First Corinthians 9:1-14 Liberty
1 Corinthians 9:1-14 · Mike Doyle · Jan 17, 2021
Letters to the Corinthians, No. 41
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/49261921322300

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

So I'm gonna teach today chapter nine of 1 Corinthians. And Roger and I were kind of talking before, you know, some of Paul's chapters are just packed full of just really wonderful information. And then some of them aren't so much. So chapter 8, 9, and 10 really have to do with liberty, which is kind of cool. But Paul spends most of chapter 9, at least this first part of it, defending his apostleship and things like that. So I think it's going to be really informative and I'm sure helpful to us. In the previous chapter, maintaining of liberty of the believer and use of meats, and Paul warned against abuse of that.

So now he's gonna lay out proof of his office as an apostle, which some in Corinth had sought to undermine, and of the ministry in general, which they tended to try to corrupt. I find it interesting that here's the apostle Paul, comes into a city or town or city like Corinth, and when we study Galatians, found out that there were this group of Jews that we labeled them, and they're labeled the Judaizers, who would follow Paul around and try to convince his converts that, well, Paul didn't give you the whole story. The rest of the story is that you must be circumcised and keep the law. Well, you would think, well, that's difficult enough.

But then in Corinth, there's all kinds of detractors from the gospel message. It shows that the detractors to the gospels, starting with Satan, they never rest. They're always trying to pollute it, make it fuzzy, do something to either Get people to think that well the person who's brought the message is not really Got the right message or he didn't tell you enough or there's something more It's interesting that the very first sin ever committed by a human being was based on the fact that somebody said to her You don't have the whole story God is holding something back from you. One thing about Satan's methods is they don't change. And so the detractors of Paul's apostleship would kind of go at it that way.

Well, Paul's not giving you the whole thing. Or he's doing this, which means he's not one of these. Or he's not an apostle because he's doing this. So we'll go through that. So the principle, as Roger talked about, is in chapter eight, verse 13. And basically he says, I will not cause my brother to stumble. That that's the most important principle. Food isn't the big issue. Nothing is a greater issue than causing my brother to stumble.

So we have to come to the conclusion that My rights and your rights are subservient to the interests of Christ and his people. One of the great things about being an American is that we have rights, and we don't like to give them up. But as members of the body of Christ, we have to give some of our rights up because there are those that supersede my own personal rights. And a lot of times, my personal rights are demonstrated by saying, I have my rights, and my rights are self-glorification. And I want to indulge myself because I have the rights.

Well, in the body of Christ, no. Everything is subservient to the interest of the Lord Jesus Christ. and his body, his people. All Christian ministry is of Christ, Christ the Lord, and not earthly man. And if the spirit of the world is allowed to intrude within the body of Christ, it will ruin Christian ministry. Well, I could have said it did ruin Christian ministry, because there's so much of what appeared to be ministry that is an intrusion from man's viewpoint, and it spoils it. It spoils it, so.

And establishing the rights of the Lord's people and servants is the issue here. He establishes important principles. One, that such rites are subservient. I said that. And another interesting thing about Paul talking about rites is he asserts these rites, but he does it in the framework of the fullness of grace. It isn't do this, do this, do this. It's all in the fullness of grace. So that if Paul is listened to, There aren't suggestions, there are commands, but they are couched in grace.

So he starts to ask questions. Now, I was intrigued by this passage because, as you know, I was a realtor for 40 years, which means I was a salesman. And so I was constantly learning what it meant, how to sell things. And one of the things you learn, one of the principles you learn is that he who asks the questions is in control of the conversation. So if we're gonna have a conversation, I'm trying to sell you something, I'm not gonna tell you things, I'm gonna ask you questions, because then I'm controlling where the conversation's gonna go.

How many questions do you think Paul asked in the first 15 verses here? He asked 16 questions. You think he's in control of the conversation? Sure he is, that's what he's doing. He starts right out and he says, am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Right away, bang, bang, bang, bang. And they're rhetorical questions which means, The answer's gonna be the same in all of them. The answer's gonna be yes, yes, yes, and yes. So what he's trying to get across to the Corinthians is that he has the same freedom that every other believer has. And oh, by the way, he was an apostle. And one of the biggest and probably most important issues about apostleship was the fact that you had to have a personal introduction to apostleship by the resurrected Christ.

