Clarifying Paul’s Recourse to Tent-Making (mentioned cursorily) in Book of Acts

 

That Paul “stayed and worked with them [viz Aquila and Priscilla] for by occupation they were tent-makers” (Acts 18:3) is an unassuming informational fact which certain Christian factions find rather appealing.  Their liberal extrapolation of this particular verse has imaginatively led to various scenarios being mooted (and even embraced in some circles) based on the supposition that tent-making can prove to be quite lucrative.  The following serve as possible illustrative examples:

●       buoyed by the prospect of tent-making, a free-spirited missionary may be encouraged to venture abroad for some self-styled ministry there without church covering

●       a pastor need only minister to his flock on week-ends if he is pre-occupied with tent-making during week-days to procure income for living expenses

●       a church ought to found some form of tent-making side-business with the objective of ensuring a stable stream of revenue for funding overseas outreach or even church planting.

 

Are there biblical instructions that actually dwell on turning to tent-making for pecuniary purposes?  What has instead been authoritatively stipulated by Paul is that “the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (I Corinthians 9:14).  Lest any assumes that this provision is for the exclusive benefit of those who preach the gospel (such as missionaries and pastors), there is another verse from Paul (when offering guidance to Timothy pastoring the church at Ephesus) for the congregation to “let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honour” (I Timothy 5:17).  These remuneration-type directives are not peculiar to the churches established initially by the apostles (during the time-frame recounted in the book of Acts) or subsequently by other missionaries (throughout the early centuries of the Christian era).  Indeed, these two Pauline verses draw scriptural support from the Mosaic law:

●       “For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain’.” (I Corinthians 9:9)

●       “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain’ and ‘The labourer is worthy of his wages’.” (I Timothy 5:18)

Of relevance too is the divinely-ordained obligation imposed on eleven Hebrew tribes to provide materially for the needs of the Levites whom God singled out to perform the full suite of tabernacle/temple-related duties (including priestly functions) during the Old Testament period.  When the Promised Land was being apportioned in the book of Judges among the different Hebrew tribes for growing crops or rearing flocks (apart from the specified intention of territorial inheritance), there was no allotment for the Levites who essentially had to be spared from having to eke out a living off the land so as to focus their attention on the roles appointed for them by the Lord Himself.

 

Given the scriptural basis for his living expenses to be taken care of by those whom Paul ministered, why does Acts 18:3 allude to his involvement in tent-making at Corinth?  For starters, it has to be firmly refuted that this tent-making business (which was presumably profitable) had been able to steadily furnish Paul with the funds necessary to sponsor his Corinthian ministry at the time and subsequent missionary efforts elsewhere.  As chronicled by Luke, “Aquila … had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla because [Emperor] Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome” (Acts 18:2); hence, the tent-making endeavour mentioned in the follow-up verse would have been merely a start-up which must have shuttered some 1.5 years later because, according to the chronicler’s detailed records, by “then Paul took leave of the brethren [at Corinth] and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him” (Acts 18:19).

 

Does the New Testament offer any reasons for Paul’s opting to work with Aquila and Priscilla as tent-makers?  As pointed out by Paul himself to the Corinthian congregation, “when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one; … in everything I kept myself from being burdensome to you” (II Corinthians 11:9).  The explanation proffered by Paul to this particular church is that “I preach the gospel of Christ without charge [to you] that I may not abuse my authority in the gospel” (I Corinthians 9:18).  Also to take cognisance of is Paul’s announcement that “now for the third time, I am ready to visit you and I will [still] not be burdensome to you …” (II Corinthians 12:14).  These three verses collectively highlight Paul’s insistence on setting aside the rights accorded to him by I Corinthians 9:14 so as to avoid being tarnished as a burden by certain parties within the congregation (who could not have been indigent as they were residing in a strategically important port known for the flourishing trade transacted by its enterprising inhabitants).

 

The context for Paul’s repeated refusal to accept sustenance contributions from the Corinthian church has to be taken into consideration in order to appreciate the necessity for him to engage in tent-making to defray his living expenses there.  Attention should be drawn to the presence of the so-called most eminent apostles (who in modern-day lingo are likely to be hailed as super-apostles) readily embraced by the Corinthian congregation.  There must have been so many of them as to warrant the hyperbole derisively employed by Paul when urging the flock to imitate him even “though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ” (I Corinthians 4:15).  Especially telling are the following verses uttered by Paul almost within the same breath:

●       “I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles” (II Corinthians 11:5)

●       “I ought to have been commended by you; for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles” (II Corinthians 12:11)

●       “I say again, let no one think me a fool” (II Corinthians 11:16).

 

In conclusion, it is manifestly evident from these reproduced Pauline verses that the divinely-appointed apostle’s rationale for taking on tent-making is to set himself apart from the seemingly-eminent apostles apparently enticed by the wealth of this congregation.  As argued eloquently by Paul, “If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more?  Nevertheless, we have not used this right … lest we hinder the gospel of Christ.” (I Corinthians 9:12)  The terse tent-making side-note included in Acts 18:3 cannot be taken out of context to concoct a general principle for church staff to rely on tent-making; that there is no such recommendation is adducible from Paul’s willingness to receive love gifts from the other believers elsewhere during the 1.5-year ministry for “what I lacked [while in Corinth] the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied” (II Corinthians 11:9).  Neither is such a passing mention of tent-making sufficient to serve as the basis for specifying how the church’s ongoing activities and future programmes are to be financed.  Instead, the focus should be re-directed to the various scriptural passages that document the monetary and material resources committed to God’s work such as those required for the following examples:

●       building of the tabernacle after the exodus from Egypt

●       erection of the temple during King Solomon’s reign

●       restoration of the temple left in disrepair prior to King Joash’s reign

●       re-construction of the temple destroyed 70 years earlier by the Babylonians

●       collection of relief funds called for by Paul to aid the church at Jerusalem.

Hence, the upshot is that the fleeting reference of Luke to tent-making (among the narratives chronicling the early missionary experiences) has to be commingled with the principled stand of Paul vis-à-vis his Corinthian flock (given the circumstances prevailing there at the time).