"The Pastor's Right"

"My dad," said the second, "makes dots on paper, calls it a song, sends it away, and gets twenty-five dollars for it."

"That's nothing," declared the third boy. "My father writes a sermon on a sheet of paper, gets up in the pulpit and reads it, and it takes four men to bring in the money!"

I want to talk to you this morning about the pastor's "right" to have four men bring in the money. I am approaching this subject from exegetical perspective rather than a personal perspective. The emphasis of the 1 Corinthians 9:1-14 is the right of the pastor or Christian worker to be paid for his labor.

What is your attitude toward finances and the local church? What do you think your responsibility is toward those who teach you the Word of God? Does your thinking line up with New Testament teaching about the believer and his responsibilities toward those who teach him? Paul tells us much about our responsibility to Christian workers in 1 Corinthians 9. Sadly, many Christians are unwilling to obey Paul's instruction in this area.

Paul's discussion of his rights is a continuation of his answer to their question about Christian liberty. The area of Christian libery challenging them was eating meat that had been offered to an idol. Paul answered that question in chapter 8. He told them that they were free to eat meat and they had liberty in that area. But he also taught that they needed to be willing to forgo that right if exercising their liberty would cause a weak brother to stumble. A believer is never to exercise his rights or his Christian liberty if it will be detrimental to another believer. Love should govern every believer's conduct.

Since our society is passionate about fighting for rights, it is not easy for us to willingly give up our rights. Not many believers jump at the chance to give up their rights. Paul set the example for us. He made the statement in 8:13 that he was willing to give up his rights for the sake of his brother.

1 Corinthians 8:13 (NKJV) "Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble."

Paul went on in chapter 9 to show that he practiced what he preached. Not only was he willing to lay aside his rights, but he did lay them aside. In chapter 9 he used his own life to illustrate the principle that he taught in chapter 8. In the first 14 verses of chapter 9 Paul expounded his right. In verse 15-27 he demonstrated how he relinquished his right.

We're going to look at the first fourteen verses this morning. In these verses Paul uses the Greek word exousia five times. Exousia means privilege, freedom, liberty, power, or right. It is the same word that is translated liberty in 1 Corinthians 8:9: "But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak." Paul emphasized his right, his liberty in the first part of chapter nine. This morning we will look at the right, or the liberty that Paul and ever other pastor or Christian worker has.

In the first two verses of this chapter Paul defended his apostleship. Some believers at Corinth were obviously questioning his apostleship. Remember some believers at Corinth were saying they were of Apollos or Cephas, and so on; no doubt they were also questioning Paul's apostleship.

The earlier manuscripts of the New Testament actually reverse the first two questions in 1 Corinthians 9:1. All four questions in verse 1 are introduced by the Greek negative ou, which implies that the expected answer is yes. They are all rhetorical questions.

1 Corinthians 9:1 (NKJV) "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Paul's question, "Am I not free?" forms a natural bridge between the last verse of the preceding chapter and this verse. The Corinthians must have made much in their letter of their liberty in Christ which they had been taught by Paul himself. He is saying, "Do I not have the same freedom and liberty as you do?"

His second question is, "Am I not an apostle?" The Greek word apostolos means a delegate, messenger, or one sent forth with orders. The term technically refers to the twelve but two other men in the New Testament fall into the category of an apostle: James and Paul. Galatiations tells us that these men were apostles so that there were fourteen apostles.

Galatians 1:15-19 (NKJV) "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother."

If the Corinthians could claim to be free from human restrictions (8:9), how much more Paul in his position of apostle! If the Corinthians' knowledge gave them freedom, Paul had much more knowledge and therefore much more freedom.

Paul's next two questions are verifications of his apostleship. First, he had seen the Lord: "Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" An apostle must have witnessed the resurrection according to Acts 1:22. Paul was not one of the original apostles, so how could he be qualified as an apostle? Paul met the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus. Jesus' appearance to Paul was not a mere vision, but an actual bodily presence, so that Paul saw Jesus in the flesh just as the other apostles had seen Him (see Acts 9:7, 17). Paul referred to this experience as personal confirmation that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead (1 Corinthians15:8). To witness Jesus' resurrection was a major prerequisite to be an apostle. To those who questioned Paul's apostleship he said, "I have seen the risen Christ. There is no question about my position as an apostle."

In case there was still any doubt about his apostleship, he gave them a second proof: the Corinthian believers themselves. He asked, "Are you not my work in the Lord?" He had been responsible for their salvation and spiritual training. The ministry of the apostles and the New Testament prophets was laying the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Paul had planted the church at Corinth as he said in 1 Corinthians 3:6. He was the Lord's apostle, commissioned to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). As Gentile Christians, the Corinthians themselves were proof positive that Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles.

