The Grace of Self-Denial Pt. 4

Just making rules, but modeling
those rules, applying the grace of God to his life in order to
model the principles and standards to which he called others. He
was a true leader, not a hypocritical tyrant. He wouldn’t ask anyone
to do something that he himself wasn’t willing to do. This is
Paul’s point in chapter nine. We’ve seen it again and again.
As we’ve seen in chapter 9, it’s perfectly nestled between chapters
8 and 10 because it fits right into the discussion about matters
of conscience. Matters of conscience are introduced
in chapter 8 by the issue of meat offered to idols. There
at the end of chapter 8, Paul urged the Corinthians to be willing
to sacrifice a right or a freedom for the sake of one’s brother
if necessary. If food causes my brother to
stumble, I will never eat meat again, Paul said. Related to
that, though, Paul tells us in chapter 9 that he has already
modeled this principle of deferring to others. And he did it without
the Corinthians even noticing. Paul’s life was indeed a life
of self-denial. He was already living out this
standard. Our series here in chapter nine
is called The Grace of Self-Denial. It can only be done by God’s
grace. And the chapter, as I pointed
out, divides very nicely into four distinct sections. Verses
1 through 6, we have Paul’s consideration of self-denial, his example in
the face of criticism. In verses 7 through 14, Paul
balances self-denial. That’s the section in which we’re
engaged. Verses 15 through 23, which we
will actually bleed into this morning, Paul begins to give
his example of self-denial. In verses 24 through 27, Paul
closes out by encouraging the Corinthians to seek this grace
of self-denial. I’m only gonna read two verses
this morning for the sake of time. Verses 13 through 14, where
we will end up in just a few moments. Verses 13 and 14. Do you not know that those who
perform the sacred services eat the food of the temple? And those
who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those
who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. In verses one through six, we
saw the Paul’s consideration of self-denial. We saw that his
was indeed a life of self-denial. Paul details just how costly
was his sacrifice. And it showed that he was a leader
of integrity. He had already modeled this self-sacrifice,
and he had done so substantially. But we’re in the middle of verses
seven through 14, the second section. Paul is balancing this
idea of self-denial. The believer, he says, doesn’t
have to just go out and give up everything. There’s a balance
here. Paul had a legitimate right to
the support of his church. Churches, plural. And he’s making
three distinct arguments, remember, in this section, all three designed
to justify his right to be supported by his churches. We’ve already
looked at the first two, the argument from livelihood in verses
seven through 10, the argument from priorities, verses 11 and
12. Today, we’ll get into the argument
from the priesthood. But just look back briefly at
verses seven through 10. In that first argument, Paul
used the most basic reasoning here, that everyone has to make
a living. And he used three occupations
to make a very general point. The soldier, the vineyard owner,
and the shepherd of a flock. They all get their living from
their livelihood. So also should those who serve
in ministry. That’s Paul’s point. And the
principle Paul showed is a biblical principle. You shall not muzzle
the ox while he’s threshing. So even by his first argument,
Paul has already shown that he has a right to financial support
by his churches. And then he moves into his second
argument. As we saw last week, equally powerful, it was Paul’s
argument of significance. There in verses 11 and 12, Paul
basically poses this simple question. What’s more important? earthly
things or spiritual things. If we sowed spiritual things
in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? It’s an argument by comparison
as to which one is more significant, the spiritual on the one hand
or the material on the other. Which one is of more value? Paul
had sown spiritual things. He had preached the gospel. He
had taught them spiritual things. He had baptized and encouraged
and discipled and counseled. And he had taught them these
spiritual things for 18 long months. It was certainly reasonable that
this very well-to-do church should naturally want to participate
in Paul’s ongoing ministry efforts, even if they were in a different
city. And yet, even though Paul had a right to their support,
he did not use this right. It says there in verse 12. Paul
had been building to this statement from the very beginning. You
can see it. He’s laying the groundwork all the way up to this and then
says, and yet we did not use this right. All along, there’s
been this undertone that these are rights only. But they are
rights unexercised, just like the rights that he was urging
the Corinthians to consider forsaking their precious their privilege that they believed
had been given to them by their salvation in Christ, their Christian
liberty. They believed that they could
enjoy that indiscriminately, regardless of what their brother
thought. But Paul says he didn’t use this
very basic right And he wanted the Corinthians to consider setting
aside their own rights by which he had already provided
a sterling example. But Paul’s example had consequences. It was costly. In refusing to
exercise their right to maintenance by the church, Paul’s team simply
did without. We endure all things, Paul says. In 2 Corinthians 6, Paul reveals
some of the consequences that his team faced. He says there
that they were giving no cause for offense in anything, commending
ourselves as servants of God. And among the many things, he
says, that they endured were hardships, distresses, labors,
hunger. They had to take second jobs.
