The Grace of Self-Denial Pt. 2

And turn to 1 Corinthians. We are again in chapter 9. Chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians. Principled integrity. The commitment to model the policies
and standards of one’s organization. So we began to talk about last
Lord’s Day and principled integrity is the characteristic of true
leadership. And we were refreshed by a mere
reminder of what principled integrity even is. Having watched a world
devoid of such leadership, over the past few years, we’ve seen
the leaders, so-called leaders at every level, eager and quick
to make rules from which they just as quickly exempt themselves. We’ve seen them cavalierly make
rules that they expect everyone else to follow, except themselves. Masks are mandatory for everyone
but them. Travel is restricted unless they
have an event. Distancing is crucial, except
for a special dispensation. Well, our assessment is that
such is not principled integrity. And hence, it is not leadership.
The true leader exemplifies the rules that he or his organization
enacts. And we were also reminded last
Lord’s Day with great joy and assurance that the Apostle Paul
was indeed a genuine leader. He was a man who lived a life
of principled integrity. It was unconscionable to Paul
that he should ask anyone to do anything which he himself
was not willing to do himself. Paul was completely unlike the
tyrannical leaders of his own day. There was no principle that
he promoted by which he was not also willing to uphold. There
were no double standards for Paul. In fact, the surest way
for him to impart some rule or principle or standard was to
model it himself. Do as I do, Paul would say. Join in following me, as he did
say. And this is precisely the matter
that Paul is boldly addressing in chapter nine, principled integrity. This chapter was not a meandering
digression from the subject of meat offered to idols, the subject
of chapter eight. In fact, Paul will return explicitly
to that discussion in chapter 10. Would you do me the kindness
of looking ahead for just a moment to chapter 10? I’d like to show
you this. Please look at verse 14, where
Paul just simply says, therefore my beloved flee from idolatry. There it is again, the same subject
of chapter eight. Glide down to verses 19 and 20. What do I mean then that a thing
sacrificed to idols is anything? Or that an idol is anything?
No, but I say that the Gentiles The things which the Gentiles
sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, not to God. And I do
not want you to be sharers in demons. Paul is still there in
chapter 10 dealing with the subject of meat offered to idols, and
I would suggest to you, I have suggested to you, that chapter
nine is dealing with that subject as well, a different aspect of
it. Hear the passion with which Paul
addresses this subject. He’s not finished with it at
the end of chapter eight, hardly. He’s in the midst of it. We saw
this. At the end of chapter eight,
Paul urges his readers with regard to the subject of meat offered
to idols or any other matter of conscience, that one must
be willing to make great sacrifice for one’s brother if necessary. Look at how he says it to his
stronger brother back in 813. He’s addressing the stronger
brothers there and he says, if food causes my brother to stumble,
I will never eat meat again. Was Paul just one more bombastic
dictator making a false boast? The world had plenty of these.
No. Paul was a leader of integrity.
Paul had already modeled this principle, a principle of deferring
to others. Why, he’s preparing to show the
Corinthians that he had already exemplified this principle without
their even realizing it. And so that closing statement
in verse 13 of chapter eight serves as the connecting point
to chapter nine. Chapter nine is no distracted
detour. It’s a necessary declaration
of integrity for Paul. Paul wanted to assure his readers
that he was not an autocrat for whom the rules did not apply.
He was a leader and one who had already lived out the very principle
that he was now urging of others. Paul had the integrity to back
up his admonition. If you would, glance down at
chapter nine, beginning in verse one. Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not
seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
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. My defense to those
who examine me is this, do we not have a right to eat and drink? 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? Or do only Barnabas and
I not have a right to refrain from working? 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? I’m not speaking these
things according to human judgment, am I? Or does the law not also
say these things? For it is written in the law
of Moses, you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.
