WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE
1st Corinthians 9.1-12
June 17th 2018
Milk
So, we started in on chapter nine last week were Paul asked, “Am I not an apostle?”
And we talked all about what the New Testament qualifications were for being an apostle.
We also mentioned that Paul is being called on the carpet somehow for his apostolic life and it seems to me, reading the rest of chapter 9 that people were being critical of something he had allowed or done relative to his physical well being . . .
He ate some bread donated by a believer, he accepted a chunk of gold that was in part donated to the church, or he was exercising some authority over others – something! – and as we read the whole of chapter nine it will become apparent that there was some sort of criticism toward his person – so – let’s read the text in its entirety. (Verse 1)
1st Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
7 Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
12 If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.
13 Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?
14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.
15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.
16 For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!
17 For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.
20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
23 And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.
Okay, back to the remainder of verse 1:
1st Corinthians 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
First he asked, Am I not an Apostle? (Now) Am I not free?
Because he first asks, Am I not an Apostle, the follow-up question, “Am I not free?” appears to be connected with the Apostle statement.
So what was he talking about? I suggest that he is saying, “Am I not an apostle and therefore does this fact not make me free and at liberty to receive from the hands of believers, in other words, to abstain from labor to earn my keep?”
Looking at the content of the chapter it appears, again, that someone was complaining about something doing relative to this topic.
And by this phrase he seems to start right off the bat defending his right to be a freeman (meaning not a slave or a laborer) who works another job to earn his keep.
Then he adds, to justify his position as an true Apostles:
“Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” which we covered last week. Then he adds (verse 2)
2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.
He seems to be saying, “and listen,
“If I have not given evidence to others of my apostolic mission – and of my being sent by the Lord Jesus, I have given this evidence to you!”
How does he justify this statement? By adding:
“for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.”
In other words, you and your faith in God proves that I have labored long and successfully as a true apostle of the Lord.
You have heard me preach and teach, you have witnessed the miracles, known the Spirit and love – I am His Apostle.
And he appears to establish this first before defending his right to live off the offerings of others. And so after having said this, he writes (verse three):
3 Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,
The Greek her is my apologia, my defense against those who “examine me,” ANAKRINO – who investigate me, scrutinize me, is this:
The word used here (anakrino) is a forensic term, which means it is a scientific examination typically of a crime.
It is possible that Paul uses this word sort of tongue in cheek because it was only judges and magistrates in that day who examined others in this way and these people were arrogant enough to think that they were in a position to do the same.
So my answer to them and their forensic examination of me and my actions is this:
4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?
Now, obviously, Paul could eat and drink at will so that is not what he is saying. The key is in the word, Power – exoosia – “Have we not the POWER to eat and drink,” which is akin to saying
“Don’t we Apostles have the right (or power) to eat and drink from the donations given the church?”
In writing to the church at Thessalonica, Paul wrote, speaking of the apostles, in 1st Thessalonians 2:6
“Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ” proving here that he believed as Apostles they could, if they chose, have been “burdensome” to others.
Then again in 2nd Thessalonians 3:8-9 he wrote:
“Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labor and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.”
From both of these examples, and from what we are reading here in 1st Corinthians 9, Paul believed that as an apostle he had the power to live off the contributions of the Saints.
But in each of these examples we also see that he chose NOT to do such a thing, because he sought to keep all things above board and not burden anyone.
It’s really quite fascinating because a number of pastors do a number of things in the face of these verses that to me, miss the point entirely.
First of all, because Paul says and proves that it is permissible for those “who preach the gospel to live off the gospel” (as verse 14 says) many pastors use this to support the teaching of collecting tithes FROM people.
There is nothing about that side of the discussion present here at all – OR anywhere else in the New Testament.
Many will turn to the fact that Paul took up collections to justify their taking up collections but Paul first, had the church elders take up collections and secondly he took the things donated to JERUSALEM – where the believers were starving to death.
Those actions do not fit the demands of taking up donations for the local church or pastor of the church in the least.
Secondly, while the principle to live off the Gospel if you live in the Gospel is made, Paul’s entire argument, at least initially, is that he is an APOSTLE!
That is how he justifies the accusations against him, saying:
“Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen the Lord Jesus Christ?”
Finally, while he does justify those who preach the Gospel living off the Gospel he himself choses to reject this – so to use Paul’s own life as a justification for the same is to miss the point again!
In any case, he, as a means to defend himself from accusation of wrongdoing, first says:
“As apostles, have we not power (the right) to eat and drink?”
It was known that throughout the ancient world of paganism and even Judaism, those who labored in the things of God lived off the things of God.
This was the case then and it remains the case today.
I have no problem taking a portion out of donations to help my family make ends meet.
This is not the problem and it has never been a problem with God and his people.
The problem is in an age where the Law has been nailed to the cross, and when the former covenant has been replaced by the New Covenant of love, that there continues to be an EXPECTATION or DEMAND upon believers to give – especially through the implementation of collections of any kind and/or the use of the term tithes.
