Epistles (written)

Friday, 5 September 2014

Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? 1 Corinthians 9:8

After defending his apostleship, Paul has been asking rhetorical questions to bolster his rights as an apostle. He is entitled to partake of the benefits of being an apostle whether he exercises those rights or not. It can be inferred that because he didn’t exercise them, others were using it as evidence that he really wasn’t an apostle.

Because of his apostleship to the gentiles, there was certainly a dislike of his status among those who argued that the gospel was for the Jews, or at least for those who held to the law of Moses. That issue was resolved at the Council of Jerusalem, but it didn’t change the hearts and minds of those in the legalistic faction of Judaizers. In fact, it hasn’t changed them today, 2000 years later. Regardless of this, Paul’s apostleship was valid and he was entitled to the rights and benefits of it.

In order to bolster this, especially in the eyes of those who held to Scripture (meaning what is now called the Old Testament), he will appeal to Scripture itself. He uses this particular formula abundantly in his letters. Instead of relying merely on human reasoning, Scripture will support his claims. In this verse, he uses two separate words to intensify what he is relaying. In his comment “do I say,” the verb is lalo. In the comment “does not the law say” the verb is legei. The first word, lalo, is a general word; as a mere man. The second word, legei, is a more distinguished word; from Scripture itself.

Life application: Paul’s argument from human reason is bolstered and intensified when it is combined with the very words of Scripture. This is an extremely useful point to consider and remember. Defending the faith from science and philosophy is a wonderful way to get people to consider the workings of God. However, only Scripture can specifically bring a person to salvation. One who relies on Scripture first for their worldview will always have a better understanding of the issues which surround us, be they morality, Zionism, the nature of God, or a plethora of other things that swirl around us from day to day.

Lord, there are many ways to look at a given issue, be it morality, prosperity, health, Zionism, the nature of creation, or even the nature of You who created. Because these things can be argued in different ways, I will always first consider them from the perspective of Your word. I know that in doing this, I will have the superior source from which to make my decisions about those issues, regardless of how they may appear in the world around me. I trust Your word above all else to be my light, my guide, and my source of understanding those issues which are addressed by You. Thank You for Your superior word! Amen.

Thursday, 4 September 2014

Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? 1 Corinthians 9:7

Paul now continues with three more questions which are rhetorical in nature. Each demands a response of “Nobody!” He begins with warriors. “Who ever goes to war at his own expense?” Do those who fight the battles for king and country do so at their own expense? No. Instead, they are fed, clothed, and paid by whoever they are fighting for. Even those who are mercenaries fight for pay by the power who has hired them.

If a soldier who is enlisted to take life is so paid for his service, how much more then should a soldier who is sent out to preserve life be paid for the warfare he wages. And Paul equates the ministry of Christ to an on-going battle. In Ephesians 6, he notes that, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Ephesians 6:12, 13).

Likewise, in 1 Timothy 1:18, he notes this to his beloved protégé – “This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare.” The lesson from this is that the soldier of Christ should, in fact, be paid for his services by the church for whom he wages war.

Next he asks, “Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit?” Again, the question demands an answer that the vinedresser does partake of the fruit of the vine. It is right and expected that he should do so. In the very first such example of the planting of a vineyard in the Bible, this is noted –

“And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk…” Genesis 9:20

Noah not only planted a vineyard, he also enjoyed the benefit of what the vineyard produced. Regardless of whether one finds fault in him getting drunk, the fact is that he partook of his vineyard. Later, in the Law itself and certainly the verse to which Paul is speaking, Moses notes these points to the people of Israel prior to their entry into the land of Canaan –

“Then the officers shall speak to the people, saying: ‘What man is there who has built a new house and has not dedicated it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man dedicate it. Also what man is there who has planted a vineyard and has not eaten of it? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man eat of it. And what man is there who is betrothed to a woman and has not married her? Let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle and another man marry her.'” Deuteronomy 205-7

Again as he did concerning the warrior, Paul equates those who labor for Christ as “farmers.” In 2 Timothy 2:6, he shows that the expectation is that the spiritual farmer should be allowed to participate in the benefits of the harvest in which he labors, when he says, “The hardworking farmer must be first to partake of the crops.” The lesson from this is that the one who works in Christ’s field should be paid for his services by the church for whom he farms.