They often did without. Why would Paul put himself and
his ministry team through such hardship? Well, he tells us at
the end of verse 12, you saw it. We endure all things so that
we will cause no hindrance to the gospel. Now, Paul will expand
upon that idea in verses 19 through 23, the reticence to cause any
hindrance to the gospel. We’ll get there eventually. Paul didn’t want to cause a hindrance
to the gospel. The word could literally be translated
to cut into, like an incision. It speaks of a major interruption. It would harm the efforts of
the gospel if he were to be found a money grubber. In war, an army
would cut into the advancing army by destroying roads or bridges. But cutting into the gospel would
be an unthinkable idea for Paul. He and his fellow workers had
given their lives to the gospel. How could they negatively impact
it in any way? Paul’s motives could have been
easily questioned at any step of the way. If people thought
for a moment that Paul was only in it for the money, like so
many frauds of his day, It would hinder the cause of the gospel.
And worse yet, the very people from whom, or pardon me, the
very people to whom he had brought the gospel would weary of supporting
him. Resentment toward him would eventually
build. The gospel would be hindered.
So with the Gentile churches, Paul and Barnabas and their respective
teams purposed not to have any support from them. Paul reveals
the depth of his commitment in 2 Corinthians 11. When I was
present with you and was in need, I was not a burden to anyone. He wouldn’t even come to people’s
house for dinner if it meant burdening them. In everything,
he says, I kept myself from being a burden to you. The Lord met
Paul’s needs by other people, other churches, but Paul refused
to burden the Corinthians. the wealthiest of all of his
churches. And it wasn’t just the Corinthian church that he
exempted from supporting him. Paul’s commitment was exhibited
in other Gentile churches as well. First Thessalonians 2 9,
Paul wrote, You recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working
night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaim
to you the gospel of God. Same thing for the Thessalonians. In his second letter to them,
3-8, he said, we did not eat anyone’s bread without paying
for it. But with labor and hardship, we kept working night and day
so that we would not be a burden to any of you. Paul could negatively
impact the gospel message if he took those things from these
Gentile, untrained believers. And so Paul has laid down now
two arguments thus far in his desire to balance this idea of
self-denial. It was indeed a right. He proves
it by the argument from livelihood. He proves it by the argument
from priorities. But thirdly, he proves it by
the argument from the priesthood. Let’s look at that briefly. Verse
13 and 14. which verses we just read. This
argument would not have immediately been designed for believers with
Gentile backgrounds. This wasn’t necessarily for them. They could hear it, and they
would. What would they know or care about the Jewish priesthood?
But there were indeed Jewish detractors among Paul’s accusers
at Corinth. And this argument would have
destroyed their criticism of him. It would have also educated
the Gentile hearers about the long-standing propriety of ministerial
support. And Paul starts here, do you
not know? It’s a rhetorical device that
educates by way of reminder. Do you not know that those who
perform the sacred services, that is Jewish priests, they
eat the food of the temple? The Jewish priests were allowed
to partake of the leftover meat from the animal sacrifices. This
was also true, as we saw from our study of chapter eight, this
was also true of the idols temples. Those who serve the idols temples
would take the leftover meat. Some of it they would eat and
some of it they would sell in the market marketplace. Remember,
that’s how we got into this whole issue. Can we eat that meat or
not since it was offered to an idol? Well, the attendance of
those temples or the priests would take the remaining portion
of this sacrifice that which was not consumed by the fire.