The other 12 had walked and lived with Christ for three and a half years, but they also had spent time with him resurrected, and they were appointed in that capacity as resurrected. But Paul met Christ on the road to Damascus. So there's a little bit different introduction to Paul, or Paul to the Lord Jesus. the heavenly glorified man, Christ. The other 12 had never seen the glorified man and the heavenlies. There was only one other man who had seen that, and that was Stephen. And right after he saw it, he went home to be with the Lord.

So Paul gets his commission from the glorified Lord Jesus Christ and the heavenlies, which is, as time goes on, you begin to realize that's a big distinction. because his whole focus is the Gentiles and his focus is the body of Christ and the church, okay? Now, just to back up and verify that this was really important, in Acts 1, 21 and 22, beginning with the baptism of John until the day that he was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of the resurrection. So you had to have met the resurrected Christ.

Acts 2.32, this Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses, talking about the apostles.

And Acts 3.15 says, but put to death the prince of life, the one whom God raised from the dead, a fact which we are all witnesses. So there's plenty of scripture to back up the fact that being an apostle was tied to the fact that you got your ministry, you got your, orders from the resurrected Christ.

So Paul only uses the word Jesus when he, and this is another interesting fact that I didn't know until I ran into this. When you study Paul's epistles, and I talked about this on the Tuesday group, Paul only uses the word Jesus when he's referring to the earthly career of the Lord Jesus.

He uses the term Jesus Christ when referring to his Old Testament ministry. He's the Old Testament Messiah, Jesus the Christ, because Christ means Messiah. And then he uses the term Lord Jesus Christ when referring to the church age. So look out for that when you're studying. Why would he just use the word Jesus? Or why would he use the term Lord Jesus Christ? Because it refers to something different.

The verb seen, Paul has seen the Lord Jesus, is in the perfect tense. As we know, the perfect tense indicates that it was not an ongoing thing, happened once, had abiding results in the future, but it happened one time. It's not in the present tense, so it's an historical experience that Paul had. He saw the glorified Jesus once on the Damascus road, and that was it. That was it. Not that the Lord didn't communicate with him. Yes, that's true, he did. But this experience of getting his ministry with the glorified Christ is only talked about there.

Now, in verse two, he says, if to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, talking to the Corinthians, for you are the seal of my apostleship. So it's interesting that Paul says, The Corinthians, if you have any doubt about whether I'm an apostle or not, you should know that you're the steel and the proof of the fact that I am, because I was given the power by the Lord Jesus to create and put you, to lead you to Christ, put you in the body of Christ. I'm responsible for that. That was my job. And you know that it's me because the church was the outcome of the work of the Lord. So you have to know that if you're a member of the body of Christ in Corinth, you're there because of me. That demonstrates the fact that I'm an apostle.

His detractors, though, said, Well, Paul, you didn't go to school and get a degree from the College of Apostleship. You didn't have any sort of training in Jerusalem with those other 12, so you're sure you're an apostle? And so the other 12 would say, well, Paul is, teaches, Paul went up to Jerusalem after he was saved to talk to the apostles up there. Was he there to make sure that his doctrine lined up with theirs? No, it was the other way around. He wanted to make sure that they were teaching what he was teaching, because he was absolutely persuaded about what he knew.

Now, one other thing I discovered in this is the idea of Succession. The denomination that I come out of makes a big deal out of apostolic succession. You start with Peter and you work your way all the way down and what's the latest guy's name? Francis or something? Popes, succession. Well, what's interesting about that, that's a false doctrine.

Paul was the successor of who? The other, other than Peter, they all got the same commission, all from the resurrected Christ. Nobody since that time has gotten a commission from the resurrected Christ that I can find. So Paul had his authority immediately from the Lord seen on high, not a succession. So succession is not a valid principle.

