The Grace of Self-Denial

People would please take their
Bibles and turn to First Corinthians, Chapter 9. First Corinthians,
Chapter 9, we’re marching on and following right on the heels
of Chapter 8. One of the basic tenets of leadership
in really any realm is the willingness and the ability to model the
established standards of the organization that one represents.
We could refer to it, I would refer to it as principled integrity. The commitment to live by, to
model, or to exemplify those standards, especially if you
have established those standards yourself, if you’ve made the
rules, Well, we’ve seen a regular and widespread disregard of established
COVID standards over these past few years, haven’t we? Those
high government officials have been quick to make rules and
protocols ostensibly intended for everyone. Masks, distancing,
travel restrictions and the like, But with alarming regularity,
the very ones who have set forth such rules are consistently seen
violating them. More disturbing still is their
reaction when they’re caught. An attitude of umbrage and outrage
as if or really because they are, of course, above the standards
that they have established. The rules are for everyone else,
not them. And in an instant, their so-called
leadership is exposed as flimsy, insincere, and shameful. They’re autocrats, dictators,
not leaders. The Apostle Paul was a genuine
leader, one who was saved and appointed by God himself Still,
he would have been subjected to the same scrutiny that any
other would-be leader would have faced. Was he a man of integrity? Was he a man of his word? Did
the rules apply to him as well? Or was he just like the vast
majority of the hypocritical tyrants of his day, or ours? in the tendency to bark out great
principles to be observed and followed by the masses while
he walked an easier, more pleasant path. It was surprising to me how many
commentators See this chapter, chapter nine, as a detour, a
digression, one called it, from Paul’s discussion on meat offered
to idols. I’ll make an effort to show you
that chapter nine is not a digression, but rather it’s a declaration
of integrity by a genuine leader. And it dovetails perfectly with
the subject advanced in chapter eight. Paul was not, as so many
politicians of our day, a bureaucrat who made rules for others that
he had no intention of obeying. Paul was an exemplary leader,
one who earned every follower that he had by his humble integrity. In chapter 8, Paul there presents
his very full treatment of the question about meat offered to
idols. And he discusses the principles,
as we saw, of knowledge, and love, and truth. And then in
that final section, section verses 7 through 13, he turns his attention
to the stronger believers among the Corinthians. If you would
glance back to that portion just briefly, chapter 8 verses 7 through
13, the first thing that he did was discuss the reality of the
situation. His concern that not all men
have the knowledge, the love that goes with knowledge, that
attends the truths that Paul had mentioned. Not all men have
really grasped that there is no such thing as an idol, that
there is no God but one. And Paul gives them yet another
truth in verse 8. This one about eating, that food
will not commend us to God, neither will it detract from our relationship
to God. It doesn’t affect us spiritually
one way or the other. But that said, Paul makes a charge
to the stronger believers among them, to those who had a strong
conscience, who knew that there was no God but one, who knew
that there was nothing to an idol. That said, Paul says, be
careful not to offend, and he issues a severe caution. Look at verse nine. Take care
that this liberty, this liberty to eat whatever you please, does
not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. That is a
severe caution. Instead, he calls on them in
verse 13 to exercise a wise and loving discretion. Look at the
verse. Therefore, if food causes my
brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again so that I will
not cause my brother to stumble. Well, it’s that closing statement,
verse 13, that serves as the connecting point to chapter nine. It’s a strong statement. If food
causes my brother to stumble, I’ll never eat meat again. Wow. And be assured, as many phony
religious leaders and pompous government officials as the Greek
world, especially the Corinthians, had been subjected to, it would
not have been out of line for them or surprising if their collective
response, even to their friend Paul, went something like this. Oh yeah, right, Paul. Never eat
meat again. I really doubt that. They very likely would have perceived
that Paul was issuing a rule for them, built on the caution of throwing
down a stumbling block before their brothers. Mind your weaker
brother’s conscience. Be willing to defer to such a
person. If need be, avoid eating meat
altogether. And truly, as we saw, no matter
what the gray area is, if it should cause our brother to stumble,
we must be willing to forsake it. But they very likely thought,
Paul, you’re issuing another one of these edicts. We’ve heard
them before. A rule for us that doesn’t apply to you. They accused
him of boasting. So that’s the rule. Never eat
meat offered to idols again. That’s the standard. But does
Paul have the integrity to back it up? Or is this just one more edict
intended for them to follow that yet another leader had no intention
of honoring? Chapter nine is Paul’s defense
of that integrity. And he indeed is a man of his
word. We’ll take the chapter in its entirety at least this
first Sunday where we consider this great chapter. First Corinthians
chapter nine. 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, does not
the law also say these things? For it is written in the law
of Moses, you shall not muzzle the ox while he’s 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 in 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 endure 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 also 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 would
be done so in my case. For it would be better for me
to die than to have any 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 the more. To the Jews, I became as a Jew,
so that I might win the 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 then 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
make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I
myself will not be disqualified. Here in chapter nine, which,
as I’ve already said, is directly tied to Paul’s discussion of
chapter eight, Paul makes a strident defense of his own integrity.