Paul expanded on the evidence of his apostleship in 1 Corinthians 9:2:

If I am not an apostle to others, yet doubtless I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

In other words, Paul said to those believers, "Other churches may question my apostleship but you never should. God used me to bring the gospel to you. You are the sign, the seal, the certificate that attests my apostleship." In ancient days the seal was extremely important. When a will was made, it was sealed with seven seals; it was not legally valid unless it was produced with the seven seals intact. The seal was the guarantee of genuineness. The Corinthian believers were the sign of genuineness of Paul's apostleship. They had also seen the evidence of God's power working through Paul in miracles which were the signs of an apostle.

2 Corinthians 12:12 (NKJV) "Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds."

Surely those who had seen God's power in his ministry could have no doubt that God had called him to be an apostle.

Paul continued outlining his rights in 1 Corinthians 9:3: "My defense to those who examine me is this". The Greek word for defense is apologia; the Greek word for examine is anakrino. Both Greek words are legal terms. Paul was on the defense, and he was making his answer to those charging or examining him. "This" could refer to verses 1-2 or to verses four and following. It seems best to take it as referring to what follows. Paul had already defended his apostleship and was moving to a defense of his rights. Paul's purpose was not to defend his rights so that he could receive what was due him. He was defending his rights so he could justify using himself as an example as one who relinquished the rights that were lawfully his. Paul said that he had the right to be supported by the Church. He had the right to monetary remuneration for his service for the Lord. He had labored and was worthy of wages.

Paul began to clarify his rights in verse four: "Do we have no right to eat and drink?" This is another rhetorical question that can be answered in the affirmative: of course everybody has the right to eat and drink. Nobody is under a moral obligation to starve himself to death. But Paul was not concerned with starving to death. To clarify the meaning of the rhetorical questions, the phrase "at the expense of the church" could be added to verse 4 & 5. As verse six makes clear, the particular right that Paul wanted to discuss was the right to receive remuneration for his ministerial services. The argument concerned the legitimacy of a paid ministry.

Verse five continued the argument: "Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?" Paul said, "I have the right to have a believing wife and she also should be supported by the church". The adjective "believing" ("sister" in other translations) in this verse reinforces what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:39: a Christian should only marry a Christian. Paul had every right, just as did the other apostles, to be accompanied by a Christian wife. No doubt he did not exercise this right in order to devote himself completely and without distractions, to his task of building up the church of Christ (7:26, 32, 35). Many of the apostles had exercised the right to bring along a Christian wife. Paul pointed out that the Lord's brothers and Peter, all highly respected church leaders, brought believing wives with them. (James, Joses, Simon, and Judas were Jesus' half-brothers by Mary and Joseph. This tells us that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary lived a normal married life.) We know from Matthew 8:14 that Peter was married because Jesus healed his mother-in-law. This verse shows the fallacy of those who promote celibacy among the clergy by citing the example of the apostles. Paul probably mentioned Peter in particular because he had a group of followers in the Corinthian church according to 1 Corinthians 1:12.

The point of Paul's defense is found in verse six: "Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?" Paul used a touch of sarcasm here. We could paraphrase, "Are Barnabas and I the only exceptions to the rule that ministers should be supported by their respective churches?" In the beginning of his ministry in Corinth, Paul and his associate, Barnabas, worked to support themselves. Paul's trade was tent making (Acts 18:3; 20:34; 1 Thess. 2:9; 2 Thess. 3:8). Greek culture despised physical labor, yet Paul, who had the rank of teacher, worked with his own hands to generate financial support. This could have been one of the reasons they questioned his apostleship. They could have reasoned that if he was truly an apostle he wouldn't be working. Notice that not only Paul the apostle had the right of support, but also Barnabas who was a Christian worker.

It would have been only right for the churches to support Paul as he ministered to them, but he did not want to be a burden to them or allow anyone to cast aspersions on the gospel by insinuating that he preached only for his own gain or comfort. Probably some believers at Corinth, and some people today, question the right of a Christian worker to be financially supported. Does anybody have the right to be supported by the Christian church?

Paul defended the right of support in verses 7-14. He appealed to six different areas to prove the legitimacy of the right that he claimed. He appealed to custom, to Old Testament precept, to community justice, to precedent, to the priesthood, and to Christ's command.

His first appeal was to custom. He gave three illustrations of people who live off their work.

