misses the point of the text and adds elements to the text that have nothing to do with the author's intent. The text says nothing about God, employers, employment, sources of income, grain, or money. When a person reads into the text elements or concepts that are not there, or changes the intent of a text while ignoring the context, this is the opposite of exegesis. It is called eisegesis. No one, regardless of their intentions, has the right to alter the message of Scripture to suit their purpose. But, as we will see, this is the approach of the author. He starts with a presupposition, strings together proof-text, often out of context, reads his presupposition into the text, to change the meaning of the passage, so it can support his argument.

The Sending out of the 70

“Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Freely you received, freely give. Do not acquire gold, 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

It is from the word translated “freely” (dorean) that the author derives the title for his principle.

Our author begins his argument on this passage with the following statement:

"The primary concern of Matthew 10:8-10 is not what is received or how it is received but from whom it is received. The disciples are not to receive from those to whom they minister"

Is this really the primary concern of the passage? The question that we must ask, is what is Christ's purpose in this statement. What point is He emphasizing? We see in the text that they were prohibited from going to the Gentiles but should only go to the "lost sheep of Israel." The author is clear that these sent out ones should only receive support from colaborers. How can a lost person be a colaborer with a minister sent from God? This example fails at the outset. But let us continue. Jesus commends them to houses that are "worthy" or to stay with "me of peace." There is no mention in the text that these are believers. There must also be some reason Jesus tells them to stay in one place and not to go house to house. If these were colaborers, it would make more sense that the disciples would work with as many supporters as possible to not overburden one household and to share in the blessing of the ministerial work. As we will see later, the author will be concerned of ministers being a financial burden, but he shows no concern here. The textual flow is that Christ tells them to beware of men (v.17) but not to fear them (v.20) because they will be judged for their actions (v.32-39). The primary purpose of this text is not about who gives support.

Let us also consider the overall context of Luke 10. We see the same thing : enter the house of a man of peace, stay there, eat what is set before, those who reject them will be judged. There is no emphasis in the text, whatsoever, on the "who" that will aid the disciples. The major point of both passages is that they will be sent out, some will believe and others will reject them and be judges. The minor point is that God has made provision for them. The author ignores the didactic purpose of the text to create an emphasis that is not present. There is a principle of provision. From the text, we see that God will use people in these cities to provide for the disciples as they minister to them. There is no mention of a mediator party that will receive support from the people they minister to and then share a portion with the disciples. There is no mention in the passage of colaborers. The author must read this into the text. A natural reading of the text shows that those whose house the enter will provide for them. We read they are “lost sheep” and we also read where Jesus said that the “workers are few.” The author contradicts the passage and creates all these imaginary “colaborers.”

Regarding Luke 22:36 and the second sending, the author says that Jesus told them to take a money bag because "they are to receive help from those who offer it out if service to a common Master." This comment contradicts the authors previous argument. Now, in difficult times they can receive support but in times of peace they cannot receive direct support. Here is a case of trying to have it both ways. If there is ever a time they can receive direct support, then the this "absolute" policy of only being paid by colaborers is not absolute. The author tries to cover the inconsistency by adding the phrase "service to a common Master." We need to also not that there is no mention in the text of “service to a common master." This is read into the text.

"...carry no money belt..." Luke 10:4

What is the purpose of a money belt? Its purpose it to hold money. Or what is a money belt? It is a belt that holds money. It would be the equivalent of a purse or wallet today. This is why Jesus says in Matthew 10:9-10 "Do not acquire gold, or silver or copper for your money belts or a bag for your journey..." If you were going on a long journey it would be reasonable that you would "acquire" money to pay for your needs. But Jesus is demonstrating to them that they do not need a wallet because all will be provided for them. Sending them out the second time there are to carry their money belts, which will obviously contain "gold, silver, and copper" in them, because there is no guarantee of provision. The purpose of the money belt is not to receive alms from colaborers, as the author says. There is no mention of "colaborer" or person who have a "common service to the Master." This is assumed by the author out of necessity to support his presupposition. It is eisegesis.