There are those in their jealousy of Paul, they were ready to suggest that he preached from personal motives, seeking to make financial gain out of his services. And when we get to 2 Corinthians, we'll see that. Paul's answer to that, he said, well, look, by asserting the rights of the servant, and that's what we're gonna deal with the first 14 verses here, is Paul's rights.

Does he have them? Answer, yes. And then he's gonna show how he used these rights, or didn't use them. and he had the freedom to decide himself whether to use them or not. So he's gonna use this in his defense. Now, he starts out in verse three. He says, my defense to those who examine me is this.

Guess what? Back to the questions. Do we not have a right to eat or drink? 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? Or do only Barnabas and I have the right to refrain from working? So now we're up to seven questions in six verses. He's controlling the conversation, absolutely.

So, as to the rights of the servants of the Lord, Paul, in common with other apostles, had perfect rights to participate in the ordinary blessings of just personal, regular life. Does he have the right to eat or drink? And what that means is, does he have the right for personal care? In other words, Judge McCauley says eating and drinking had three different connections in Paul's day.

One was, that eating and drinking as in legalism, like in Colossians 2.16, therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink in respect to festivals, new moons, et cetera. Ritual had nothing to do with this, but eating and drinking could be a ritual. Second, it was eating and drinking as in paganism, and eating and drinking certain foods, it's like Roger went through it in the last couple of weeks, a meat offering in a temple.

Can you eat that or not? And third, and I think this is where this fits, the eating and drinking was a compensation for services rendered. In other words, people fed him. And that's what he's saying. Don't I have a right to eat and drink? Don't I have a right to come over to your house for dinner and have you serve me? This third condition is really what he's asking. And when he talks about rights, this word rights is a really interesting word. It means an authority to act. It doesn't mean that, oh, you'll let me. It means that I have authority to act this way. I can go and do this. And I have a right to compensation for spiritual service that I've rendered to the Corinthians.

Do I have the right to take along a believing wife? Some of the King James, it says something, do I have the right to take along a sister who's a believer? No, he's talking about a wife. And even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord, the right to take along a believing wife, well, not only to be married, he had the right to do that, but obviously it had to be to a believer, but to introduce her while he himself went to be the object of love and care for the saints himself.

So there's two things going on here. Number one, he had a right to be married, and she could go with him on his missionary journey, and oh, by the way, when we came to town to your church, you not only took care of me, the apostle, but you took care of her too, because all the other apostles did exactly that.

So the Lord's brethren, his brothers, and kinsmen above all, like Peter, all had wives, and the wives went with them when they went on missionary journeys. I think probably Peter did the most traveling, because the rest of them had, their ministry was with the Jews, so they were focused pretty much on Jewish believers. The constable says the churches would cover the expenses of those women as well as their husbands. Paul may have mentioned Peter in particular because he had a strong following in Corinth.

So that's what he's saying here. I have the right to have a wife. He didn't have one. And Roger and I have talked about it and I've talked to other people who say, well, maybe to be a member of the Sanhedrin as a young man, you had to be married. and he was a member of the Sanhedrin. So what happened to his wife? Well, we don't know. We don't know. She could have decided that when he became a believer, he was too much of a fanatic and she took off. She could have died. Who knows?

But he's claiming the right. He's not saying I have a wife. He's just saying I have the right to have one. or do Barnabas and I have a right to refrain from working, a right to refrain from working with my own hands? In other words, the Corinthians acknowledged the right of other apostles to refrain from secular employment, that if they're gonna teach and preach the gospel, that they didn't have to work to pay their own way, that their expenses would be covered. But Paul and Barnabas chose to work, at times with their hands. They were tent makers. And they could support themselves without having to have the converts, their converts support them.

Now what's interesting about this He's a tent maker. You know what he was? He was a home builder. That's really what he was, because people lived in tents, lots of them. Some of the people he met in ministry, like Priscilla and Aquila, Aquila was a tent maker.

