Transcript

When It Is Right To Forsake Rights

1 Corinthians 9:1-18
Sunday, November 6, 2005
Pastor Randy Smith

---

One of my favorite TV shows while growing up (and I am a bit embarrassed to admit this) was the Brady Bunch. I won't ask for a show of hands, but I am sure many of you have seen your fair amount of Brady Bunch episodes.

• Do you remember the one when Marcia worked at the ice cream parlor only to be replaced by Jan whom she hired?

• Or the one when Greg entered high school and transformed his wardrobe and his dad's den to reflect what he considered being hip (or "groovy") at the time?

• Or the one when Joe Namath made an appearance sending Bobby deep for the "big bomb."

Each show is easy to remember because each of these sitcoms began and concluded a clearly developed plot in the span of 30 minutes.

The plots are easy to recall, but if your think carefully, behind each plot was a subplot a little more difficult to detect. And these subplots usually ranged from: a date that Alice had with Sam or mom's high school reunion or dad's diet.

Well, good sermons don't follow the Brady Bunch, but good sermons follow the principle of plots and subplots. If you were asked how many points a sermon should have, the correct answer is "one." It should be every preacher's goal to have the congregation depart knowing his primary purpose of the message. If he has done his job, the congregation should be able to summarize his sermon in one sentence.

But behind the one main point (or the plot) are at times subplots. Now I am not talking about the 2-5 sub-points that support the main point. I am talking about another lesson that needs to be communicated that is occasionally woven through the message that comes across less dominate than the main point. It's the preacher's way to use his main point to articulate a different issue that is also germane and relevant to his audience.

I say all this because I believe the apostle Paul employed this tactic in 1 Corinthians 9.

So before we get to his main point, let's first consider the secondary point (or subplot) in this exciting text we have before us this morning.

If Jeremiah was the weeping prophet, Paul was the suffering apostle. When we consider his sufferings, we frequently recall the shipwrecks and beatings, but tend to forget that most of his pain sadly came from those within the church, the very people to whom he ministered.

As you read through the epistles, it seems almost all the congregations gave him a hard time, but the Corinthians seemed to cause him the most anguish. A segment of the church arose to oppose Paul and began to conduct a complete character assassination on the apostle. They claimed that he was unable to communicate and though he writes lofty letters he is unimpressive in person (2 Cor. 10:10). They said he was a deceiver, that he lived a secret life of shame (2 Cor. 6:8; 7:2; 12:16-17). They accused Paul of being a self appointed teacher only in the ministry peddling the gospel for financial gain (2 Cor. 2:17).

Assault after assault. Yet if there was one attack that Paul continually dealt with, it was the validity of his apostleship. In 2 Corinthians 12:11 he said, "For in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles, even though I am a nobody." His opponents knew that if they could discredit his authority, they could undermine his message.

Even in 1 Corinthians, for the sake of the Gospel (2 Cor. 12:19), Paul again presents the case for his apostleship. We see this specifically stated in verse 3 of chapter 9 in our passage this morning. Using legal terminology of the day he says, "My defense to those who examine me is this."

Look at verse 1. Paul fires off four rhetorical questions to his attackers: "Am I not free?" "Am I not an apostle?" They claimed Paul was "second rate," a "Johnny come lately." Since he wasn't one of the original 12, they felt his claims were invalid. "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" Paul knew that one of the qualifications of an apostle was to have seen the risen Lord (Ac. 1:22). We are all aware of Paul's Damascus Road experience (Ac. 9). "Are you not my work in the Lord?" Possibly this question hit home the hardest. Apart from Paul's work, there would not have been a Corinthian church. He founded the church. He led many to Christ himself. He labored amongst them for over a year (Ac. 18:11). Others may doubt, but these folks had no excuse. For the doubters, according to Paul, were the very proof of his apostleship.

This point is reiterated in verse 2. "If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord."

A seal in the ancient world was placed over documents to indicate authenticity. Paul is saying the church herself was the living proof of his genuineness. They were his "letters of commendation" (2 Cor. 3:1). They were his seal of apostleship.

So what did his opponents use to cast doubt on his authority? In 2 Corinthians they said Paul couldn't be an apostle because he suffered too much. Yet in both Corinthian epistles they said Paul couldn't be an apostle because he refused to collect monetary support (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7-9; 12:13).

Now Paul is going to go somewhere profound with this thought as he moves from his secondary point to his primary point later in the text, but for now he establishes the fact that he does indeed have the right to receive financial compensation thus proving his genuineness. He does this through an elaborate defense of his rights to monetary support stretching from verse 4 all the way to verse 14.

1. DEFENSE TO RECEIVE SUPPORT

As we begin the first point, Paul's defense to receive support, let's start with three more rhetorical questions expressing his rights.

Verse 4, "Do we not have a right to eat and drink?" Doesn't he have the right to receive physical sustenance for the fruits of his labors? Verse 5, "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?" Doesn't he have the right to have a Christian wife? Verse 6, "Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working." Doesn't he have the right to be supported by the church without needing to work a secondary job?

He had these rights - rights that apply to all Christian ministers: The right to have his needs supplied, the right to have an accompanying wife, the right to refrain from working a second job. Yet he waived these rights. Why? Why would he intentionally do something that would not only make his life more difficult, but also cause others to doubt he was an apostle? We'll answer that key question shortly, but for now Paul continues to defend his right for support.

By way of a footnote, please allow me to say that this sermon is no way intended to express any displeasure of this church's deficiency in supporting her pastors. There is no doubt that we have been provided for "over and above" and for that we are most grateful.

In verse 7 he gave three examples from everyday life that define the principle of deserved compensation. "Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?" These illustrations demonstrate the reality that workers should expect to be rewarded from the fruit of their labors. If other occupations live off the fruit of their labors, certainly Christian workers should not expect less.

