Not a divergence from the previous portion of text concerning Christian liberty.
Was it right to eat meat sacrificed to idols?
Refer especially to verse 9-13.
Liberty we may have, but not to be enjoyed to the detriment of others.
Paul now uses his own life as an apostle to illustrate this point.
He had certain rights and freedoms, but chose not to make use of them for the sake of the furtherance of the gospel.
There were certain situations where it would be detrimental to the furtherance of the gospel if Paul used all his rights as an apostle.
Paul appeals to them to see the truth of his statements by viewing his own life.
It’s a strong thing when we can refer to our own lives to back up our theology.
Paul is going to touch on the following facts:
1. That he had a right to financial support, but chose here not to take it.
2. That he was flexible as needed in order to present the gospel.
He was able to become invisible, and be a chameleon, in order to bring forth an unchanging truth.
3. Self-discipline in the ministry. Self-denial. Applicable to the question of eating meat sacrificed to idols.
1 Rhetorical questions. Paul asks the obvious. 2 reasons:
a) There were those who questioned the validity of his apostleship since he did not receive financial support from the Corinthians. See 2 Cor. 11:5-12
b) They knew the truth of these statements. He would go on to use his life as an example.
2 …seal of my apostleship…. the proof of his genuiness.
His ministry among them, along with the visible accompanying power of God, was the proof that God had annointed him, and ordained him as an apostle.
The church at Corinth was the spiritual fruit unto God which came forth from Paul’s life.
3 Paul would defend his calling whenever people tried to undermine him.
For to defend his calling, was to defend the work God had done through his life.
It was to not allow people to rip down God’s work by discrediting the worker.
Paul didn’t defend himself for his name’s sake, but for Jesus’ name sake.
4 Don’t they have he right or authority to receive food and beverage?
Of course they did.
5,6 Paul uses 5 examples or reasons of arguement to support his position.
Example 1: Others who received support.
Didn’t they have the right to bring family with them, and to expect support for them as well? Of course they did.
7 Example 2: Soldiers, farmers, shepherds.
Soldiers are supported in war. It is unreasonable to ask them to support themselves as they fight in battle.
The farmer and shepherd always labor with the expectation of partaking of the fruit of the vine and of the milk from the flock.
It wasn’t unreasonable to for Paul to expect the same type of compensation.
8-10 Example 3: the teaching of the scriptures.
The right of maintenance found in the OT.
Were these concepts simply Paul’s ideas, or didn’t the OT teach the same principles?
The idea is that God even provides from the work of the ox, food for the ox.
As the ox treads on the grain, to separate the wheat from the chaff, the animal is allowed to eat some for itself.
Doubtless, this applies to ministers of the gospel as well.
11-13 Example 4: Spiritual blessings of greater value than material.
Others had evidently taken advantage of this God-given right.
Didn’t Paul have this right more than anyone, since he had fathered them into the faith? See 4:15
Paul contends that if he would have used this right, it would have hindered the work of the gospel.
The True minister is well aquainted with SELF-DENIAL.
The True minister regularly SETS ASIDE HIS RIGHTS.
The True minister is concerned with the well being of others before being concerned about himself.
This, then, is a mark of the true minister.
Not simply gifts. Not simply annointing. Love for others over love for self.
The OT priests were allowed to partake of part of the sacrifice as a means of support for their work.
14 Example 5: God commands that it be so.
Matthew 10:10…for a worker is worthy of his food.
Luke 10:7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages.
15 Paul explains that his motivation in writing these things is not compensation.
He presents the truth that he had that right, but chose not to take it.
His boasting was that he preached the gospel in such a way as to be above reproach.
No one could accuse him of preaching for personal gain, and therefore no one could undermine the work he had done there in Corinth.
His personal integrity was intact, as was his ministry.
NOTE- That kind of integrity and character will always cost you dearly.
It will come through self-denial, and sacrifice, but is always worth more than any temporal gain in this life.
16 Paul had nothing to boast about in regards to him preaching the gospel.
Jesus called him on the Damascus road.
So real and true was the calling, that it could not be refused.
True ministers will preach and serve no matter what it costs them.
17 There was more to Paul’s ministry than just the undeniable call on his life
There was also a willingness to do whatever it took to preach the gospel.
He continued on in his ministry when there is no recognition, no financial support, no personal help from others, no emotional support.
True ministers will continue on when they are misunderstood, talked poorly about, lies about, and looked down upon.
Why? The love and call of God constrains them.
Woe to Paul if he didn’t preach!
His life would be miserable if he didn’t preach!
But more than that, he DEISRED TO DO IT.
IT WASN’T JUST CONSTRAINT, IT WAS DEEP DESIRE.
Romans 1:14 I am a debtor both to Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and to unwise.
There was more than the simple discharge of a job for Paul. That would simply be a fulfilling of duty. This would be an untrue supposition of Paul.
Paul’s boast was not simply that he preached the gospel. For him, there was no getting away from that.
His boast was that he did it for free that the ministry may not be reproached.
Moffat- Paul’s reward was that he did it without reward.
18 Paul’s unique and particular reward and joy was to preach without compensation.
This was not true for all preachers, but for those who have this calling.
The main point to be grasped from this section is this:
Not whether or not a minister should be paid. Pau has settled that.
A minister should be able to be supported through the work of the gospel.
The main point is this: Paul, and other ministers, and all Christians to one degree or another, don’t always have the right to assert their rights.
It is not always OK to get what you deserve.
Sometimes it’s better for others to