Barnabas, I think, was really well known for this practice, that he never took money from wherever he went. With Paul, it was like with the Philippians, they supported him, but hardly any of the other churches did. And I'm surprised, too, because Corinth is such a wealthy place, and Philippi was a real poor town, yet the church in Philippi really did support him. Some of the Corinthians took Paul's action as an indication that he didn't think of himself worthy of support because he was not equal with the other apostles.

Don't you like that mindset? Well, Paul must not be an apostle because he's working. And his idea is, look, I'm working so I don't have to charge you for the gospel. But I mean, the mindset of the natural man is amazing. He can dream up reasons to disparage a person based on, doesn't need any facts. He just thinks that's the way it ought to be. So these illustrations support the fact that Paul, as a servant of the Lord, had a right to accept support from those whom he ministered to. He had the right. Again, we're talking about the right right now.

And he says in verse seven, who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of the fruit? Who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? It's interesting that this is so natural, it makes common sense to ask three more rhetorical questions, which now he's up to nine.

Who pays for their own, I mean, I was in the military, some of you were in the military, you didn't have to bring your own money, did you? I mean, they didn't pay you very much, but they did pay you. and they did clothe you, and they did feed you, so they took care of you. And when you're a farmer and you plant a vineyard, you get to eat the fruit. Everyone lives in return on the return of their own work, whether you're a soldier, or a farmer, or a shepherd.

The appropriateness of this, according to man, is unimpeachable, every man. I mean, it's a principle we all know. The Lord's servants are certainly not inferior to soldiers, and they're not inferior to field hands or farmers or shepherds. Proof of human judgment.

So again, in nine questions now, Paul has asserted all of these rights that he has, but he didn't necessarily use them, but he has them. So you have to ask yourself, does God's word agree? or disagree with the logic of verse seven? Paul says in verse eight, I am not speaking of these things according to human judgment. Am I? Question. Or does not the law also say these things? Did the law of God speak otherwise?

The word is even stronger in the same direction. Human logic is sometimes contrary to God's truth. as in this case here, no, this very verse applies the transition into a spiritual teaching concerning material support of those whose full attention is given to the ministry of the gospel. Now he's dealing with another small point here. If you work in spiritual, If you work spiritually, you're entitled to material support. It'd be one thing for a church to say, boy, we've got just this great pastor, we don't pay him, we just pray for him. And we wish him well all the time, but we don't pay him.

So there's an answer from Moses here, verse nine. For it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing. God is not concerned about oxen, is he? Another question. This is from Deuteronomy 25, four. God made special provisions in the Mosaic law for the oxen that serve people by threshing out the grain.

Again, Macaulay says they did it in a couple of ways. They either led the animal back and forth across the piles of grain and they trampled it and separated it. Or they had the sleds or something they'd drag across it and it would separate the grain from the husk. In either case, The oxen couldn't be muzzled. Part of the Mosaic law was you can't muzzle the ox. If he wants to stop for a minute and graze, he has that right. He can do that. You can't prevent him.

Now, or does this verse apply only to oxen or is there a higher significance? Verse 10 says, Or is he speaking altogether for our sakes? Another question. Yes, for our sakes it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher ought to thresh in hope of sharing the crop.

In so doing, Paul said, God was teaching his concern for the maintenance of all who serve others, not just the oxen. God's care of his creation has doctrinal significance for men. It argues for his care. If God spoke of not muzzling out the ox when he's treading out the corn, he's not only interested in cattle, he's interested in people. He's interested in his servants.

And it's interesting because it leads up to the next verse, which is, or is he speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it is written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope. What's it mean to plow in hope? Well, the word hope means is that you have an expected end.

And a farmer goes out and plants, why? Because it's gonna grow. He's gonna be able to harvest. He's gonna be able to eat what he planted and grew. Or he can sell some of it. He can make a living out of it. He does that expectantly. He wants to make, he wants to be able to share. Maybe he just did it to share. The thresher. ought to thresh in hope of eating the crop. That's why he does it, the processor of the food. He's doing it with the hope that he's going to realize and benefit from what he's doing.