God is not concerned about oxen, is he? 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. If we sowed spiritual things
in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share the right over
you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use
this right, but we endured all things so that we will cause
no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 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 the Lord directed those who
proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. But I
have used none of these things, and I am not writing these things
so that it will be done so in my case. For it would be better
for me to die than to have any man make my boast an empty one. For if I preach the gospel, I
have nothing to boast of. For I am under compulsion. For
woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. For if I do this
voluntarily, I have a reward, but if against my will, I have
a stewardship entrusted to me. 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. For though
I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all so
that I may win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew
so that I might win Jews. To those who are under the law
as under the law, though not myself being under the law, so
that I might win those who are under the law. To those who are
without law as without law. though not being without the
law of God, but under the law of Christ, so that I might win
those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that
I might win the weak. I become all things to all men,
so that I may by all means save some. I do all things for the
sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only
one receives the prize. Run in such a way that you may
win. Everyone who competes in the
games exercises self control in all things. They do it to
receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable Therefore,
I run in such a way as not without aim. I box in such a way as not
beating the air, but I discipline my body and I make it my slave
so that after I preach to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”
As we saw last Lord’s Day, Paul not only argued that he is truly
an apostle, but more directly that he was indeed a man of principled integrity,
his was indeed a life of self-denial, and yet his critics still might
lodge a complaint that he had not sacrificed so much, that
his so-called sacrifice was not so impressive, and Paul cannot
leave that accusation unaddressed. Both his church and his critics
must be informed just how great was the cost of his sacrifice.
Recalling this series in chapter nine, the grace of self-denial,
that’s what Paul is addressing here. And we saw that chapter,
the chapter breaks up into four distinct sections. Verses 1 through
6, which we considered last Lord’s Day, Paul’s consideration of
self-denial, more like thinking through the idea of it. In verses
7 through 14, he balances self-denial. In verses 15 through 23, he presents
his example of self-denial. And in closing, verses 24 through
27, Paul encourages others in their own self-denial. And so in verses one through
six, as we saw last week, Paul has established that he is indeed
a man of integrity. He’s not a man who makes rules
for others that he has no intention of following. And he’s not afraid
to admonish his beloved church. To them, he said, take care that
this liberty of yours, this liberty of eating such meat, Take care
that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling
block to the weak. You know, he was not making an
empty boast when he said, if food causes my brother to stumble,
I will never eat meat again. Nor was he merely being dramatic
when he urged the same of the Corinthians. He was a leader
of integrity. But in the second section, verses
seven through 14, Paul insists on explaining that there is a
balance to self-denial. He wants to tell his church,
he wants them to know that his was a real sacrifice, and that
he has a real and legitimate right, and to relinquish that
right is itself significant. We talked about this a little
bit last week, this sometimes not so tongue-in-cheek idea that
a pastor only works one day a week, right? Yes, I’ve heard it. Lord, we’ll keep him poor. You keep him humble. That kind
of thing. And honestly, TV evangelists
haven’t exactly made the subject easier to navigate as a church,
but I’ve said it many times, my concern with TV evangelists
is not so much that they’re always asking for money, as much as
it is the feeble, anemic message that they preach. That’s the
real travesty. The church finances. is always
a delicate subject. I remember years ago when we
were first starting this church, I was working bivocationally,
two jobs, Home Depot and pastoral ministry. And we were at some
folks’ house, visitors checking out the church. And I remember
this lady, thinking that she was giving me a compliment, said,
It’s so nice to see a pastor working. Wow. So the contention over financial
remuneration for those in ministry is nothing new. And so Paul must
address the same issue in this second section. And he outlines
his argument for them and for us. In this second section, of
chapter 9, Paul is balancing again the idea of self-denial. He’s detailing the real cost
of self-denial, and he makes three distinct arguments. We’ll
look at one this morning. These arguments are all designed
to justify his right to be supported by his churches. First is his
argument from livelihood. verses 7 through 10. Second is
his argument from priorities, verses 11 and 12. And then third
is his argument from the priesthood in verses 13 and 14. Let’s this
morning consider Paul’s first argument, an argument from livelihood,
shall we? This is the argument that you’ll
find in verses seven through 10. And for the sake of time,
I’ll not read that portion again. But Paul begins his discussion
about the propriety of financial support in ministry by arguing
from the most fundamental reason, simply this, everyone has to
make a living. It’s just a simple fact of life,
isn’t it? that we have to work, and that
by working we earn a wage, and by earning a wage we make a living. We support ourselves. And no
matter what industry you find yourself, in what industry you
find yourself employed, you can expect to earn a wage. This is
the way that we support ourselves and our families. I’m not telling
you anything that you don’t know, and neither is Paul. That’s the
point. Just as Paul began above in verse
4 of this chapter, he does have a basic human right to eat and
drink. But remember that he adds to
that statement that he also has a right to refrain from working,
verse 6. That is, from working a second
job to support himself and his family, if he has one. That way,
he can minister for free. As a servant of God, he has these
God-given rights. And to drive his point home here,
in verse 7, he asks a series of three rapid-fire questions. And in these questions, he employs
three metaphors for the Christian ministry. Soldier, farmer, and
shepherd. These three metaphors are used
plentifully throughout the Bible, as we’ll see. Regarding that
of a soldier, Paul exhorted young Timothy in his final epistle,
2nd Timothy 2, to suffer hardship with me as a good soldier of
Christ Jesus. Here in our passage, however,
Paul is not so much focusing on the military aspect of ministry
as he is the economic aspect of that image. And he asks first,
who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? It’s an argument from livelihood.
