Tables - food or money?

[Pressing-On]

Acts 6:1-2

(1) And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. (2) Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

I just noticed the word "tables - trapeza".

Somehow I thought it was referring to food, but looking again the word "tables" also refers to a place where money is kept or managed.

I ran across this:

Even Barclay Newman's has "TRAPEZA, HS f table; food, meal; bank (Lk
19:23)"
NAS Greek has: "TRAPEZA trapeza; prob. from 5064 and 3979; a table,
dining table: —bank(1), food(1), table(9), tables(4)."
L&N have: "57.215 TRAPEZA, HS f: a place where money is kept or
managed or where credit is established — ‘bank.’ διὰ τί
οὐκ ἔδωκάς μου τὸ ἀργύριον ἐπὶ
τράπεζαν; (DIA TI OUK EDWKAS MOU TO ARGURION EPI
TRAPEZAN?)‘why didn’t you put my money in the bank?’ Lk 19:23.

Luke 19:23Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

Bank is the same word as tables in the Strongs.

- G5132
τράπεζα
trapeza
trap'-ed-zah
Probably contracted from G5064 and G3979; a table or stool (as being four legged), usually for food (figuratively a meal); also a counter for money (figuratively a broker’s office for loans at interest): - bank, meat, table.

Thought this was interesting. I think I had a mental picture of the men appointed as serving food, but actually they seem to be distributing money.

[gloryseeker]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I just noticed the word "tables - trapeza".

Somehow I thought it was referring to food, but looking again the word "tables" also refers to a place where money is kept or managed.

Very good question and something I think a lot of people don't consider. This is actually a VERY powerful chapter because as you continue ready what transpired in these verses resulted in the Word of God to increase and the disciples to multiply.

When considering the "tables" aspect of this you need to also consider verse three:

Acts 6:3
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (KJV)

While there was a problem with food, food was not the total problem it is just what started the division which caused the leaders to address a broader issue.

The reality is there is a "business" side of the church. This is where we find the church starting to take form and structure [something the house church advocates don't want to see].

In my view, one of the biggest problems in todays local churches is most Pastors have no business skills, yet they want to manage God's assets which generate a lot of money and have people that have needs.

Pastors either need to get skilled in business as well as the Word or do as this states and "appoint" men full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom over the business.

Now, there is one problem in the "appointing" in todays USA structure. The Pastor has ultimate responsibility over the corporate assets. Nothing biblical about this, just legal speak. Therefore, even if the Pastor "appoints" he still needs to be active in what is going on.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

Very good question and something I think a lot of people don't consider. This is actually a VERY powerful chapter because as you continue ready what transpired in these verses resulted in the Word of God to increase and the disciples to multiply.

When considering the "tables" aspect of this you need to also consider verse three:

Acts 6:3
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. (KJV)

While there was a problem with food, food was not the total problem it is just what started the division which caused the leaders to address a broader issue.

The reality is there is a "business" side of the church. This is where we find the church starting to take form and structure [something the house church advocates don't want to see].

In my view, one of the biggest problems in todays local churches is most Pastors have no business skills, yet they want to manage God's assets which generate a lot of money and have people that have needs.

Pastors either need to get skilled in business as well as the Word or do as this states and "appoint" men full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom over the business.

Now, there is one problem in the "appointing" in todays USA structure. The Pastor has ultimate responsibility over the corporate assets. Nothing biblical about this, just legal speak. Therefore, even if the Pastor "appoints" he still needs to be active in what is going on.

Excellent post. The boldened part is very good!

The reason I bring up the topic is that I've always wondered why "men" were waiting tables as that is what I was taught. (lol) I believe the scripture is speaking of dispersing the offerings given, which could include food, but it can also be money.

On another thread we discussed the issue of whether you needed a pastor to be saved. I believe when you study it out you will find that the church has appointed "elders" and the "elders" appoint a "head elder" who is the pastor. That, at least, is my understanding. I think we would, currently, call the "elders" the "Board Members".

I believe every pastor should consult with the Board whenever he is going to spend any type of money or make any type of plans for the church. That keeps him accountable and free from accusations that could arise, which they often do.

Certainly there have been problems with Boards running the church and the pastor running everything. Hopefully we could be Christian enough to want the best for "God's church".

[jaxfam6]

I am an adherent to the tithes being the wages of the ministry. I could care less how they spend that. BUT, the offerings are a different matter. That I believe the church body has a say over, after the bills are paid and upkeep done.

Then our church opperates differently than I know the UPCI and the ALJC does. I actually do not know the ins and outs of it all but I believe the organization owns most of the buildings and takes care of that stuff. All the tithes and offerings get sent to the home office and they pay out the wages to the ministers and the church bills. Accounts are kept of how much the church has in reserve. The church can spend the money but they have to be accountable to not just the local assembly but to the general board as well. Kinda keeps everyone honest.
If we take up a special offering that is to all go to one place it still has to pass through the main office. I have not seen it ever denied to replace it to the churches funds but I guess they would have that right if they question why the church gave that much money to someone.

Guest ministers love to come to our church. They always get an offering that is better than almost all other churches would give. We take an offering after service to bless the guest speaker with and it all goes to him. I have seen them take up a thousand dollars plus before for one night service. Some don't even get that in a weeks worth of services.

[gloryseeker]

Originally Posted by jaxfam6

Guest ministers love to come to our church. They always get an offering that is better than almost all other churches would give. We take an offering after service to bless the guest speaker with and it all goes to him. I have seen them take up a thousand dollars plus before for one night service. Some don't even get that in a weeks worth of services.

Everyone has their own system of accountability, but if you are saying that you receive an offering for a guest minister and then cash is given to them, you are in violation of IRS codes. The money must go through the church and if over $600 a 1099 must be issued. Even if it is under $600 and a 1099 is not required you must have a W9 on file prior to the services being rendered.

[jaxfam6]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

Everyone has their own system of accountability, but if you are saying that you receive an offering for a guest minister and then cash is given to them, you are in violation of IRS codes. The money must go through the church and if over $600 a 1099 must be issued. Even if it is under $600 and a 1099 is not required you must have a W9 on file prior to the services being rendered.

I am not saying anything is given in cash. I do not know how that is taken care of. Not my part to worry about. I just know that an offering is taken and the entire amount is given to the guest minister. How that is done is through the church office. All has to be accounted through the Home office in the end so I am sure they are doing it all above the board and legal.

[gloryseeker]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I believe every pastor should consult with the Board whenever he is going to spend any type of money or make any type of plans for the church.

I'm real BIG on accountability, however I would disagree with the above. I don't think it works have someone who is under the authority of the Pastor (board member) exercise authority over the Pastor.

I am all for the Board being Pastors, businessmen from other churches. If a Pastor is going to lead he should have the freedom to seek God and lead the people.

It's like the old saying, "If Moses would have had a committee they would still be in Egypt."

[Joelel]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by gloryseeker

I'm real BIG on accountability, however I would disagree with the above. I don't think it works have someone who is under the authority of the Pastor (board member) exercise authority over the Pastor.

I am all for the Board being Pastors, businessmen from other churches. If a Pastor is going to lead he should have the freedom to seek God and lead the people.

It's like the old saying, "If Moses would have had a committee they would still be in Egypt."

I appreciate your post, gs. I have a particular reason why I think the Pastor should be accountable to the Board, but I don't like to discuss these things so openly on a Forum.

I think when the NT church was set up and "elders" were appointed, they were supposed to work together. That's how I take it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Joelel

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

What's on your mind, Jo-el?