Paul suddenly anticipates their critique. "Well Paul, your arguments seem persuasive from a human point of view, but can you support your thesis with the Scripture?" Paul's response is found in verse 8 with an appeal to the authority of God Himself. "I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things?

The specific reference Paul quotes in verse 9 is originally found in Deuteronomy 25:4. "For it is written in the Law of Moses, 'You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.'"

In ancient times, a team of oxen would be tied to the axle of a heavy millstone and led round and round in a circle, causing this heavy millstone to roll continually on its path. Grain from the fields would be taken and laid in the path of the millstone so that its great weight would crack open the hard kernels of wheat. At a later time, the broken husks would be separated from the good kernels. This was the separating of the wheat from the chaff. While that team of oxen was marching round and round the threshing floor, they would often bend down and eat of the wheat. So the enterprising farmer might see a portion of his profits being eaten up and be tempted to put a muzzle over the mouths of his oxen. Out of mercy for the animal God told him not to do it. The ox was entitled to benefit from his share of the work (much of this paragraph borrowed from John Stevenson).

Now, is Paul seeking to defend the rights of an animal here? Sure God is concerned for the animals. We know that His eye is on the sparrows, but Jesus made that point only to show us how humans are exceedingly more valuable in the eyes of God (Lk. 12:6-7). Paul makes the same point in the second half of verse 9. "God is not concerned about oxen, is He?"

In other words, there must be a deeper point in line with the principle of compensating human servants in the church. That point is articulated in verse 10. "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."

Paul continues his relentless defense. Verse 11, "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you" (cf. Rom. 15:27; Gal. 6:6)? The beginning of verse 12. "If others share the right over you, do we not more?" In these verses Paul is basically saying, "We gave you the words of eternal life, is it too much for you to meet our material needs? If others who labored among you received these benefits, should I as your 'spiritual father' expect any less" (1 Cor. 4:15)?

The defense is brought to a conclusion in verse 13 with one final argument, this time taking his audience to God's principle for Old Testament ministers.

"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 from the altar?" We learned a few weeks ago that a third of the food that was brought to the pagan temples in Corinth for sacrifice was allotted to the priest to support his livelihood. In the same way, though diametrically opposed to paganism, the priests in the temple in Israel were supported by tithes of crops and animals as well as sacrifices from the people.

Finally, the closing remark to summarize his argument. Verse 14, "So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel" (cf. Lk. 10:7).

Paul has been saying that financial compensation for Christian ministers is a principle from daily living, a principle from the Old Testament law and a principle from the priesthood in Israel. Here Paul bluntly states that it is a command from the Lord Himself probably alluding to Luke 10:7 where Jesus said, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

Now the original Corinthian audience might be scratching their head at this point. Paul generally made it his practice not to receive financial support from among the churches to whom he ministered (cf. Ac. 18:3; 1 Cor. 4:12; 2 Cor. 11:7-9; 12:13; 1 Thes. 2:9; 2 Thes. 3:7-9). This decision, as we have seen, brought endless speculation about his apostleship. But instead of saying why it is right to refuse support as we would expect, Paul goes into a rather lengthy defense about why he and other Christian ministers are entitled to support. Does he contradict himself? Did he concede to their criticism? "Yes, we must not be legitimate Christian workers since we deferred our rights for financial support." Or did he make the point about his right for financial support only to make a greater point as to why he rejected it? We'll see this as we continue.

2. DESIRE TO REFUSE SUPPORT

As we move to the second point look with me at the second half of verse 12. "Nevertheless, we did not use this right (for financial support), but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ."

If I may be so bold to paraphrase Paul in my own words: "You folks are a bunch of spiritually immature babies. You look at my refusal to receive support as a weakness when in reality it is a strength. I have chosen to waive my God-ordained privileges and add extra burdens to my life by working as a tentmaker (Ac. 18:3). I endure all things not to have you doubt my apostleship, but rather to forsake my rights by causing no hindrance for the gospel. I suffer so the gospel might be brought to you and others more clearly!"

We'll come back to this point, but let's see this in the context of the main point that Paul is trying to articulate. Remember all throughout chapter 8 Paul had been arguing the principle that our Christian rights, our Christian liberties, should be forsaken if it causes another to stumble in violation of his or her conscience. He concluded chapter 8 by saying, "Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble" (1 Cor. 8:13).

Now in chapter 9, while seeking to defend his apostleship (the secondary point), Paul presents a situation from his own life illustrating this very principle (the main point). Though Paul had the right to receive financial compensation, he waived his right to avoid obstructing evangelism in any way. It seems Paul was willing to give up more than just meat if it meant winning others to Christ. What his opponents saw as selfish motives was in reality a selfless action that had God and other's best interests in mind. "I refuse so that you might have."

Verse 18 couldn't be any clearer. "What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel."

What we have seen in this passage is a wonderful example of Christian maturity. So much of the Christian life in today's church is rather easy. But the rubber really hits the road when we are called to suffer so that another may benefit or the gospel may go forth at our expense.

When we value forgiveness more than justice. When we value another more than self. When we value a relationship more than rights. When we can see the bigger picture like the apostle Paul and receive criticism and hardship if it means the gospel is adorned in greater ways. When we can suffer loss to "self" in ways that those without the Spirit can't, we show evidence of that very Spirit of God within us. When we can suffer for the betterment of another in the church, we walk most clearly in the footsteps of Jesus who waived all of His rights to bring wretched, undeserving sinners like ourselves, salvation.

"Although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, andbeing made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross" (Phil. 2:6-8).

One author summarized the heart of the apostle Paul and the heart that is expected of every Christian. "If Jesus Christ be God, and died for me, then no sacrifice can be too great for me to make for Him" (C.T. Studd).