The last phrase is being more important for the time when for sharing was obviously nearer. that Deuteronomy 25.4 teaches the concept of compassion for service is rendered among animals and much more among men. Now, Jesus uses the same truth.

It's interesting that this truth he points out when he says in Matthew 6.26, look at the birds of the air.

They don't sow, nor do they reap, nor do they gather into the barns, and yet your Heavenly Father takes care of them. Are you not much more worthy than they are? And who of you being worried can add a single hour to his life? And why are you worried about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow.

They don't toil, nor do they spin. In contemporary mindset today, I can't tell you how many people, and I'm sure it's in your life, are people that I would classify as worriers. They worry about everything, that nothing is ever gonna, you know, I've gotta go make sure that the back door's been locked. I gotta do it three times.

We say, well, that person suffers from what we call anxiety. No, that person suffers from the lack of faith in a God who takes care of them. We as believers, if we've learned anything in our Christian life, we've learned that God takes care of us. He meets our needs. He may not meet your wants. Donna's dad used to have a great saying. He said, when our wants become our needs, can excess be far behind? I love that because I've gone to the Lord and said, listen, Lord, this is one of my needs. And no, it's not. It's one of my wants. He never gives me, hardly ever, what I want. But he will give me what I need. I've noticed that in my Christian life, that he always meets my needs. And I think he does that with everybody, not only financially, but emotionally. Psychologically, every way, he does that. And the Lord Jesus is laying that out.

And you find that the most anxious people are the ones who spend less time in the word, or no time in the word, or aren't even believers. If he takes care of all creation, won't he take care of you? Constable says, God meant to encourage human laborers with this provision for animals that labored. Oh, you mean God makes provision for animals?

Yeah, he does. He wanted human laborers to work with hope of pay. The people who profited from those services should consider those who serve them worthy of support. Amen. So does compensation apply to spiritual labor? He's gonna go after this. If we sowed spiritual things in you, Is it too much if we should reap material things from you? We're up to 15 questions now. To guard against him whose object that the analogy fails because of that spiritual labor doesn't necessarily mean that you should be receiving physical support, he addresses it right here. Spiritual labor is to be compensated in the same way that physical labor is. Paul has every right to compensation, but because of the spiritual labor he bestowed on the Corinthians. And this phrase that says, is it too much, kind of reveals that Paul was contending with the Corinthians, not just exhorting them.

And it fits the paradigm that, look, the wealthiest city that Paul converted was Corinth, but they seem to be the stingiest. These people were really, really wealthy because of where they were located and the commerce that went through there. They were very wealthy in most cases. Spiritual things last forever, but carnal things are temporary. That's the message that Paul's trying to get across here. How much more then should those who benefit from spiritual ministry support physically those who minister to them?

That's what Paul is saying. And he says, is it too much? Reveals that Paul was contending. So verse 12a, and Macaulay split this verse in half, and I'm glad he did because it makes sense. He says this has to do with if others share the right over you, do we not more?

He's saying as a planter of the Corinthian church, Paul had a right of support from the Corinthians, more than any other ministers there did. 1 Corinthians 3, 6, you remember when we were back in chapter three, Paul says, I planted, Apollos watered, but it was God who gave the increase. Paul was a planter, he planted that church. If others avail themselves of this right to take material things, how much more could Paul avail himself of the right?

Because he served them so faithfully. If he refrained from taking their carnal things, it wasn't any proof that he was not an apostle, and that was one of the accusations he was getting. Nor he had the right to receive from them, but rather that he judged, in their case, the interest of the gospel of Christ would best be served by his suffering all things rather than taking carnal things. In his service, the apostle was not governed by the thoughts of gain but by the interest of Christ in his gospel.

How do I say this? It would make sense to me for Paul, in a place that's wealthy like Corinth, to give the gospel for free because those people were used to a lot of money and lots of different ways to get it and illegitimate ways. And so for Paul to be perfectly clean when it came to compensation was really important. And next week we'll talk more about his freedom to do that. This verb, the verb translated share is present tense plural number, means that the sharing goes on all the time and it goes through the whole group. Paul's refusal of compensation was not the practice of the majority. Most ministers didn't practice this. Others referred to would take In teachers such as Apollos, Apollos was compensated. Most of the others were. Peter was.

