But he was wrong. He did have the right to criticize them for their stingy attitudes and he should not have gone off thinking that he needed to work for money to take care of himself.
This is what he says in the chapter just after the verses you posted, for a fuller context:
2COR 12:13 For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.
2COR 12:14 Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not your's but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.
It seems he's being a bit sarcastic with the apology, because even though his intentions were good (i.e. not wanting to overburden them with many criticisms) he still did the wrong thing by not correcting them on this issue.
Brother, please look again because the verses you provided for context disprove your case. Verse 13 is said in irony and sarcasm and it isn't an actual apology for wrongdoing. Notice in verse 11 he was answering against the same charge from 1 Corinthians that he was inferior to other apostles. The charge was that he must not be a real apostle because he had to work to earn money instead of getting support from the other churches. Of course this wasn't the case and Paul was setting an example by supporting himself so he wouldn't burden others. Nothing has changed from 1 Corinthians to 2 Corinthians. It's the same scenario and the same explanation.
If it was Paul admitting wrongdoing and apologizing, why do you think that in verse 14 he again repeats that he is going to do the very same thing on his third visit that he did before? What do you think he means by "I will not be burdensome to you" and "children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children". What he is saying is that he isn't going to ask for any compensation and will pay his own way just like before. I am wondering how you can read this and think it says the exact opposite of what it actually says. You keep reading your interpretation into the verses but it isn't there. Paul is very clear about what he is doing and why he is doing it, and that it isn't a mistake and he will continue to do it.
Everyone makes mistakes, even Paul. You can also read about this story at the beginning of Acts 18, when Paul travels to Corinth. It says he went out to make tents, but when his buddies Timothy and Silas showed up he was "pressed in the spirit" and went to preach the gospel full time.
In other words, seeing his spiritual friends again helped him to snap out of it and he went back to preaching full time.
Brother I am exhorting you here to rightly divide the word of truth because you are reading your doctrine into the text. We need to believe what we read, not read what we believe. Here is the verse you're referring to:
Acts 18:5
And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ.
So we can both agree that Paul at this point stopped his tentmaking ministry for the time being. Why? You gave your explanation which is that Silas and Timotheus helped Paul "snap out of it", as if what he was doing was wrong. However, we don't need to speculate, as Paul tells us why he stopped making tents and preached full time:
2 Corinthians 11:9
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.
In other words, Silas and Timothy relieved Paul materially so he could preach the gospel full time without being a burden to the church. You are acting like Paul made some kind of mistake, when he was living by a principle that Christ taught:
Act 20:34 You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me.
Act 20:35 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.'"
Paul worked for his own bread so he could help the weak because it is more blessed to give than to receive. He did not claim his rightful due for preaching and instead labored for his own bread, and the bread of others, so that he could give instead of receive like Christ taught. Paul was perfectly in line with the teachings of Christ but you try to rob Paul of his humble service by claiming he did something wrong.
The word "pay" is a translational issue. You won't find that in the KJV. It's a growing trend towards watering down the gospel and making it more palatable for luke-warm Christians who can't imagine a world where people work to help each other just because they want to and not because they expect something in return.
It's the same with the phrase "earn a living" or the implication that any time the word "work" is used, it's automatically talking about demanding payment from people before we will help them. It's so totally anti-Christian to insert these implications into the lessons being taught.
First, I would ask that you stop implicating that I am a luke-warm Christian, and this is the second time you've done so. It's anti-christian to denigrate your brother in Christ, so please take the plank out of your eye before you try to take the mote out of mine.
Second, by now saying this is an issue of translation instead of substance you have admitted that the passage contradicts your interpretation of Matthew 6:24. It is a fact that Paul worked for money in Thessalonica to support his ministry, and the KJV doesn't say anything different:
2Th 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
2Th 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
3:8 says that they did not eat any mans bread for nothing, ie by not paying for it
3:9 says they had the right to do so, but chose to set an example
3:10 says that they commanded them to follow this example
The irony is that this is exactly what you are doing. I talked about Jesus' sermon on the mount where he quite clearly says that we cannot work for God and mammon (money and the things money can buy) at the same time without cheating on one or the other.
What He says is that we cannot serve money, which is not the same as working for wages. You have falsely equated the two things, and the testimony of Paul contradicts this interpretation. Jesus is saying not to make money an idol, not that earning money is wrong. Paul also tells us we should labor so that we can give money to those who are in need:
Eph 4:28 Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
He told us to consider the birds and flowers specifically because they do not work for money and yet God still takes care of them. He told us NOT to be like the rest of the world chasing after all these material things and that we should not let fear for these things stop us from serving God's kingdom first.
Jesus told us not to worry about these things
You act as if God would never use a job to provide someone the resources they need to buy food, money or clothing. Does God need to use a job to do that? No, but He often chooses to. Therefore earning wages doesn't mean you are worrying about where you are going to get food, money or clothes, if that is the way God has chosen to supply those things to you.
Your response was to point to Paul and basically say, "see, paul said if we don't work we shouldn't eat" and you've ASSUMED that Paul was talking about working for money, because it conforms to your bias to do so.
I didn't assume anything; that is what the text says. 3:8-9 are talking about how Paul earned money so as not to be a burden, and then he commanded them to follow his example in verse 10. I think Paul is talking about having a ministry where you preach and also earn wages to support yourself. Paul chose to set a higher standard by making sure he supported himself on missions.
Paul was writing to a Christian community who were living together and working together full time (as described in Acts 2 and 4 as well as defined by the example Jesus and his followers gave, too). The context is obviously about the work of the church community (i.e. preaching the gospel, social outreach programs, household chores/administrative duties, group studies, etc...)
If you don't want to work (in the church) then you should not eat (in the church). It has nothing to do with Christians forcing people to pay them before they will offer their help.
Really, you are the one pitting Paul against Jesus.
What Paul was talking about is supporting himself on missions and living by the principle that Jesus taught which is that it is better to give than to receive. He refused to take compensation for his work so that He could set a good example and not be a burden on others. This is a lesson the church still needs to learn today. Paul also said it was good to earn money so we can help the needy. You apparently believe Paul was wrong for foregoing his right to live off the gospel to set a higher standard by arguing he made a mistake. Well as I've shown the text does not support that interpretation in any way. Paul didn't make a mistake, he was setting an example for us all and we could learn a lot from it.