Cleansing of the Temple

Author: "Before we move away from the red letters to other parts of the New Testament, I would like to emphasize how seriously Jesus regarded the intersection of ministry and money...Jesus forcible chased the money changers from the temple...Clearly, he objected to the misuse of the things of God for the sake of gain..." The author then sites the four accounts of this in the respective Gospels. But, even after reading it four times, he misses a major issue.

Matt 21: 12 "those who were buying and selling...and...money changers..."

Mark 11:15 "...who were buying and selling...and...money changers..."

Luke 19:45 "...thiose who were selling..."

John 2: 14 "those who were selling...and the money changers..."

These verses fail to support the assertion of the author because those were who were ran out of the temple courtyard were not ministers. They were not receiving direct, unmediated, support for their ministry. They were business people. The issue is not that they are "misusing the things of God for the sake of gain." The animals and money were their own. They were business people who had every right to sell and exchange money. At issue is not the action but the location. Jesus says "...stop making my Father's house a place of business."

Temptation of Jesus

Author: "...Jesus rejected Satan's proposal for material gain (Matt. 4:3, Luke 4:3).”

The point of the temptation of Jesus by Satan is not to give us an example of the dangers of compromising for material gain, as the author asserts. Jesus already possess the entirety of creation and Satan can give Him nothing that is not already rightfully His. At issue is that Jesus was tempted in every way and yet sinned not. The text is clear that in the weakest moments of His human flesh, He remains blameless and is not swayed by any category of temptation (the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life). In desperation for support, the author, like all who err in such fashion, looks for a proof texts on which to hang his presupposition. In order to make this text fit, he makes an interpretation that is not in any way supported by the passage. No commentator in the history of orthodoxy would agree with the author's conclusion.

Reciprocity

The author argues that the money Paul received was not "reciprocity." He uses 1 Corinthians 9 and 2 Corinthians 11 to support his proposition. Both passage do say that Paul preached "free of charge."* The author does note that Paul directly asks the Church in Macedonia to give him money for his journey. This is a direct request of Paul, and the author argument is that this is permissible because it is help for a journey. He says that “propempo”* means to assist someone on a journey with food, money, etc. They are helping him, but they are not paying him for direct service. And yet, I would argue, on what grounds can Paul direct them to assist them other than he has a ministerial relationship with them?

The author illustrates (Fig. 2.1) that the Corinthians do not give directly to Paul, but they give to God who then gives to Paul. Nowhere in the passage do we see God receiving the money and then writing Paul a check for his portion. There is no reason not to believe that they collected the money and handed it directly to Paul. It is one thing to say that the money is for the purpose of serving God, but it is a quantum leap to say that God is the distributor of this through some mediator party.

The author quotes passages from 1 and 2 Corinthians regarding the manual labors of Paul. He goes on to say that the laborer suffers and so does the colaborer. And uses Galatians 6:2 to say we should "Bear one another's burdens..." The problem is that the passage from Galatians 6 has nothing to do with money or finances. The context of the passage is temptation and restoration. This is a case of reckless proof texting.

We do see accounts where Paul resorts to manual labor to meet his personal and ministerial needs. We need to ask ourselves, why is it that there are times when Paul labors with his hands? Why does he go to great lengths to mention this in both of his epistles to the Corinthian church? The answers about any text are found in that text. And such is the case here.

"In this case, moreover, it is required of stewards that one be found trustworthy. But to me it is a small thing that I may be examined by you, or by any human court, in fact I do not even examine myself. For I am conscious of nothing against myself..." 1 Corinthians 4:2

v.18 "Now some have become arrogant, as though I were not coming to you.”

Throughout the book of 2 Corinthians, Paul is defending himself and his ministry. He was accused of not loving them (v.11). He was attacked for being duplicitous (10:10 "For they say, 'His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive, and his speech contemptible"). There were men slandering Paul and promoting themselves (v.12). Paul is concerned that those attacking Him will deceive the Corinthians and lead them "astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ" (11:3) through the preaching of another Jesus (v.4). Those who were attacking Paul were "false apostles" (v.13).