Notice that there's no implication that their practice is wrong. It's not, it's right, and even unwise. He doesn't even imply that they should not do as he does. He says, if I'm not gonna be compensated, that doesn't mean you have to not be compensated.

That's up to you. It's a proper application of refusal to exercise the right. The point so far is that Paul's just saying, look, as a minister of the gospel, I have the right to all of these things. Now, whether I avail myself of the right or not is I have the freedom to do that also.

So in 12b, he says, nevertheless, we did not use this right but we endure all things that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. So the gospel is the most important thing, way more important than whether he's being compensated. He did not insist on this right. He chose rather to support himself so his work of establishing a church might not suffer from criticism, that he was serving for the material benefits he derived from his converts. This word no hindrance could be interpreted without charge, found in verse 18. Paul didn't want anyone to say that he was commercializing the gospel. Boy, do we see that today. Just go to the Christian channels. You wanna see commercializing the gospel? Do they ever stop selling? Never.

This fact leads to the next principle. Having argued vigorously for his rights to the Corinthians for support, he now proceeds to argue just as strongly for his right to give up that right, his point from the very beginning. He explained why he had deliberately not accepted this support.

All too often one fears the objective of this text is lost in the concerns over rights. that reflect bald professionalism rather than a concern for the gospel itself. If Paul ceased from taking their carnal things, it wasn't any proof that he wasn't an apostle, nor had he no right to receive from them. He did have the right, but rather he judged, in this case, the interest of the gospel of Christ. would best be served by his suffering all things rather than taking anything that he would work and he would pay for it himself and he would supply his own carnal things, everything that he needed.

Verse 15, do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share in the altar? This is, he's appealing to Jews now because if you studied any of the Talmud or Exodus in particular, this is a common Jewish practice. It was the right of the Old Testament priest to eat part of the sacrifices that they offered at the altar. It was also prevalent in pagan religions. It was capable of abuse, there's no doubt about that, in later times and even today it is. Abuse, however, doesn't negate the truth.

Paul says, so also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. The word also here shows that Old Testament principles of compensation of the priest applies to ministers of the New Testament as well. The Lord Jesus taught the same right.

In Luke 10, seven, he says, you know, he sent out the disciples to go to different towns and to preach that he was the Messiah. And he said, if you stay at that house, eating and drinking that they give you, for the laborer is worthy of his wages, don't keep moving from house to house, stay in that house. The Lord Jesus told his disciples that. In Matthew 10, eight through 10, he just says, for the worker is worthy of his support.

Nevertheless, the rights of the servant remained according to the typical teaching of the service in connection with the temple and its altar. Above all, the apostle Paul asserts that these rights are according to which the Lord has ordained, that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel. And as we looked at, in verse seven, it was natural. In verse nine and 10, it was scriptural. It was a direct ordinance of the Lord in verse 13 and 14.

And they all concur in maintaining the right of the one ministering in special things to receive the carnal things of the saints. Paul's putting his rights side by side with his refusal. Now next week we're gonna talk about refusal. Now, like I said, some of Paul's writings are deeply spiritual in positional truth. This is not positional truth.

This is a man who was called of the Lord to preach the gospel and there were certain principles involved in that in terms of how did he live? How did he survive? And he just lays them out in these verses. And he's telling the Corinthians this is what the rights are.

Now next week he's gonna just as vehemently say, I didn't avail myself of the rights and he'll start to add some things of why he did that and why it was really important. So, let's close. Father, how we thank you. We thank you that we can at least take a look and see how Paul conducted his ministry when it come to just receiving compensation for what he did. And not that our body of believers, we've never, they're all so generous, it's just wonderful. But I know in certain circumstances, this is an abused principle. If we would just trust you to take care of the needs of everybody, we learned in this body of believers decades ago that if we just trusted you, that you would meet all of our needs. And we thank you, Father, and we pray in your son's precious name, amen.