They’d sell the rest in the market. And Paul gets everyone on the
same page now. They know that this is a practice.
Do you not know that those who perform the sacred services eat
the food from the temple? And they all would have been
nodding their head. Yeah, that’s true. We see that all the time. And then look at this, the second
statement, verse 13. He says essentially the same
thing, just a little bit differently. Those who attend regularly to
the altar have their share in the altar. Like I said, the Gentiles
would have been very aware of this practice in the idol temples
all around them. They might not have been aware
of the much older, much more respectable religion of the Jews
that also allowed this. Any Jew who heard this would
have had to acknowledge this truth immediately. God’s maintenance
of his priests was written into the Jewish law. The guilt and
grain offerings of Leviticus six, the for the priest, they’re
given as a share from my offerings. God said. Likewise, of the restitution
gifts and numbers, every man’s holy gifts shall be his. Whatever any man gives to the
priest, it becomes his. Numbers 18, God expands upon
the idea, all the holy gifts, every offering, every guilt offering,
every grain offering, every sin offering, the best of the fresh
oil and wine and of the grain, the first ripe fruits, every
first issue of the womb, all flesh was dedicated and consecrated
to the priests. Some of the burnt offerings were
burnt up on the altar, some were eaten by the worshiper, and the
rest was dedicated to the priests. The priests were completely supported
through the gifts of God’s people. But I want you to note this.
This is crucial even for us. These Jewish offerings were made
to God, right? As soon as that bull or goat,
whatever was sacrificed up, it became the Lord’s. There’s an
intended layer of insulation there. Once offered to God, those
gifts were God’s. They were no longer the property
of the one owning it, or offering it, pardon me. And so this was
really God who was supporting the priests, not the people. The same thing is true for us.
All that we have has been given as a gift by God’s grace. We
return a portion of that and whenever we give, whatever we
give, we give to God. And God himself supports those
in his service. I remember a dear friend of mine,
some of you have met him, seminary professor, pastor, he faced this
dilemma. He told a story once of a deacon
in his church that used to like to bring him his check, right?
And he would come and he would knock on the door and he was
an ornery, proud, old guy. And he would stand in the doorway
of the office, kind of bouncing on his toes with the check in
hand, kind of waving it. As a simple reminder that He
was the one giving this pastor his check. Well, it was a power
move. That’s how this pastor saw it.
And this went on for some time until my friend began to just
tell the man, thank you. Just put it over there somewhere.
And that took away all that perceived power that this deacon wielded
over this pastor’s salary wasn’t his to give was the Lord’s. The people gave to God, God gave
to the priests. There was a likeness of those
ministering the gospel. to the Jewish priesthood. Romans
chapter 15, Paul captures this and he says, God had graced him
to be a minister of Christ to the Gentiles, ministering as
a priest, the gospel of God. From that, Paul recognizes that
the Lord himself brought this idea forward into the New Testament
ministry. This is what Paul articulates
in verse 14. Glance at it if you would. So
also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get
their living from the gospel. We looked at this direction provided
by the Lord a few weeks ago. When we first entered into this
chapter, you might recall, we looked at Jesus’ command to the
apostles as they were first being sent out in Luke chapter nine.
He said to them, take nothing for your journey, neither staff,
nor bag, nor bread, nor money. Do not even have two tunics apiece.
Whatever house you enter, stay there until you leave that city.
Now he’s introducing the apostles to ministry, and he wants them
to be, first of all, dependent upon God, and dependent upon
the people to whom they minister. Well, the 12 return, and then
in chapter 10 of Luke, Jesus sends out now 70. with the same
exact admonition. He was creating a perpetual rule
for those in ministry. This is the principle set forth
by the Lord himself. for the financial support of
those in the gospel ministry. As one careful student of the
word summarized, those who preach and have cure of souls, the members
of which live for the gospel, constantly ought to live of the
gospel. This is not always the case.