In the New Covenant of love people are to give freely, not by compulsion, not by demand, and if someone chooses to give they should do it cheerfully – never by compulsion, guilt, expectation or any other means.
So again, to accept such donations is biblical, and that is why I do it – and can justify it completely by a historic examination of the text.
However, I wish I could accomplish what I accomplish in the Gospel without the subsidy – and if I was financially independent I guarantee you I would.
So that is a goal of mine to be like Paul in this way. But like Paul, I will never cross over and make demands from believers as a means to get more for the church and or myself.
From this point forward Paul establishes the right he and others who are non-apostles it seems, to partake in the material wealth of other believers. He begins this by asking:
5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Perhaps a better or clearer way to say this is:
“Do we not also have the right to bring a wife (who is a sister) with us on our journeys, as the other apostles do, and as the brother of our Lord (James) does, and Peter?
Now it seems like the objection here was that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at least that they travelled without wives and so where the other apostles took wives with them, and therefore had a greater reason to accept support from the church, Paul and Barnabas, who traveled alone and also labored with their own hands, had no such reason – therefore they were in the wrong (LISTEN) of the thing that they were accused of BUT had not even done!
The objectors urged that others had wives, and that they took them with them, and expected provision to be made for them as well as for themselves.
They therefore showed that they felt that they had a claim to support for their families, and that they were conscious that they were sent of God.
But Paul and Barnabas had no families. And the objectors inferred that they were conscious that they had no claim to the apostleship, and no right to support. To this Paul replies as before, that they had a right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other reasons than that they were conscious that they had no such right. (verse 6)
6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?
Meaning, “Or is it only Barnabas and me who don’t have the right to quit working?”
We know from Acts 18:3 that Paul and Barnabas worked together as tent-makers at Corinth. From this, it seems, some of their critics added to their unfounded criticism, that Paul and Barnabas had gainful employment and therefore no right to partake of the churches material goods.
Paul responds to this with something like:
Oh, and so looking at the other Apostles who also live of the donations of others and do not labor with their hands, only Barnabas and myself are forced to work?
The question alone implies that they had such power or right with the sense being:
“Why should Barnabas and I be regarded as having no right to support? Have we been less faithful than others? Have we done less? Have we given fewer evidences that we are sent by the Lord, or that God approves us in our work? Have we been less successful? Why, then, should we be singled out–and why should it be supposed that we are obliged to continue to labor for our support when the others don’t?
It is pretty evident (from verse 12 and other verses in the New Testament), that Barnabas as well as Paul relinquished his right to a support but still this part of the epistle shows that they were still being criticized under the auspices of financial impropriety.
Paul has such an interesting mind – having been raised under the Law. He builds cases in his argumentation instead of just responding to the criticism. I love this about him and of course it speaks to his legal mind.
It’s really genius because instead of denying that he has lived off the donations of the church at Corinth and other places, he instead proves that he has the right!
In the former approach it’s a matter of he said/she said, but in the latter it removes all the dramatic accusations, and gets right to the heart of things. So at verse 7 (through 14) he begins to justify living off the cheerful donations of the church giving three examples and then in verses 15-23 he explains why he has not taken advantage of that right or power.
So at verse seven he says:
Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?
who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?
or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
Who goeth to warfare anytime at his own charges or cost?
Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?
This line is borrowed from one similar in Deuteronomy and is self-explanatory.
who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?
This comes from Proverbs 27:18 which says
“Whoso keepeth the fig tree shall eat the fruit thereof: so he that waiteth on his master shall be honored.”
Likewise,
or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
Which hearkens back to the Levitical Priests working in the temple and living directly off the offerings and sacrifices made therein.
Here Paul establishes the right or power to do so from the authority of reason and nature itself in the case of the vineyard, from the authority of Scripture in the case of the fig tree, and then from the example taken from the lives of the temple priests.
It is a pretty comprehensive argument when it comes to the Christian faith because as an apostle (or others who labor in the fields of God) we are engaged in
Spiritual WARFARE,
Spiritual bearing of FRUIT,
And spiritually SHEPHERDING people in the flock.
I mention this in this way because I am of the impression that because the Christian faith is based in spiritual things those who labor in its fields PRIMARILY reap Spiritual blessing and reward, not an over-abundance of material.
This view gives balance to the material demands some make in the faith today as the expectation for true laborers in the Gospel are spiritual rewards not physical.
In other words, nobody who labors in the Christian faith ought to expect or even allow themselves to become wealthy off the warfare, fruit or flock they shepherd because the realize that in the Christian economy the rewards are NOT generally material but spiritual – and are given both here and I believe are expected there. (verse 8)
8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?
Do I write this on my own authority or without the sanction of God? Doesn’t the Law of Moses say the same also?
Again, Paul was accustomed, especially in arguing with the Jews, to get his proofs from the Old Testament where the principle is made plain.
Since most of the early converts to the faith were Jews the connection was not a hard sell.