And the word in its most basic reference here indicates rations,
food supplied to the soldier. What nation would ever tell its
military that they have to pay their own way? Many of you will be familiar
with the plight that George Washington’s army faced in the winter of 1777. Following many long months of
fighting, they began to winter over at Valley Forge. but the
rations were extremely slim, a meager portion for each man
per day. Were Washington to do the unthinkable
and to leave each man to fend for himself? Well, suffice it
to say, we wouldn’t be here. It was imperative that Washington,
with help from Congress, find the means to care for his soldiers
And if you know the story, the provision was nearly miraculous. No nation can expect their armies
to battle in the fields and then scurry home to a second job,
perhaps working at Starbucks. The very idea of it is absurd. But the care extended to soldiers
is not limited to daily rations. Nations not only provide their
armies basic needs, housing and food, but they provide them uniforms
and weapons and equipment, but they also pay their soldiers.
It’s the same passage that I just mentioned a moment ago, 2 Timothy
2. Paul underscores this very principle. He says that no soldier in active
service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life
so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier.
He has a job to do. John the Baptist stated this
principle as a given. Luke records that at the outset
of John the Baptist’s ministry, chapter three of Luke, He’s calling
the crowds to repentance. You might recall that scene.
And Luke records that there were many who were convicted. And
they began asking the Lord about specific violations. What shall
we do? Tax collectors also asked. And then even some soldiers asked. Jesus, John there, pardon me,
answered, do not take money from anyone by force or accuse anyone
falsely, evidently an occupational hazard of a soldier. Do not take
money from anyone by force or accuse anyone falsely and be
content with your wages. Soldiers paid. So Paul’s point is simply this,
nations pay for their soldiers. Of course the church should pay
for their own Christian soldiers. The second question that Paul
asks in verse seven, not unlike the first, is still an argument
from livelihood. Glance at it if you would, Paul
asks, who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it?
Here too is a familiar biblical illustration. The image of a
vineyard is seen again and again throughout Old and New Testaments.
God gave laws about vineyards. Psalmist wrote lyrics about vineyards. Prophets use the imagery of a
vineyard both positively and negatively as an illustration
about Israel. Jesus himself told several parables
using the vineyard metaphor. This is just a second argument
from absurdity. That a vine grower would purchase
land, invest in grapevines, toil over them for years on end, but
never taste of the grapes? There’s a cruel irony to that
idea. Who does that, Paul asks. Nobody,
of course, as he implies. In that same passage in Second
Timothy, where Paul speaks of a good soldier, Paul closes the
illustration with a statement of the obvious. The hardworking
farmer ought to be the first to receive his crops, grapes
or otherwise. So likewise, a vine grower has
the natural right of enjoying the fruit of his vineyard, and
those in ministry have the natural right of enjoying the support
of their church. There’s a third question in verse
7, who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? Here’s a comparison from shepherding,
another familiar metaphor in both the Old and the New Testaments,
Psalm 23. Paul employs this metaphor several
times discussing the Christian ministry. In his solemn meeting
with the Ephesian elders, Acts 20, Paul exhorted them to shepherd
the church of God. Peter as well urges the elders
of his churches to shepherd the flock of God among you. And it
is this same shepherding aspect of ministry that Paul says is
among the gifts that Christ gave to his church, Ephesians 4. It’s
a very familiar metaphor. Well here, Paul queries, who
tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? In other
words, what shepherd does not benefit from the proceeds of
his labor? Likewise, his point is, what
servant of God should not also enjoy financial support? All three of these. the soldier,
the vine grower, the shepherd, they all make their living from
a particular kind of labor. All of them make their living
by their calling. Regardless of the type of work
they do, they all receive back from that labor. Look if you
would please at verse 8. Where Paul says, asks there again,
I am not speaking these things according to human judgment,
am I? The expected answer, of course,
is no. The great apostle could have
resorted to the intellectual skill of logic, eloquent reason,
and of all people, he would have excelled. When he speaks of human
judgment here, His point is not so much that he’s making it up
as he goes. This idea of a church financially
supporting its shepherd. These things are not the result
of worldly homespun wisdom or well-reasoned arguments. This
is divine truth. And Paul moves to prove it. Look
at the end of verse nine. Or does not the law also say
these things? That’s where Paul got the idea.