Paul enters into this chapter by addressing the prominent criticisms
that he faced as a leader. And in so doing, Paul anticipates
the typical criticisms that he was facing. that he wasn’t really
an apostle and therefore had no real authority. But Paul will
not only argue that he is truly an apostle, but more directly
that his was indeed a life of self-denial. So he wasn’t asking
anyone to do anything that he himself was unwilling to do. I’ve titled the message or really
rather the series of messages here in chapter nine as the grace
of self-denial. And it’s a grace that we don’t
exercise enough. It’s the grace of self-denial
because that’s what Paul is setting forth in this chapter. The chapter
breaks up into four distinct sections in verses one through
six, we have Paul’s consideration of self-denial, where Paul will
provide his example even in the face of criticism. In verses
7 through 14, Paul balances self-denial. He didn’t have to do this. He
had the right to be supported by the churches. In verses 15
through 23, Paul presents his own example of self-denial. And
then finally, to close out the chapter, Paul once again encourages
self-denial, even of the Corinthians. Let’s begin this morning, the
grace of self-denial. We want to begin in verse one
with Paul’s example in the face of criticism. And the first thing
that he provides is a challenge to criticism. He’s defending
himself and there’s nothing morally wrong with that. Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not
seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
Paul begins his discussion here in chapter 9 with a series of
somewhat rhetorical questions. He’s using these questions to
build a case, a point that he intends to make to the Corinthians,
But first he must establish this foundation with his readers,
the Corinthian church. And much like some commentators,
these believers likely have no idea where he’s going. They have
no idea what’s coming. And with a measure of unguarded
gullibility, they would have sought to answer each one of
these questions, at least in their minds. The very first question,
am I not free? This is the question, by the
way, that ties the chapter back into chapter eight and to the
subject of foregoing one’s rights in the case of meat offered to
idols, or really, as we saw, any other gray area issue as
well. When Paul asks here, am I not
free? He’s probing whether or not the
people felt as if he were somehow obligated not to eat meat. Was this something he had to
do? But again, he was free. As a
Christian, he enjoyed the freedom to conduct himself like any other
believer, to live his life according to his conscience and his convictions. He was not obligated to do anything
just because someone’s opinion differed from his. He made the
point in chapter eight that there are indeed legitimate areas of
freedom. One person’s conscience does
not necessarily bind another brother’s conscience. The second
question is seemingly unrelated. Am I not an apostle? And with
most, there’s an assumption that this question is completely disconnected.
What does this have to do with anything? The likely answer to
that is that some of his critics may well have been able to suggest
that, of course, Paul’s obligated to adhere to such a strict rule. Why, he’s not even a real apostle. He’s just one of us. On the face of it, this criticism
has real potential. There were two different ways
that the word apostle could be understood. The first way, in
its general sense, it just meant one who was sent, a sent one,
like a messenger. And in that sense, many were
sent, and considered in that sense, apostles, sent ones, Barnabas,
Acts 4, 14, 1414, James, Galatians 1, 19, Titus, 2 Corinthians 8,
23, Epaphroditus, Philippians 2, 25, all of whom are referred
to as apostles. With a small A, I would suggest,
sent ones. Of course, everyone, even Paul’s
critics, would agree that he was a sent one. They’re not disputing
that point, that he was an apostle in that lower A sense. But it’s also used, this word,
to describe the 12 closest followers of Christ. Specifically chosen,
identified, commissioned out with power and authority. by
Christ who sent them. The qualifications for apostles
in this second sense was very limited. Just listen. Was this
individual a witness to Christ’s resurrection? Was he chosen, was he called
and sent by Christ himself? Had he done miraculous works? And was his ministry marked by
God’s blessing? Well, Paul not only enjoyed all
of those divine marks, he also clearly claims this second official
sense of formal apostleship. He claims to be an apostle. in that very limited sense. Romans 1.1, he just says, I’m
called as an apostle. In Galatians 1.1, an apostle
not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through
Jesus Christ and God the Father. That’s a pretty clear declaration.