In his third question, he asks about the flocks of the field – “Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?” Again, the answer is that those who do so certainly partake of their efforts. Under the law, the tithe of the flocks and herds were taken to where the temple stood and they were eaten by the giver after they were sacrificed. This is found in Deuteronomy chapter 12 –

“There you shall take your burnt offerings, your sacrifices, your tithes, the heave offerings of your hand, your vowed offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks. And there you shall eat before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice in all to which you have put your hand, you and your households, in which the Lord your God has blessed you.” Deuteronomy 12:6, 7

As before, the work of those in the leadership positions in the church is equated to that of the shepherd. In Acts 20:28, Paul states this to the leaders in Ephesus –

“Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.”

Peter uses the shepherd terminology again in 1 Peter 5:2. Thus, the lesson from this is that the one who tends to Christ’s flock should be paid for his services by the church for whom he shepherds. From these three examples, Paul clearly defends the principle that it is not out of the ordinary for the one in leadership to expect to receive the benefit of his labors directly from the church.

Life application: In today’s world, it is common for pastors and other clergy to be paid for their services. This is right and appropriate. However, it was never intended for people in such positions to be paid extravagant amounts. Those who have jet planes, million-dollar mansions, and flashy clothing and jewelry make a mockery of the humble, hard-working lives of the apostles who established the church. If your pastor lives a life of flash and pomp, you should find another pastor in more Bible-centered church.

O God, the Father of those who have by faith called on Christ as Lord, thank You for the wondrous hope of the future which You have granted to us. In this life, there are great days, good times, and moments of true elation. But there are also crummy days, times when nothing goes right, and moments of previously unimagined sadness. One day can be completely the opposite of the next. And yet, when things go south and life is dim, we have the assurance that the very best days we’ve had are not even a taste of a regular day when we are brought into Your presence. With this assurance, we can get through the tough times. Someday, we will see Jesus! Amen!

Wednesday, 3 September 2014

Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? 1 Corinthians 9:6

This verse is not actually a new thought which is submitted to the Corinthians, but the completion of the series of questions which began in verse 4. Though stated as questions, they are rhetorical in nature and are to be taken as affirmative statements… “I and Barnabas have a right to earn a living from our preaching.” By asking it rhetorically after having given the evidences of his apostleship though, he is merely showing the ridiculous nature of the situation.

There was seemingly, however, a group that felt that Paul and his ministry wasn’t actually worthy of being supported by the church. It probably goes to the decision rendered in Galatians 2:9, 10 which reads thus –

“James, Cephas, and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.”

Maybe it was believed that because Paul was “only” sent to the Gentiles, he wasn’t worthy of support. However, as history has borne out, his ministry and letters have been far more productive in establishing the church than all the other letters combined. His words have comprised the main doctrine of the church for nearly 2000 years. Despite this, and despite the true apostolic ministry that he had, he continued to support himself and work for a living.

It is known from Acts 18:13 that he was a tentmaker by trade. In this, he worked to support himself. The Greek word for “working” is ergazesthai and it indicates manual labor. Despite his tireless efforts in sharing the gospel, he was a man of physical labors as well.

One final note on this verse is that this is the last time Barnabas is mentioned in Scripture. The previous mentioning of him was in Acts 15. In that account, Paul and Barnabas had a great dispute about a matter which caused them to almost come to blows. They divided at that time, and there is no record of them having met up again. However, it appears from this verse that Barnabas took Paul’s example of working for a living to heart and continued to follow this pattern in his own ministry.