This principle of financially supporting those who do the work
of ministry. Isn’t this addressed in the Old
Testament scriptures? And rather than wait around while
they search their memory banks for the answer, Paul provides
the answer in verse nine. For it is written in the law
of Moses, you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.
The reference there is from Deuteronomy 25.4 among the various laws provided
by God from a great section there in Deuteronomy that was designed
by God to cultivate practical righteousness among the people.
Specific image of Deuteronomy 25.4 is this, oxen were used
to either tread by foot or tow or pull the large heavy grinding
wheel over the grain, wheat or corn or the like. During the
course of their work, the oxen would bend their head down and
gather an occasional mouthful of this grain. God says, let
them. Do not muzzle the ox. So on the face of it, the precepts
seem to be cultivating care and compassion for the helpful farm
animal. And our hearts are full and everyone’s
happy. But God’s law here was never
intended only for oxen. It’s not like allowing them to
eat a mouthful of grain occasionally as they ambled around in a circle
as if that was their only source of food. The law had a greater,
a higher purpose. It taught God’s people practical
compassion. And if God should choose to make
a compassionate law for cattle, an occasional mouthful of grain
to compensate for this beast’s labor in the preparation of the
farmer’s grain, Would he not have a yet stronger position
regarding those in his service? This law is not just about oxen.
Rather, it was meant to stir moral compassion in the heart
of those who serve the Lord by serving his people. So Paul’s
point in citing the law here in 1 Corinthians is in concert
with God’s original design in giving this law. Paul’s point is that if oxen
are not to be muzzled while they’re actively threshing grain, how
much more are those, especially in the service of God, to be
sustained by the very work that they do? Would the saints please
turn to 1 Timothy? 1 Timothy chapter five. for just a moment. First Timothy
chapter five, and keep a finger in first Corinthians,
we’ll be right back there. In chapter five of his letter,
or his first letter to Timothy, the first of the so-called pastoral
epistles, he’s discussing there a great variety of topics regarding
the treatment of elders. Their protection against false
accusation, their sin, their calling, their compensation. And so it should not surprise
us that where he mentions financial compensation for pastors in First
Timothy 5, 17 and 18, he cites the same exact passage to make
the same exact point. Look at verse 17. The elders
who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor. especially those who work hard
at preaching and teaching. For the scripture says, you shall
not muzzle the ox while he is threshing and the labor is worthy
of his wages. There, speaking of the elders,
the shepherds, the pastors of the flock, he says that they
are to be granted double honor, that is financial remuneration,
especially, as he adds, those who work hard at preaching and
teaching. And in support, Paul quotes here too from Deuteronomy
25.4. And if you notice there at the end of verse 18, Paul
adds a second quote, this also from Deuteronomy, this one from
the immediately preceding chapter, more practical wisdom from 2415. And together, this quote clarifies
Paul’s intention with the first quote. Do not muzzle the ox. The worker is worthy of his wages. Back, if you would, please, to
1 Corinthians 9. And please, when you get there,
glance down again at verse 9. Paul goes above and beyond here
to explain the point in focus of the original law. Paul is
going to lob us a real curveball here. Look at the end of verse
9. God is not concerned about oxen,
is he? Cue the crickets. Right? Dead silence. How do we answer
that? That God is unconcerned with
cows? No. This does not mean that God
doesn’t care about His creatures. The psalmist often assures us
of God’s loving care for all of His creatures. Psalm 38, 6,
Oh Lord, you preserve both man and beast. Psalm 104 14. He causes the grass
to grow for the cattle. Psalm 104 21. The young lions roar after their
prey and seek their food from God. In fact, verse 27 says they
all wait for God to give them their food in due season. His
mercies are over all his works. Psalm 145, nine, surely God cares
for his creatures. Jesus affirmed this as well,
Matthew 6, 26. Look at the birds of the air,
they do not toil or sow, nor do they reap or gather into barns,
yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Paul isn’t saying that
animals are unimportant to God, that God doesn’t care about them, but rather that, comparatively
speaking, God cares infinitely more for people. When God says
that the oxen are not to be muzzled, by that God was indicating the
compassion that ought to be extended to people as well. The ultimate
reference is not to cattle, but to those in God’s service. Did
the ox that was threshing the corn, did he benefit from this
law? You better believe it. But human
laborers benefited more, including and especially those in God’s
service. And so for our purposes this
morning, in closing, look at verse 10, Paul asks rhetorically,
or is he speaking altogether for our sake in this law? Yes, for our sake it was written,
because the plowman ought to plow in hope and the thresher
ought to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. God is not unconcerned about
animal life, but he’s exceedingly concerned about human life. And
so Paul doesn’t hesitate to answer his own question here. Is he,
that is God, speaking altogether for our sake? Yes. Yes, he is. God spoke Deuteronomy
25 for our sake. Yes, he did, says Paul, and ultimately
this law was the blessing and the benefit of men. Paul caps his argument with twin
affirmations here, the plowman and the thresher. The final two
metaphors that refer to God those in God’s service. The plowman
ought to plow in hope. The farmer, the vine grower,
the gardener, amid their efforts, the gospel worker ought to be
able to plow in hope. They ought to be able to do their
respective work unfettered by the cares of other means of employment. And similarly, the thresher ought
to thresh in hope of sharing the crops, just like the great
beast grinding the corn. And so we might, or maybe even
we should, pause and say, why is Paul telling us all of this? And perhaps I can best explained
by a powerful example from the Old Testament. It’s recorded
in both 2 Samuel and in Chronicles, but would you turn in closing
to 2 Samuel 24? I think I can make sense of this.