This short survey of the situation gives us great insight into why Paul was not expecting the Corinthians to give him support. In wisdom, he sacrifices his rights to silence those false teachers. By not taking from the Corinthians, the accusers cannot say that Paul does not love them or that Paul is just using them for gain. At issue is not a financial policy but ministerial strategy.

Before we leave this section, we should consider a helpful verse.

2 Corinthians 11:8 " I robbed other churches by taking wages from them to serve you."

The clear implication is that it was the duty of Corinthians to support Paul in his ministry. We see this, first, in the hyperbola language of Paul when he uses the word "robbed." He took from them other churches what should have been given by the Corinthians. Secondly, Paul uses the word "wages" which is used throughout the New Testament as reciprocal exchange. This defeats the author’s view that support should come through a mediator party and directly from those ministered to.

Sow Spiritual and Reap Material

In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul presents an argument about his apostleship and the rights he has in this office. It is important to note that this passage is one argument. He uses numerous examples to build his case and to prove his point. The author choices to break the flow of the passages into pieces and deal with each part separately. By ignoring the contextual connection of the verses, the author shows either his ignorance of proper exegesis or his fear of it. But, for the sake of argument, I will address the pieces as he has presented them.

The author quotes 1 Corinthians 9:10 and says that the proper interpretation of this passage is not from the plain reading, which might "...lead on to imagine Paul describing a direct obligation between man ins ministry..." Let us pause one minute. This conclusion of direct obligation is not found in the imagination of the reader but in the plain reading. This is exactly what the text is saying. One need not ask how is it they conclude direct obligation, but rather how can such a conclusion be avoided. The author has a method. He says that the metaphor of this passage is regarding the "source of the material provision used to supply the laborer."

He illustrates (fig.3.4) that the citizen pays the king and the king pays the soldier. The vine produces fruit that the vine owner uses to pay the vine dresser. Livestock produce offspring that the owner uses to pay the shepherd. "The vine does not supply out of obligation to the vine dresser." If we considered that the shepherd was also the owner of the flock or the farmer owned the livestock, then the totality of the illustration would fall apart. The point of these comparisons is that the vine dresser makes it possible for the vine to produce and therefore, because of his labor, it is just and reasonable he eats the fruit. Without his effort, there would not be fruit. He has earned his wage.

This is clearly a case of missing the metaphors. In the first place, there is no mention of a third party mediator in the passage. "Who plants a vineyard without eating the fruit." There is no mention of the planter working for another person. The point of each metaphor is that there is a direct relationship between the service rendered and the reception of the produce. As a man labors he should expect the reward of payment, not from another source, but in the area where he has labored. "You shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain." It is clear that the animal of labor has a right to grain he directly treads by virtue of his work with the grain. Introducing elements in to the text and attempting to obscure the plain reading of the passage is eisegesis at its worst.

Honor

The author references Paul's other use of the illustration of the ox and the grain, as found in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. He does note that the "'honor'...frequently denotes 'price' and 'value,'” and as is his fashion, proceeds to explain to us, that even though the lexicon says it means this, it does not really mean this. I must stop here and point out the inconsistencies of his use of word studies. Previously, he has appealed to Greek definitions to make his points (dorean, propempo), but now he wants to argue against the lexicon. The only conclusion can be that it is his presupposition that is driving his presentation and not exegesis. He ignores and alters the definitions that do not fit his arguments.

Our author says: "Some take this injunction of double honor to mean those elders who preach and teach should recieve double the pay by other elders." He concludes that is not what it means, but rather all elders, preaching and non-preaching, are worthy of double honor and "Those who preach and teach are exemplars among a single group."

He has created a category that is alien to Scripture. There are not two types of elders. All elders are preaching elders. There is no such thing as a non-preaching/teaching elder. We can see from both of the passages regarding the qualifications for this office (1 Timothy and Titus) that an elder "must be able to teach." The ability is a qualification for the office because this is the primary duty of the office. But, I digress.

In short, despite the lexical meaning, the author says we should abandon our Greek in favor of English and not say this is money but "honor." But what about the widows who receive a support from the Church (Acts 6). According to the author, like the elders, the honor here does not refer to money but rather the privilege of being enrolled in the program. He goes on to say that "That is, the church does not find itself directly obligated to the widows for their service - otherwise they would pay all widows..."