Life application: There is nothing wrong with good hard work. In fact, the pastor who gets out and tends to the church grounds, works around his house, or works physically in some other way will be a positive example to those in the church to not sit around collecting welfare or other charity when they are fully capable of earning their own way. The Bible says in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” In this verse, the same word for work, ergazesthai, is used which was used by Paul 1 Corinthians 9:6. Don’t be a sluggard. Rather, if your physical makeup and the economy around you allows it, be productive with your hands, not causing others to support you when you are fully capable of earning a living.

Lord God, thank You for the work of my hands which You have given me to do. There are things to fix and clean around the house. There are lawns to be mowed, trees to be trimmed, and cars to be washed and waxed. And at my regular job, there is always something I can do to be productive. None of these things are demeaning or lowly, but rather they are worthy of my best effort and my sincere, heartfelt attendance to them. And so Lord, establish the work of my hands and be glorified in how I follow through with each task. Amen.

Tuesday, 2 September 2014

Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?  1 Corinthians 9:5

In this verse, Paul continues to show that he bears the rights of an apostle, whether he exercised those rights or not. His question, which is composed of several parts, is rhetorical in nature. In essence, it is a strong affirmation, not a perplexed question needing validation. In this verse, much interpretive abuse has taken place over the centuries because of the policies of the Roman Catholic Church and the mishandling of concepts by early sects and individuals.

Paul begins with, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife?” In this, the clear and obvious interpretation is that he is speaking of an actual wife. However, because of those who forbid the clergy to marry (and other confused thoughts), they interpret this not as a “wife” but as merely a sister in the Lord who would accompany an apostle. This however only brings in even greater difficulties and is certainly not the intent of the verse. Rather it is speaking of a right known among the Christians of that time. That right is that the apostles who were married could be accompanied by their wives and both the apostle and the wife were to be supported by the church.

This is the intent of “as do also the other apostles.” Those apostles who were married were accompanied by their wives during their apostolic travels and they were supported by the church. Therefore, Paul’s rhetorical question is, “Don’t we have this right as well?” In response, a “Yes” answer must be given whether he were to accept the right or not. The “we” is speaking of Barnabas who accompanied Paul (who will be mentioned in the next verse). They were also entitled to this right.

The question next includes “the brothers of the Lord.” Accepting this portion of the verse at face value has caused a great deal of apoplexy among many over the centuries. The cult of “Mary” worship and the nutty ideas that she is a “perpetual virgin” has lead to unreasonable interpretations of these words. The word translated as “brothers” could be referring to children of Joseph and Mary, but it could also refer to children of Joseph from a former marriage, or even more distant relatives of the Lord.

Of course, those who heretically worship Mary will inevitably claim that one of the latter two was correct and that Mary never had relations with Joseph. Such biblical interpretations are inexcusably forced and unnatural. These were sons of Joseph and Mary, born after the birth of Christ Jesus as the Bible indicates elsewhere. They, like the other apostles, were entitled to this right and privilege as well.

And finally, a separate distinction is made for Peter – “and Cephas.” This spirit-inspired wording was certainly intended to keep the church from heresy concerning leadership. The leader of a body is entitled to be married and is entitled to have the wife supported by the church. Despite the clarity here, the Roman Catholic Church, claiming that the Pope is directly linked to Peter, does not allow their Pope to be married; something completely contrary to the very model given in the person they claim as their first “pope.”

Not only does this verse show that Peter was married, but other such indications are given in Scripture. In Matthew 8:14, 15 this is noted –

“Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever. So He touched her hand, and the fever left her. And she arose and served them.”

It would be rather nutty to acquire a mother-in-law and not a wife. A clear interpretation of this verse is that Paul had the rights of an apostle to be married and to bring his wife along at the expense of the church; that Jesus had half-brothers who were the sons of Joseph and Mary; and that Peter took a wife when he took a mother-in-law.

From these points we can deduce that 1) it is right and acceptable that the clergy of the church may marry and that the wife should be supported by the church. Further, the ideology of a church which forbids such marriage is contrary to Scripture. 2) When the church clergy travels for church business, including missionary work, the wife should be supported by the church, thus keeping the clergy member from possible temptations during that period of absence and for the general well-being of the husband and his wife. 3) There is no obligation of a clergy member to be married, but there is also no tenet which would forbid them from marrying.