In 2 Corinthians 1.1, Ephesians 1.1, Colossians 1.1, you begin
to get the sense that Paul was not shy about laying claim to
his apostleship, because to each of those epistles, he says, I
am an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God. Paul knew exactly what he was
doing. When he claimed apostleship for himself, He was acknowledging
that he was equal to the 12 in this calling. And Paul often,
as here in 1 Corinthians 9, he took occasion to defend his apostleship. It was important. In fact, he
testifies to that in this very passage. Would you just glance
down at verse five really quickly? There in verse five, he asked,
do we not have a right to take along a believing wife even as
the rest of the apostles. By referring to the rest of the
apostles, he cleverly asserts his own apostleship. Paul was
obviously in a dogfight over this issue in Corinth because
he addresses it again in his second letter back to the Corinthians,
chapter 12, verses 11 through 13. He makes two important points.
Just listen. First, he says in verse 11, that in no respect
was I inferior to the most eminent apostles. None of them had anything
to hold over Paul’s head, remember? Even Peter was subject to Paul’s
rebuke on one occasion. And secondly, in verse 12, he
says, the signs of a true apostle were performed among you with
all perseverance by signs and wonders and miracles. The rest
of the apostles had nothing on Paul. Paul was not slighted in
the least in God’s giftings to his apostles. And so Paul takes
up one of the necessary proofs of an apostle in his third question. Would you glance at verse one?
Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? The obvious implication there
was, of course he had. The immediate reference there
is to the moment of his own conversion in Acts chapter 9. You remember
that, but it would be easier for you to just turn there for
a moment. Keep your finger in 1 Corinthians 9. Turn to Acts
chapter 9. Let’s just observe what Paul
claims to have seen there. And just for our sake, pick it
up in verse three. As he was traveling, it happened
that he was approaching Damascus and suddenly a light from heaven
flashed around him and he fell to the ground and heard a loud
voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? And
he said, who are you, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom
you are persecuting. And so he came face to face with
the risen savior. That alone would solve that one
requirement for apostleship. And so he was confronted by Jesus,
but it doesn’t specifically say there that he saw Jesus, that
he knew that that’s what he was seeing. Jesus reveals himself
to them, but in the immediate aftermath, jump down to verse
17, In the immediate aftermath, Ananias explains to him what
had happened. Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus,
who appeared to you on the road, has sent me. Jump down 10 verses
later to 27. There, Barnabas, his new Christian
friend, was introducing him to all the other apostles. And it
just says that he described to them how he had seen the Lord. Back, if you would, to 1 Corinthians
9. Well, years later, Paul was giving
his testimony to King Agrippa in Acts 26, and Paul there describes
this scene on the road to Damascus in these terms. I saw on the
way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around
me and those who were journeying with me. You see, that’s because
what Paul saw was the glorified Christ. The other apostles could
lay claim to the fact that they watched Christ go into the sky.
None of them had ever seen the glorified Christ. The rest of the apostles had
seen the ascending Lord, but not risen, ascended, and now
manifesting himself anew in his glorified state. What is more,
we know that Paul experienced numerous visions of Christ, far
more than just dreams. Acts 18, 9, 22, 17, 2 Corinthians
12, 1 through 4, no doubt Paul had seen the risen Christ. And Paul asks one last question
in verse 1, are you not my work in the Lord? And this, Paul intends,
is just one more unmistakable proof of his apostleship. What else could have explained
the remarkable reception and the establishment of a church
in such a profligate city? Except that it was God. God at
work in and through the Apostle Paul. Their conversion was a
sure indication of divine enabling, including not only for them,
but for him. Of course, they were his work
in the Lord. And he’s quick here to humbly
add, in the Lord. Whatever good thing he or anyone
else does is only possible in the Lord, that is by his grace
and his doing. And so not only does Paul issue
a challenge to this criticism that he was facing, but he secondly
presents a solace in the midst of this criticism. Look at verse
two. 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. There was comfort in that. And
his second point here, verse two, is a very quick one. It’s
his solace or his comfort amid the many criticisms that he faced. His lead-in qualifying clause
there, if to others I am not an apostle, is likely a reference
to those who were of Apollos, remember? Those who had aligned
themselves with Paul’s friend and had become Paul’s chief critics
there in Corinth. This group had become doubtful
of Paul’s apostleship. And Paul’s comfort is that even
if others were doubtful of his apostleship, there was a great
contingency of believers in Corinth who believed otherwise. They,
after all, were living proof of Paul’s apostleship, having
heard the gospel from him, and having been discipled by him,
and having been shepherded by him. At the outset of this epistle,
chapter 1, verses 4 through 7, which first we considered at
our annual meeting last week. Paul said this of the Corinthians,
I thank my God always concerning you for the grace of God, which
was given you in Christ Jesus, that in everything you were enriched
in him, in all speech and in all knowledge, even as the testimony
concerning Christ was confirmed in you. so that you are not lacking
in any gift awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus
Christ. They were his proof. These believers
were the direct beneficiaries of Paul’s apostolic ministry. Creatively there, he says that
you are my seal of my apostleship in the Lord. The stamped wax
seal was used in first century to attest to the validity of
an important letter or document. They would drip the wax and stamp
it with a seal of proof. And we speak of it
metaphorically in our day as a seal of approval, don’t we?