There are those occasions when support by secular means is needed,
but this is the general direction. In fact, even Paul had contingencies. Remember, in Acts 18, it records
that when Paul first entered into Corinth, he was seeking
to establish a church in that city. He met up with a couple,
Aquila and Priscilla, and because he was of the same trade, he
stayed with them and they were working. That means Paul as well.
For by trade, they were tent makers. That’s where we get that
phrase. God had made an exception there for Paul to work making
tents under this remarkable situation, but Paul didn’t abandon the work
of the ministry. He was engaged in both. He was
reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade
both Jews and Greeks. But this arrangement wasn’t supposed
to be forever. It was the exception, not the
rule. And we see there in Acts 18 that
because the very next verse tells us that when Silas and Timothy
came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely
to the Word. And we don’t know what happened.
Silas and Timothy may well have brought a gift from other churches
that enabled Paul to quit working. a secular job? We don’t know. Perhaps even Silas and Timothy
took up sewing tents themselves and freed Paul up that way. We
don’t know. We’re not told exactly what happens, but we know that
it wasn’t to be a perpetual pattern. We only know that Paul, by his
bivocational efforts, were not designed to be permanent. And
so Paul, by this third point, makes the point that he had a
right to be supported by his churches, and he shows this by
this argument from livelihood, by his argument from priorities,
by his argument from the priesthood, and yet, Paul says, note if you would,
look down at verse 15, Paul says, I have used none of these things. This is a reiteration of the
point that he made in verse 12. We had rights. Nevertheless,
we did not use this right. There in verse 12, it could have
been a one-time refusal of support based on the form of the verb
there. We did not use this right. But here, it’s a principled practice. Now it’s a regular thing. Now
it’s an ongoing thing. Because here he says, I have
used none of those things. It’s not a part of my ministry.
There it was something that others had also done. We did not use
this. Me and Silas and Timothy and
perhaps others, we did not use this. Here though, he narrows
the field to himself alone. I have used none of these things.
Perhaps Silas and Timothy had occasion to be supported or into
dinner for someone. But here he narrows it to himself.
And here he says even more strongly, I have used none of these things. And by these things, Paul seems
to be referring now back to the several arguments that established
his right to support. livelihood, priorities, the priesthood. Paul used none of these things.
Even though he had a right to be supported by his churches,
he had not exercised that right. He hadn’t forced the issue. And
with this statement, Paul moves to the third great section of
this chapter. where he begins to talk about
his exemplary self-denial. He puts himself forth as an example
of this. And Paul moves to show that he
was exemplary in the aisle, pardon me, in the area of self-sacrifice. It would be easy to conclude
that Paul was only using this argument, this series of arguments,
these first 14 verses, He’s just using it as a creative way of
asking for money. Asking for a payday. And so he
heads off that kind of conclusion immediately in his second statement
of verse 15. I’m not writing these things
so that it would be done so in my case. This is not why I’m
writing. He wasn’t writing to stir their
heart to take up an offering on his behalf He wouldn’t take
it now, I believe, if they did. And I’ll show you why. I want you to notice a really
remarkable feature of this passage. You can observe it if you just
glance down, beginning in verse 16, if you just note how many
times the word for occurs, F-O-R. It occurs six times in verses
15 through 19. We see it there in the middle
of verse 15, three times in verse 16, once again in verse 17, and
once again in verse 19. Why am I telling you all this?
Because Paul’s argument here, it like tumbles down like a waterfall
of information. Almost like it’s tumbling down
a mountain stream over a course of boulders. And the overall
effect produces a veritable waterfall of information in verses 15 through
19. Each one of these statements
begin with the word for, are really answering the simple question,
why? Would you follow along? Just
glance at verse 15. And I am not writing these things
so that it will be done so in my case. Why? For it would be better for me
to die than to have any man make my boast an empty one. Why? For if I preach the gospel,
I have nothing to boast of. Why? For I am under compulsion. Why? For woe is me if I do not
preach the gospel. Why? For if I do this, that is,
preach the gospel voluntarily, I have a reward. But if against
my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me. The pattern
is this. Paul makes a statement. There
is an implied question. I’ve supplied it for you. Why?