But I have to point out that while under the law donations were mandatory, under the New Covenant they are not – in fact they are just the opposite – they are to come from the heart.
Having mentioned the Law Paul now says:
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
To muzzle an ox means “to bind the mouth so as to fasten the mouth to prevent it from eating or biting.”
Here we see God caring for the yoked oxen. It shows his humanity for animals he created even though they are beasts of burden.
Of course the principle is that an ox should not be prevented from eating when it was in the midst of the food it plows and that as it labored for its owner in those fields it was entitled to the support of the field itself.
Then Paul asks:
“Doth God take care for oxen?” Meaning, “Doth God take care for oxen ONLY?”
In other words, if God has this view of brute beasts, what do you suppose His view would be of creatures made in His image? And then those who from the heart serve His purposes on earth?
Verse 10 is a bit cumbersome but Paul says here:
10 Or . . . saith He (God) it altogether for our sakes? (In other words, did God say all this for our sakes, to apply the principle to us? Paul answers) “For our sakes, no doubt, this is written:
“that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.”
Now, I am not sure why, but when Paul asks:
“Or said He it altogether that he that ploweth should plow in hope and that he that thresheth in hope should be a partaker of his hope”
It does not seem to be said anywhere in scripture – at least this way – nor is it a verbatim proverb from some other ancient source.
This happens in scripture and we have seen it before but what’s interesting about this is nobody I consulted even addressed this. I feel like I’m missing something but try as I might I could not find what it is.
Nevertheless, the point Paul is making remains clear:
When God said that the oxen should not be muzzled, did he say it
“For our sakes, no doubt, . . “that he all together said to us he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.”
Did God mean this principally, mainly (the meaning of the word, altogether) for our sakes?
His answer is yes, that was the purpose. That when anyone – no matter what they are engaged in – plow or thresh – they do so in hope.
For some there is the hope of cash, for others support, for others the favor of a well lived life, but all of our actions are taken under the auspices of hopeful expectation of a good result.
At verse 11 Paul seems to get more direct and writes (our last verse for today, asking)
11 If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?
The agrestic imagery of sowing is used all through scripture including the all-time favorite shares in His parable of the sower.
The constructs of sowing and reaping are endemic to most of life’s labors – we put the work in PLANTING seed – whether its in relationships, sales, learning or gaining experience, time and devotion, marketing, advertising – and we do it all with the expectation, the hope, that we will then reap.
Paul admits that he and the other apostles have sown spiritual things into the lives of those at Corinth.
He shares this same principle in his letter to the church at Rome saying the following about taking up a collection for the Jewish converts living in Jerusalem:
Romans 15:26-27 For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem.
27 It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. (the Gentiles are in debt to the Jews. He goes on to explain why, saying) “For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their (the Jews) spiritual things, their duty (the Gentiles) is also to minister unto them (The Jews at Jerusalem) in carnal things (Material supports).
So here he says, we have imparted to you the gospel – SPIRITUAL THINGS – sown it right into your hearts and minds.
Should it be regarded as unequal, unjust, or burdensome to you that having done this on your behalf that you share with us of your “carnal things?” (Meaning the things you possess which are of this world?)
We have labored to make you acquainted with God; with His great and true plan of salvation; with the hope of heaven, in and through Jesus Christ. We instruct you in matters that really should provide you with great peace and comfort through Christ, things that have eternal lasting value, what’s the big deal if we share in your loaf of bread, or if we receive one fish from your overall take or wear your old coat?
Again, this is Paul reasoning with them and then he says in our final verse for the day:
12. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?
Presumably he is saying, “if others – physicians, lawyers, farmers, coopers, laborers, maids, servants” – those who sow to you and your life in some way, have the same power over you, to reap from your carnal goods, “are not we (also rather) allowed to do the same.
Paul doesn’t come right out and say it, but in asking these questions he seems to be suggesting that if there are those who sow carnal things to their well-being participate in their material harvest, how much more are those who sow spiritual things, things that will last and lead into the eternities, entitled.
It’s a really tough topic because it deals with money and giving and support. But I cannot allow the principle to pass without a comment – and then I will never speak to it again unless it comes up in scripture.
Money and the giving of money is not mandated on anyone. The freedom to choose and to be lead is of the utmost importance. And those who lack and cannot make ends meet are even further excused from the invitation. THE INVITATION which must come by the Spirit.
But in the end, the subject of giving support is all a matter of the heart. It is predicated on what the heart really believes is valuable and important – and what is not – to an individual in their lives.
We pay for what is valuable to us – in time, prayers, and through goods obtained. And I believe we live in an age where this principle is more than obvious and does not need to be visited very often at all.
I pray for who I care about. I support and serve that which I love and appreciate. And I ignore the rest. We are all in the same boat with the same freedoms and the same opportunities.
May the Spirit guide and lead according to the will of God and the means of Man.
Okay. Done.
Paul finishes the verse by saying:
“Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.”
We will launch off this line . . . next week, God willing.
Question/Comments
Prayer