1 Corinthians 9:7 (NKJV) "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?"

Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Do you sailors have to pay for your cruises? Do you have to support yourself while you're out at sea? No, the Navy gives you a paycheck. Soldiers do not fight during the day and then work a civilian job at night in order to support themselves.

Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? The farmer does not have a side job in order to support himself. He makes his living off the farm.

Deuteronomy 20:6 (NKJV) "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."

This Old Testament precept refers to a man using the fruit of his vineyard; he is even excused from military service if he has not yet enjoyed the fruit of a newly planted vineyard.

Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? The shepherd gets the benefit of the flock he shepherds. In any labor, the person who does the work has a right to live off of the work.

In Scripture God's people are often portrayed as an army, a vine, and a flock. Paul's inference is that the person who is involved in Christian work has the right to be supported by the Christian church. A minister is a spiritual soldier (2 Tim. 2:3), a farmer (1 Corinthians 3:6-8), and shepherd (1 Pet. 5:2). No soldier has to provide his own rations. Why should the soldier of Christ have to do so? The man who plants a vineyard shares in the fruits. Why should the man who plants churches not do so? The shepherd of the flock get his food from the flock. Why should not the Christian pastor do likewise?

Examples from life are instructive, but Paul did not rest his case on self-evident observations. The right of a pastor to be supported by the church is not only taught by custom, but it is an Old Testament precept. In verses 8-10 he makes his second appeal to the Old Testament law.

Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain." Is it oxen God is concerned about?

Paul's argument was not merely a human judgement because God's law taught the same thing. In biblical times, an ox was used to help thresh the grain. The Israelite farmer spread his grain on an outdoor threshing floor, which was hard, smooth, and level. A flat board weighed down with stones or people was drawn over the grain by a team of oxen or horses that walked in circles around a post. The ox was permitted to eat as much grain as it desired while it was doing the heavy pulling. If a Jew muzzled the ox, he ran the risk of a scourging in the local synagogue.

The quotation about muzzling the ox comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. The context indicates that this text does not refer to animals, but to men and their service for God. The theme of Deuteronomy 25 is human compassion, decency and fairness. It gives laws regarding dignity in punishment (25:1-3); a proverb on wages for work (25:4); care for widows (25:5-10); indecency (25:11-12); accurate and honest weights and measures (25:13-16); and the command to destroy the Amalekites for their unfair war against Israel (25:17-19). Not muzzling an ox, therefore, was probably a proverbial expression concerning just remuneration. Paul quoted this same verse when he wrote to Timothy and encouraged the church to pay their ministers adequately in 1 Timothy 5:17-18.

This must not be taken to mean that God has no interest in the welfare of animals. God does care for animals. Job 38:41 says, "the Lord prepares for the raven its nourishment." Psalm 147:9 says, "He gives the beast its food." But ultimately God's concern is not for animals but for man, the head of the animal creation. If we show consideration for the needs of animals that serve us, how much more should we care for men who devote their lives to ministering to us? It is a church's responsibility to see that their minister is adequately paid for his work.

Paul continued his appeal to Old Testament law in 9:10: Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.

The word altogether is the Greek word pantos; it should be translated assuredly. He did not mean that the command has exclusive reference to man, but he did say that the command was assuredly given for our sakes. Paul took a figurative expression from the Old Testament and applied it to the principle of paying a pastor for his work. As the ox works he is to have the freedom to eat some of the corn that he is treading. In the same way, "he that thresheth (ought to thresh) in the hope of partaking (of the fruit of his threshing)". As the worker and the ox work in hope, so should the Christian worker. He should work in the hope that he will be supported in his work. This principle is supported by custom and has the sanction of Scripture.

In verse 11 Paul appealed to basic community justice: "If we have sown spiritual things for you, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?" "If" is a first class condition in the Greek and could be translated since. "Since I have taught you about the Lord, since I have taught you about spiritual things, since I have encouraged you in the word of God, shouldn't you provide material things for me?" The Greek philosophers received an honorarium for their instruction; didn't Paul have the same right when teaching them spiritual things? Those who teach the Word of God have the right to expect support from those they teach. Paul taught this principle to the Galatians.

Galatians 6:6-8 (NKJV) "Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with him who teaches. Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.

This is a basic principle of the Christian life: If we receive spiritual blessings, we should in turn share material blessings.

Romans 15:25-27 (NKJV) "But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor among the saints who are in Jerusalem. It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors. For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister to them in material things."

It is basic community justice to share material blessing with spiritual leaders. The Plymouth Brethren do not believe in a paid minister-in spite of this perfectly clear passage. Their teachers cannot devote themselves to study.

In verse 12 Paul appealed to precedent. If others are partakers of this right over you, are we not even more? Nevertheless we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ.