And then Paul provides the answer or the reason, beginning with
that little word, for. Six times in a row. Consider
the first pattern. We can do these very quickly.
I’m not writing these things so that they will be done so
in my case. Why? For it would be better for
me to die than to have any man make my boast an empty one. Paul
says effectively that he is not using this discussion as an occasion
to manipulate their giving He’s doing so to show that he had
already sacrificed so much as an example to them. Why does he say this? He provides
the answer in the next line. For it would be better for me
to die than to have any man make my boast an empty one. Let’s
be clear, Paul was not boasting in his preaching of the gospel,
as we’ll see. He was not, he was boldly declaring
to him, he was boasting in a sense that he had not profited from
the gospel. He’d rather die than do that.
All his enemies would need was a gotcha moment. an offering,
a special offering on his behalf. That’s all it would have taken
for his enemies to say, gotcha. You’re in it for the money, Paul.
And his claim to selflessness would be over. But with that,
we’re already into the second pattern. See how quickly this
will go. The second pattern, given that strong statement that
it would be better for him to die, why? Paul says, because he reasons
at the beginning of verse 16, for if I preach the gospel, I
have nothing to boast of. This explanation helps to clarify
what it is that Paul is boasting of. It isn’t his preaching of
the gospel. He’ll make the case that he has
a reason for boasting, but it isn’t the preaching of the gospel
because he was commanded to do that. And that statement leads
directly into a third string, right in the middle of verse
16. Again, the implied question, why? Why, Paul, can you not boast
of your preaching of the gospel? He says, for I am under compulsion. God himself has laid this responsibility
upon him. We know that this is true from
the very first moment that he met the Lord on the road to Damascus,
remember? There, God didn’t even tell him
immediately what he had to do. Jesus just says, enter the city
and it will be told you what you must do. The Lord didn’t
communicate pardon me, the Lord did communicate Paul’s orders
to his new friend Ananias. And he said, go for he is a chosen
instrument of mine to bear my name before the Gentiles. Paul
had his marching orders. It was to take the gospel to
the Gentiles. He was commanded to preach the
gospel. Paul had a calling and this leads
directly into the fourth string. It’s an implied question. Why?
Why, Paul, are you under compulsion? Why do you feel such a sense
of obligation? Because he says in the final
statement of verse 16, for woe is me if I do not preach the
gospel. This would be to go against God’s
direct command to me. And it doesn’t go well with people
when they refuse God’s orders. You might have guessed it by
now, this statement, woe to me. Woe is me if I do not preach
the gospel that leads us into the fifth pattern, the implied
question, why? Why, Paul, should there be any
woe to you if you do not preach the gospel? Because, as Paul
explains in verse 17, for if I do this, that is, if I preach
the gospel voluntarily, I have a reward. What Paul means here
by voluntary is not a matter of him preaching the gospel of
his own initiative. Not that he signed up for it.
