I Corinthians 9:1-14: "Paul's Example"
In the previous section Paul had made it clear that we are to never put our Christian liberty over loving our brothers and sister in the Lord. He warns the Corinthian believers to "take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak" (I Cor. 8:9). Although you may feel you have the right to do something, that right should never be a cause for another to sin. We must constantly be on guard to make sure our testimony is right and pure, especially to unbelievers and weak believers. With this in mind, Paul sets out in the next 18 verses to use himself as an example to show us that he does this in his own life everyday. Paul will show us that although he has the right to be financially supported by the Corinthian believers, he does not take advantage of this as it could be a hindrance to his ministry.
To begin his case, Paul will show us that he is in fact entitled to be supported by the church. He writes, "Am I not free?" Paul begins with this statement to link himself to the previous passage. It was being made much of in the Corinthian church to express their freedom. Paul was saying that he had no less freedom than anyone else, and as an apostle he had even greater freedom. This statement shows that he highly regarded his freedom in Christ, however, he wanted to make them aware that he held other things even more than his entitled freedom. He writes, "Am I not an apostle?" Another rhetorical question that Paul asks to establish himself as someone who had as much, if not more of a right to express his Christian freedom. Paul then gives two proofs of his apostleship with two more rhetorical questions: "Have I not seen our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?". According to Acts 1:21-22, an apostle had to be an eyewitness of Christ and His resurrection, which Paul had witnessed several times. This was authentication of his discipleship as well as the proof of the work he had done in the lives of the Corinthians. They were his work in the Lord. MacArthur writes, "The church at Corinth was one of the fruits of Paul's apostolic labors. Their saving faith and their knowledge of God's Word came from Paul's faithful evangelism and discipling (Acts 18:1-11)". In fact he calls them the "seal of [his] apostleship in the Lord". They were living proof of his apostleship. All this had been said in order to establish that Paul was in fact an apostle.
Because he was an apostle, Paul would then set out to establish that it would be completely within his rights to be supported by the church. He writes, "My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right to eat and drink?" Because he was an apostle of God didn't he have the right to expect that his physical needs would be taken care of by those he worked tirelessly for? Paul continues, "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" Here Paul is staking his right to be able to claim for himself a wife and bring her along to minister with him wherever he went. Paul as he had spoken of earlier, had the right to marry and being married, do as other apostles had done (like Peter), and bring that wife with him to minister alongside him. MacArthur writes, "I believe this verse supports the principle of paying pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and other such Christian workers enough so that their wives do not have to work; so they can have more time to be with their husbands in the ministry". Paul continues, "Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?" Paul is using sarcasm here to make the point that him and Barnabas who chose to work voluntarily on the side, had just as much right to be supported by the ministry without having to work an extra job to earn their living. Therefore, Paul has used these last couple verses to establish that he was an authentic apostle of Jesus Christ, and would have been completely justified to ask for his needs to be met by the church.
Paul now will set out to show that it is customary to pay workers for their labor. Paul writes, "Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense?" It would be absurd for us to ask those who serve all day as a soldier to work another job at night so that he can pay for food, water, shelter, etc. We all know that they are provided with food, shelter, and clothing as payment for their work. The second example Paul uses to show that it is customary to receive payment for work is the farmer. He writes, "Who plants a vineyard, and does not eat the fruit of it?" MacArthur writes, "Farmers do not plant a vineyard or cultivate a crop for someone without being paid. They do not farm for free and then do other work to make a living. They eat the fruit of their farming, being paid either in money or with a share of the crop (cf 2 Tim 2:6)". Paul uses one last example to show that it is customary to pay shepherds as well for their work. "Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?" In each example it is understood that each man will be paid for his work. They are not asked to spend the whole day working tirelessly voluntarily and then expected to go find another job on the side that actually pays. It is common for them to eat from the fruits of their labor. Paul's point is if it is customary for those workers to get paid for their work, why not a worker for the Lord?
As is customary for Paul, he will continue to build his case and give examples to show his point. In this section, Paul will show that God's Law even supports the claim to pay those who minister. Paul begins, "I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things?" Paul is establishing that not only is it customary from human experience and reason that we pay workers for their work, but it is also taught in God's Law. Paul uses a quotation from Deut. 25:4 to prove his point. "Or does not the Law also say these things? For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.'" This was from God's Law to show that it was general practice to allow the animal to feed as his payment or reward, while it worked in the field. Paul points out that how much more does God care about us than he does the oxen? That being the case, how much more should we as workers for God be entitled to payment for our work? Paul writes, "God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops". Men should work in the hope that they will be compensated for their labor. Pointing out the spiritual work he had done in the Corinthians he writes, "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you?" Here Paul finally connects his spiritual work, with the examples he had given earlier, to show his readers the right he had as a minister of God to reap material things for his spiritual work among the Corinthians. MacArthur points out, "Paul had every right to apply the principle to himself. If men working for men should be paid for their labor, surely men working for God should be paid for theirs. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you? The only difference in the principle as applied to the Lord's service is that material payment is given for spiritual work. The Lord provides His own spiritual rewards, but His people are to provide material reward, and provide it generously as unto Him". As Christians we ought to be mindful of this fact when we are giving to the church and providing for our missionaries.