The Corinthians apparently recognized the right of support for other people in the same category as Paul, namely, those who proclaimed the gospel. Perhaps they recognized the right of Apollos or Peter to be supported. It is the height of irony and injustice that they refused these same rights to the one who was most of all responsible for their spiritual rebirth. If anyone had the right to support, surely it was Paul and Barnabas since they brought the Corinthians to Christ.

As undisputable as Paul's right to support was, he did not exercise it. Rather, he endured all things lest he hinder the gospel of Christ. The word endure is from the Greek word stego which means to cover with silence, endure patiently, bear, suffer. Paul uncomplainingly put up with whatever was necessary to avoid hindering the gospel. Paying his own way was one means of not hindering the gospel. Paul did not want new converts or potential converts to have reason to think he was preaching the gospel for money. This policy was no doubt especially significant for Paul's work, because he, more than any other apostle, worked in areas where the gospel had not been preached.

We can draw an important basic principle from Paul's example: those who are involved in evangelism should not try to be supported by the people they are trying to reach. The word hinder is a military term that connotes breaking up a road to impede the advance of a pursuing army. Calling people to come to Christ and give their money is offensive. Televangelists who keep phone numbers constantly on their viewers' screens are distracting from any message they might be trying to preach. The only thing that comes across is "we want your money." Paul didn't want to hinder the gospel message, so he supported himself.

After Paul underscored his rationale behind his own refusal to exercise his right, he gave two more proofs of the legitimacy of his right to be supported by the church.

Do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? (1 Corinthians 9:13)

The question was a rebuke: they knew that the priests were supported by the work of the temple. The principle that the priests ate of the sacrificed animals was accepted in heathendom. (Part of the controversy over eating meat came about because heathen priests often sold their share of offered meat in the marketplace.) But Paul was referring to the Old Testament.

Leviticus 7:5-7 (NKJV) "and the priest shall burn them on the altar as an offering made by fire to the LORD. It is a trespass offering. Every male among the priests may eat it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy. The trespass offering is like the sin offering; there is one law for them both: the priest who makes atonement with it shall have it."

The Levites lived off their work by partaking of the offerings. That is how God ordained the Old Testament economy.

In 9:14 Paul extended the Old Testament principle to the practice of the New Testament church: "Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel." Finally Paul turned to the highest authority of all: the command of Christ. The New Testament teaching reiterates that of the Old. Jesus taught that the laborer is worthy of his hire. When the Lord sent out his apostles and the other 70 he taught this very basic principle.

Luke 10:3-7 (NKJV) "Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. But whatever house you enter, first say, 'Peace to this house.' And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house."

Paul wrote that Jesus commanded his disciples to receive their living from the people to whom they ministered the gospel. This command calls for obedience not from the ministers but from the members of the church. Paul established beyond question the clear principle that a Christian worker has the right to be supported materially by the church. Are all pastors qualified to be supported by the church? Are there any specific quaifications? Yes, I think they are given in 1 Timothy 5:17-18:

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

We are to support those elders who rule well. The word rule is from the Greek word proistemi which means to lead, care for, manage, guide, and protect. F.F. Bruce translates it as "elders who direct the affairs of the church well." We are also to support those who labor in the Word and doctrine, that is, those who give themselves to study of the Word of God. Therefore, we are to give to support the pastor-teachers of the church.

The Scriptures also teach that we are to give to support to missionaries (Phil. 1:3-5 & 4:14-16). We are also to give to support the needy in the church (including widows and orphans) (1 cor. 16:1 & Rom. 15:26).

How do we give? When a message really speaks to us, should we give the speaker a few dollars? Should we pick out a few missionaries to support? Or if we think someone is needy, do we slip him some money? I believe that your giving should go to the local church for its leaders to distribute as they see fit. They are the ones who should have a knowledge of the need of the flock, and they should sanction its teachers and missionaries. We see this principle in Acts.

Acts 4:34-35 (NKJV) "Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need."
Acts 11:29-30 (NKJV) "Then the disciples, each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren dwelling in Judea. This they also did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul."

Since Christian workers have a right to receive wages from those to whom they minister, then Christian people have a responsibility, a duty to give financially to their church. The laborer is worthy of his wages. Paul clearly established his right in these 14 verses, but the bottom line of this entire discussion is not given until verse 15: Paul never exercised the right to support, and thus he is an example of one who sacrificially laid aside his rights for the benefit of others. Love for others was always the controlling factor in Paul's exercise of his liberty. Is it in yours? What liberty do you surrender for the benefit of others? May God help us to walk in love in all we do.