He’s speaking hypothetically here. It wasn’t like he volunteered
for this position or signed up to do this. He’s already established
that God has commissioned him. God sent him. But even if it
could be said that he did this voluntarily, willingly, that
alone would be a ground of boasting, a reward in and of itself, he
obeyed. And then even if hypothetically
speaking, he were to preach under duress, that is against his will,
kind of dragging his feet like Jonah. It’s only out of a sense
of stewardship at the end of the day. He’s just doing what
he’s been told. Either way, willingly or unwillingly, Paul had a God-given
responsibility. He was constrained. He was compelled. He was under divine orders. So what is the so-called reward
that Paul mentions there in verse 17? That word translated here
as reward is the same word translated as wages in 1 Timothy 5.18. We looked at that a couple of
weeks ago. The laborer is worthy of his wages. Basically, Paul
says, what am I getting paid? Paul proceeds to tell us that
his wages, his payment, is not a monetary reward at all. He
tells us about it in verse 18, what then is my reward? He provides
an answer to his own question, 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. As long as he could preach the
gospel without fee, without the perception of charging others
or being funded by others, that was payment enough for him. He
had the right to maintenance. He just didn’t exercise that
right. This was his ground of boasting in the end. Not that
he preached the gospel because he was commanded to do that,
but that he preached the gospel without charge, without the benefit
of support by churches, There’s one more level to this
waterfall of information. Another pattern, the statement
that he did not want to make full use of his right to the
gospel. The implied question, why? Why are you so insistent,
Paul, on offering the gospel free of charge? And the explanation
we find in verses 19 through 23, 19 through 23, for though
I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all. We’ll take up those verses next
Lord’s Day. Don’t go anywhere yet. All of this, the motive behind
what Paul was doing, and that’s what you get in those, that waterfall
of information in verses 15 through 17. It made me wonder, why do we do what we do? And I mean only the good things
that we do. And I want you to ponder and
think of a good thing or maybe the very best thing that you
do. I’m not asking, why do we sin? We know about that one. I want
to know, why do we do the good things that we do? And I want
you to examine your heart. Because like in Paul’s case,
in the preaching of the gospel, There were motives behind what
he did. He had a reason for what he did. My question to you is, what motivates
you to do the good things that you do? And every one of us has
those good things. You don’t need a whole lot of
help from me as you think about what are the good things that
I do. But I want you to wonder, Why? I want you to think about why
do you do the good things that you do? Here are some suggestions. Some people do whatever good
thing that they do for recognition. They want to be appreciated.
They want to do what they do to be seen by others so that
they can be acknowledged and frankly thanked. We do what we
do for recognition. Sometimes we do what we do just
out of obligation. Our heart’s not really in it.
It’s really out of a bland, lifeless sense of duty. We’re just going
through the motions. And sometimes we get really good
at these. It’s a good thing. It may be
even as the exercise of our gift, but our heart is not in it. It’s
just out of obligation. There’s another reason, guilt. We do what we do, even a good
thing, just out of guilt. Because if we will feel shame
from others, whether legitimate shame or no, we’re made to feel
guilty if we do not do this thing. Or reciprocation. We’re either paying somebody
back for something good that they did or we’re putting someone
in debt. What they owe us simply because
I did something good for you or pretentiousness. We don’t need to be thanked.
We just want to be seen doing what we do or If you’re making a list, recognition,
obligation, guilt, reciprocation, pretentiousness, approval. Our heart really isn’t in it.
We’re doing this good thing, but our heart really is in it,
but we just want approval. We don’t need to be thanked,
no verbal appreciation, but somebody is watching that we really want
to impress, and it isn’t God. Why do we do what we do? Power.
If we do this, we achieve some sense of authority or influence
over others. It’s almost a position. Or challenge, that we just do
it for kicks. It’s just kind of something to
try. Or competition, where we’re keeping pace with someone else.
We’re really not into it, our heart really isn’t in it, but
if he’s doing it, then I’ve gotta do it. Security. We want to maintain a friendship
or maintain a position. And so even though our heart
isn’t in it, we’ve got to do this. Or perhaps one of the more sordid
ones in the list, remuneration. We do it for pay and for really
nothing more. It’s a mercenary spirit. We sign
up to do it for a paycheck. Our heart isn’t in it. We’re
only there to get paid. It’s a good thing. Or fear, fear of reprisal, fear
of condemnation from God or others, or presenting ourselves as an
example to others. Our heart really isn’t in it.
We’re just kind of modeling there just to be seen. Or this is a
really sick one, earning God’s favor. thinking that we can do
a thing in order to make God perform. To do this to another
believer is one thing. To attempt to do this to God
works righteousness, and it never works. For the Christian, there is one
reason. There’s one reason and one reason
only to engage in any good thing, any beneficial thing to our brothers
and sisters in Christ. We’ll come across it eventually,
one day, because Paul addresses it in 1 Corinthians 10 31. Whatever
then you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of
God. that God is glorified and that
alone is the one great motivator to all that a Christian does. Would you humble yourself before
him?