Life application: When evaluating the Bible, keeping one’s thoughts free from pre-suppositions is always the right approach. If one comes to the text already supposing something is the case, then he will manipulate what is being read in order to fit what is already believe. This is not sound interpretation and it can only lead to great problems in doctrine.

Many blessings You have upon us showered
Kindness beyond measure You have poured up us
Delicious food, clouds of white, and radiant fields which have flowered
But none of these compare to our Lord Jesus

You send us rain in due time to soften up the earth
And beauty adorns the mountains which stand before us
Our hearts are filled with joy, gladness, and mirth
But nothing compares to the delight of knowing Jesus

What kind of love! How You care for Your children!
What kind of love You have lavished upon us!
Indeed, You have been so good to the sons of men!
By sending us Your greatest Gift, our Lord Jesus!

Glorious God Almighty! Of all the wonders and the joys You have given to us in order to delight our senses, fill our minds with wonder, and make us hope for even more as each day unfolds, above all this You have given us the most marvelous Gift of all by granting us a personal glimpse of Your heart and Your love reflected in the face of our wondrous Lord, Your Son, Jesus. Thank You for Jesus! Amen.

Monday, 1 September 2014

Do we have no right to eat and drink? 1 Corinthians 9:4

Paul’s words concerning his rights as an apostle here have grown naturally out of his previous discussion about food sacrificed to idols. There, in verse 8:9, he said, ” But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.” In that verse, the word “liberty” is translated from the same word as “right” which Paul uses here in 9:4. Though the subject has changed – from meat sacrificed to idols to the rights of the apostle, the example remains consistent.

Paul finished chapter 8 by saying that “if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” This was immediately followed by his claim to apostleship. He has a “right to eat and drink” at the expense of the church. But he hadn’t exercised that right as will be noted in the verses to come.

In not using this right, however, some may have come to the conclusion that he wasn’t actually an approved apostle. In essence, “If Paul were an apostle, the church would pay his bills and he wouldn’t be working side jobs in order to support himself.” The same could be concluded today – “Peter Preacher isn’t really a pastor because he has several part time jobs. He is just ‘playing pastor’ at the church he preaches at.”

However, Paul has preempted this line of reasoning by stating the somewhat parenthetical thought of verses 9:1-3. His apostleship is, in fact, validated by those in Corinth; they are the seal of his apostleship. As this is the case, then why doesn’t he exercise his rights as an apostle? The answer will come in due time, but before it does, he will continue to rhetorically ask several more questions concerning apostle’s rights. These questions will be answered from the words of Scripture including words from Jesus Himself.

Life application: Is it a mark of an unacceptable ministry that a preacher has side jobs in order to pay his wages? Is a small home-church of less importance than a large mega church? Using Paul as an example, surely the opposite may at times be true. The preacher, pastor, or priest who relies solely on the church for his expenses is in the comfortable position of preaching whatever he wishes without worry of where his bread will come from. Because of this, his heart may or may not truly care about the word which he has been called to present. But the one who stands behind the pulpit without receiving a full measure for his efforts is more than likely doing so because of a profound sense of care and respect for God’s superior word. Which then is more likely to feed, defend, tend to, and be willing to give all for his flock?

Precious heavenly Father! Thank You for those who strive to share Your word without trumpets sounded before them. Thank You for the quiet scholars who sit and analyze Your word, straining to understand every subtle nuance it contains. Thank You for the missionaries who truly care about the lost and not about the exciting travels and surroundings that accompany their duties. Thank You for the pastors of wee little churches off the beaten path who care more for instruction than they do for flash, pomp, and notoriety. And Lord, thank You even for the folks who clean the restrooms so that the church is tidy. Thank You for Your servants who possess a servant’s heart. Amen.