Paul continues with another example of why he has the right to expect payment for his work. He will establish that it had always been done for other pastors. First, Paul writes, "If others share the right over you, do we not more?" MacArthur writes, "Paul's fourth reason for having a right to be supported in his ministry was that the Corinthians apparently had always supported their pastors. Those they now supported, or had supported, doubtlessly included Appollos and Peter (cf 1:12; 3:22). As the church's founding pastor and as an apostle, Paul had more claim on their support than the others". However, as Paul finally gets to the main point of this whole section, he writes, "Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ". Paul's whole point is explained here. As a worker for Christ he had established the right to ask for and receive compensation for his work among the Corinthians, however, he never exercised that right so that he might not cause a "hindrance to the gospel of Christ". We can now see the connection between this section and the previous chapter. Paul is not exercising his liberty for the sake of damaging his testimony to others. Paul was giving himself as an example of how the Corinthians ought to act towards the weaker brothers in their church. MacArthur points out, "throughout his ministry [Paul] continued to bear uncomplainingly whatever was necessary to fulfill his work. His customary way of life was self-denial. He worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3) to pay his way while he preached and taught". Paul would rather not ask for compensation for his work, than have one new convert question his motives for preaching. He did not want his message to be misunderstood, or selfish motives to be even a consideration among those who preached to. Therefore, he did not exercise his right to receive compensation for his spiritual work. May we understand this in our everyday lives. May we never demand anything we might feel we deserve, if our attitudes or actions could damage our testimony for the Lord. It is just not worth it, and the Lord will honor such actions.
Paul concludes this section with two last examples of why he could have the right to ask for payment for his work. He begins, "Do you know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar?" MacArthur points out to us that Paul was using this example to establish that being supported by the church "had been the universal pattern since the founding of the priesthood in Israel. The priests, those who perform sacred services, were supported by the tithes of crops and animals as well as sacrifices from the people to whom they ministered in the temple, and before that in the tabernacle (Num. 18:8-24)". Therefore he had once again established his right, which he did not exercise. Lastly, and most importantly, Paul points out that the Lord has ordained it to be that spiritual workers get their living from doing the work of the gospel. Paul writes, "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel". The Lord had ordained it as right, therefore, Paul in all good conscience could have asked for support and would have been justified. However, he applied the very principle he was trying to get across to the Corinthian church: that they give up their liberty for the sake of the church and the spread of the gospel if needed.
To begin his case, Paul will show us that he is in fact entitled to be supported by the church. He writes, "Am I not free?" Paul begins with this statement to link himself to the previous passage. It was being made much of in the Corinthian church to express their freedom. Paul was saying that he had no less freedom than anyone else, and as an apostle he had even greater freedom. This statement shows that he highly regarded his freedom in Christ, however, he wanted to make them aware that he held other things even more than his entitled freedom. He writes, "Am I not an apostle?" Another rhetorical question that Paul asks to establish himself as someone who had as much, if not more of a right to express his Christian freedom. Paul then gives two proofs of his apostleship with two more rhetorical questions: "Have I not seen our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?". According to Acts 1:21-22, an apostle had to be an eyewitness of Christ and His resurrection, which Paul had witnessed several times. This was authentication of his discipleship as well as the proof of the work he had done in the lives of the Corinthians. They were his work in the Lord. MacArthur writes, "The church at Corinth was one of the fruits of Paul's apostolic labors. Their saving faith and their knowledge of God's Word came from Paul's faithful evangelism and discipling (Acts 18:1-11)". In fact he calls them the "seal of [his] apostleship in the Lord". They were living proof of his apostleship. All this had been said in order to establish that Paul was in fact an apostle.
Because he was an apostle, Paul would then set out to establish that it would be completely within his rights to be supported by the church. He writes, "My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right to eat and drink?" Because he was an apostle of God didn't he have the right to expect that his physical needs would be taken care of by those he worked tirelessly for? Paul continues, "Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" Here Paul is staking his right to be able to claim for himself a wife and bring her along to minister with him wherever he went. Paul as he had spoken of earlier, had the right to marry and being married, do as other apostles had done (like Peter), and bring that wife with him to minister alongside him. MacArthur writes, "I believe this verse supports the principle of paying pastors, evangelists, missionaries, and other such Christian workers enough so that their wives do not have to work; so they can have more time to be with their husbands in the ministry". Paul continues, "Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?" Paul is using sarcasm here to make the point that him and Barnabas who chose to work voluntarily on the side, had just as much right to be supported by the ministry without having to work an extra job to earn their living. Therefore, Paul has used these last couple verses to establish that he was an authentic apostle of Jesus Christ, and would have been completely justified to ask for his needs to be met by the church.