The author says that there are two categories of widows: paid and unpaid. Just as the Scripture never mentions two categories of elder, neither will we find two categories of widows. He goes on to say that the widows are being paid for their services. I assume he concludes this from the phrase "every good work." This is not in references to her service in the church, but to her good works listed previously. The point is that the distribution should only be given to those widows are truly Christian and of good repute. If we continue reading in the context, we can see clearly see this:

"But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives."

We can see from the preceding reference in Scripture, this is about material support. When we look at Acts 6, we see that the distribution for widows is not for acts of service but an act of benevolence. The seven were chosen because some of the widows were "being overlooked in the daily serving of food." The author is mistaken to say the needy widows are being compensated for their service in the church.

Let's go back now and consider the author's redefinition of honor and how, according to him, it does not refer to material compensation. As we just read from Acts chapter 6, the widows received material goods - namely food. It seems special pleading to want to change this in 1 Timothy to something other than material goods. Just as the passage never mentions the services of the widow, neither does it mention the exemplary service of the elders. Furthermore, the notion that elders being recognized for their exemplary service does not fit the text, which goes on to say: "The laborer is worthy of his wages." The passage clearly connects honor with payment. Our author introduces elements into the passage and ignores the plain, clear reading to make his case. This is eisegesis not exegesis.

The author returns to 1 Corinthians 9:11 again. From an editorial perspective, this seems out of place as he has previously dealt with the passage. But, he does present the reader not only with a new argument to avoid the plain reading, but a new method of interpretation as well. Let us refresh our memories by reading the text in question:

1 Corinthians 9:11 "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much that we reap material things from you."

The author uses what I call the "grasshopper" method. Rather than applying the universally accepted principles of hermeneutics, namely, that the meaning of the text is always found in the context, he jumps to Romans to find his meaning. He says "This (1 Cor. 9:11) bears remarkable similarity to something the apostle says regarding the Jerusalem collection...among the Gentile churches." He proceeds to quote Romans 15:27:

"For [the Gentile churches] were pleased to do it. and indeed they owe it to the [church in Jerusalem]. For if the Gentiles have come to share in their spiritual blessings, they ought to be of service to them in material blessings."

The author says that the Romans had a duty to support the Jerusalem church and this was treated by Paul as "an act of worship," so the churches support of an elder is also as an act of worship through a mediator. Worship is never mentioned in either the Romans or the Corinthian passages. A mediator is not mentioned in either passage. But as we have seen, the author is very comfortable to ignore what is in the passage and equally comfortable to add things that are not in the passage. Again, this is eisegeis.

The ploy here is painfully obvious. By jumping to a completely different context, different people, different setting, and completely different situation, the author reveals his lack of understanding on how to interpret a text. First off, the situation in Corinthian is not about benevolent support for another church. Secondly, Paul is speaking of himself and his direct service to the Corinthians. The author's attempt to obscure the plain reading of the text by leap-frogging to another text on the basis that he thinks they sound the same is a pitiful attempt to change the clear reading. This is not how a workman of God should handle the Word.

I end my argumentation here. And no doubt is will be quipped, "You did not review the entire book." Yes, that is true. But the rest of the book is just the same. And I remind you of my introduction. If the foundational premises are proven to be invalid so must the supporting arguments and any conclusions be invalid. It is very clear, that the author ignores the very basics of hermeneutics. He has no application of exegetical practices to the passages he references. They are nothing more than proof texts. By ignoring the plain reading of the text, he makes himself the oracle of meaning. By adding elements to the text to create a new meaning, he is a faithful practitioner of esiegesis.

The first sentence of the forward to the book boasts, "To my knowledge, a book like this has never been written." (Joseph M. Jacowitz) This statement is true, and now we can see why. Because no one who has an elementary understanding of exegetical practices could possibly come to the same conclusions as the author.

* It should be noted that the author makes word study arguments in an attempt to make distinctions between certain types of giving. We often see this with people who cannot read the Greek text but have access to a dictionary or lexicon. This approach lends itself to rootword/word search fallacy, and is never the way we would prove a doctrine.