Why Paul is telling us all of this. In 2 Samuel, 24, David had taken it upon himself
to number the people. He took a census. And this really,
it is proven there, was out of a heart of pride. In fact, Chronicles
says that Satan was the one that stirred his heart. It was out
of a heart of pride, and not surprisingly, it was displeasing
to the Lord. He wanted to see how big his
armies were. He was putting his faith in all
the wrong things. And God rebuked David and let
him choose the punishment. Seven years of famine, or three
months of fleeing from his foes, or three days of pestilence,
where there would be great loss of life. David chose door number
three. But David repented in the midst
of it and sought the Lord. And we pick up the account in
verse 18, would you glance down? So Gad the prophet came to David
that day and said to him, go up and erect an altar to the
Lord on the threshing floor of Arana the Jebusite. David went
up according to the word of Gad, just as the Lord commanded. And
Arana looked down and saw the king and his servants crossing
over toward him. And Arana went out and bowed
his face to the ground before the king, then Arana, said why
has my lord the king come to his servant and david said to
buy the threshing floor from you in order to build an altar
to the lord that the plague may be held back from the people rana said to david Let my lord
the king take and offer up what is good in his sight Look the
oxen for the burnt offering the threshing sledges and the yokes
of the oxen for the wood everything Oh King Arana gives to the king
And Arana said to the king may the Lord your God accept you
However, the king said to Arana no I but I will surely buy it
from you for a price, for I will not offer burnt offerings to
the Lord my God, which cost me nothing. So David bought the
threshing floor and the oxen for 50 shekels of silver. David
built there an altar to the Lord and offered burnt offerings and
peace offerings. Thus the Lord was moved by prayer
for the land and the plague was held back from Israel. You see, David refused to sacrifice
that which cost him nothing. And that basically is what Paul
is establishing here in verses seven through 14. He had indeed
sacrificed. And he points that out in verse
15. I have used none of these things,
he tells the Corinthians. He’s not like the great majority
of so-called leaders of every age. who press responsibilities
on others and yet exempt themselves. Paul would not ask anyone to
do anything that he himself was not willing to do, and he impressively
proves that here. He was free. He had a right to
eat and drink at the expense of his churches. He had the right
to take along a believing wife. He had a right to refrain from
working, but he had not exercised those rights. He had not demanded
these things. He had used none of those things. And he wants this, his church,
the church that was most capable of supporting him, he wants them
to know just how great was his sacrifice. He had indeed sacrificed
it, but it was indeed a God-given right. His sacrifice, like David,
should not be casually dismissed. Paul was indeed a man of integrity,
laying down not only principles to follow, but example as well. And for us, though we may not face the same
question of meat offered to idols, we frequently come face to face
with matters of conscience, gray areas, Christian liberty, smoking,
alcohol, playing cards, dancing, and all the rest. Would you please note, not one
of those areas of Christian liberty rests upon a divine mandate.
Go and smoke thee, right? Not one of them rests on a Christian
mandate. Paul’s support did, and yet he
sacrificed it. So no matter what question we
may face on an area of Christian liberty, Paul’s example of sacrifice
is our model. Would you humble yourself before
our Lord?