Paul now will set out to show that it is customary to pay workers for their labor. Paul writes, "Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense?" It would be absurd for us to ask those who serve all day as a soldier to work another job at night so that he can pay for food, water, shelter, etc. We all know that they are provided with food, shelter, and clothing as payment for their work. The second example Paul uses to show that it is customary to receive payment for work is the farmer. He writes, "Who plants a vineyard, and does not eat the fruit of it?" MacArthur writes, "Farmers do not plant a vineyard or cultivate a crop for someone without being paid. They do not farm for free and then do other work to make a living. They eat the fruit of their farming, being paid either in money or with a share of the crop (cf 2 Tim 2:6)". Paul uses one last example to show that it is customary to pay shepherds as well for their work. "Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?" In each example it is understood that each man will be paid for his work. They are not asked to spend the whole day working tirelessly voluntarily and then expected to go find another job on the side that actually pays. It is common for them to eat from the fruits of their labor. Paul's point is if it is customary for those workers to get paid for their work, why not a worker for the Lord?
As is customary for Paul, he will continue to build his case and give examples to show his point. In this section, Paul will show that God's Law even supports the claim to pay those who minister. Paul begins, "I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things?" Paul is establishing that not only is it customary from human experience and reason that we pay workers for their work, but it is also taught in God's Law. Paul uses a quotation from Deut. 25:4 to prove his point. "Or does not the Law also say these things? For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.'" This was from God's Law to show that it was general practice to allow the animal to feed as his payment or reward, while it worked in the field. Paul points out that how much more does God care about us than he does the oxen? That being the case, how much more should we as workers for God be entitled to payment for our work? Paul writes, "God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops". Men should work in the hope that they will be compensated for their labor. Pointing out the spiritual work he had done in the Corinthians he writes, "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you?" Here Paul finally connects his spiritual work, with the examples he had given earlier, to show his readers the right he had as a minister of God to reap material things for his spiritual work among the Corinthians. MacArthur points out, "Paul had every right to apply the principle to himself. If men working for men should be paid for their labor, surely men working for God should be paid for theirs. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you? The only difference in the principle as applied to the Lord's service is that material payment is given for spiritual work. The Lord provides His own spiritual rewards, but His people are to provide material reward, and provide it generously as unto Him". As Christians we ought to be mindful of this fact when we are giving to the church and providing for our missionaries.
Paul continues with another example of why he has the right to expect payment for his work. He will establish that it had always been done for other pastors. First, Paul writes, "If others share the right over you, do we not more?" MacArthur writes, "Paul's fourth reason for having a right to be supported in his ministry was that the Corinthians apparently had always supported their pastors. Those they now supported, or had supported, doubtlessly included Appollos and Peter (cf 1:12; 3:22). As the church's founding pastor and as an apostle, Paul had more claim on their support than the others". However, as Paul finally gets to the main point of this whole section, he writes, "Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ". Paul's whole point is explained here. As a worker for Christ he had established the right to ask for and receive compensation for his work among the Corinthians, however, he never exercised that right so that he might not cause a "hindrance to the gospel of Christ". We can now see the connection between this section and the previous chapter. Paul is not exercising his liberty for the sake of damaging his testimony to others. Paul was giving himself as an example of how the Corinthians ought to act towards the weaker brothers in their church. MacArthur points out, "throughout his ministry [Paul] continued to bear uncomplainingly whatever was necessary to fulfill his work. His customary way of life was self-denial. He worked as a tentmaker (Acts 18:3) to pay his way while he preached and taught". Paul would rather not ask for compensation for his work, than have one new convert question his motives for preaching. He did not want his message to be misunderstood, or selfish motives to be even a consideration among those who preached to. Therefore, he did not exercise his right to receive compensation for his spiritual work. May we understand this in our everyday lives. May we never demand anything we might feel we deserve, if our attitudes or actions could damage our testimony for the Lord. It is just not worth it, and the Lord will honor such actions.
Paul concludes this section with two last examples of why he could have the right to ask for payment for his work. He begins, "Do you know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar?" MacArthur points out to us that Paul was using this example to establish that being supported by the church "had been the universal pattern since the founding of the priesthood in Israel. The priests, those who perform sacred services, were supported by the tithes of crops and animals as well as sacrifices from the people to whom they ministered in the temple, and before that in the tabernacle (Num. 18:8-24)". Therefore he had once again established his right, which he did not exercise. Lastly, and most importantly, Paul points out that the Lord has ordained it to be that spiritual workers get their living from doing the work of the gospel. Paul writes, "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel". The Lord had ordained it as right, therefore, Paul in all good conscience could have asked for support and would have been justified. However, he applied the very principle he was trying to get across to the Corinthian church: that they give up their liberty for the sake of the church and the spread of the gospel if needed.
posted by amesfam | 9:54 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home