Well, the Corinthians were God’s seal of approval, the mark of
authenticity on Paul’s efforts. What God had done in saving and
gifting this body of believers was all the verification that
Paul ever needed, that God’s hand was on his ministry. There’s
a third observation that Paul makes here. in providing his
example in the face of this criticism, not only the challenge to his
criticism and the solace in criticism, but his response to criticism.
And here he opens up the floodgates to deal with his many criticisms. My defense to those who examine
me, verse three, 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? Paul knew that he was the subject
of criticism by some in Corinth. It just came with the territory.
Paul wasn’t surprised by it. And so here he confronts this
unjust criticism head on. He initiates his argument on
his own behalf in verse three. My defense to those who examine
me is this. And he stands that as the heading
in front of a number of things that he’ll address. And he literally
uses the language of the courtroom here by the terms defense and
examine Employing that language, Paul treats it as if he’s on
trial, and he wasn’t inaccurate. And he cites three points of
criticism, all related in verse four through six. First of all,
verse four. He asks, do we not have a right
to eat and drink? It seems like a silly question
and we have to be careful here because it’s against the backdrop
of this discussion of the issue of meat offered to idols. We
might be tempted to think that that’s what Paul is referencing
here. He’s not. What he’s pointing to here is
the matter of financial support. The principle that those in the
gospel had a right to be provided for by the churches to which
they ministered. He had a right to eat and drink,
in other words, at the expense of his churches. As a servant of Christ for the
gospel, he had a right to be maintained. He had a right to
be supported. And that’s all Paul wants to
establish here, is that he had the right to this financial support. And his second question is, directly
related. Look at verse 5. Do we not have
a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the
apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Now the answer to this question
is yes, absolutely you have the right to take along a believing
wife. Now Paul, you’re ready to call me on this one, but Paul,
as we learned in chapter seven, was almost certainly a single
man. He alludes to that several times.
But the point is that Paul had the right to take along a believing
wife, just as at least some of the apostles did, as well as
the Lord’s brothers, technically half-brothers, sons of Joseph
and Mary. Their names were James, Joseph,
Simon, and Judas, Many of these men, including Peter, Peter himself
was married. Did Paul not share this right?
That privilege was a given. Paul’s not making an argument
here that apostles could get married if they really wanted. It was a given. We don’t know
how many of the apostles were actually married. Most of them
likely were. Of all of them, the one that
we know for sure is Peter. Which, by the way, does real
damage to the idea of celibacy for the priesthood, doesn’t it?
Since Roman Catholics consider Peter to have been the first
pope. But as I said, The issue here
isn’t about how many were married, or whether the apostles could
marry, or some argument on behalf of them. The issue is still about
financial support. There was no biblical command
whatsoever insisting that gospel workers must be single. Or that
if they were married, they would just have to find some other
way to feed their family. We’re not supporting them. If
a man was married, he had the right to support for he and his
wife. Apostles first, and then also
the servants of the gospel to follow, they had a right to be
supported by the church. We’ll get more into that in the
coming weeks. The idea for this was first seen
in the gospels presented by Christ in Luke 9, Luke 9 says this,
verses 3 and 4. Specifically, Jesus orders his
disciples at that point. He said to them, take nothing
for your journey. A way to walk by faith. Take
nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread,
nor money, and do not even have two tunics apiece. He wanted
them to walk and to live by faith. He wanted them to be supported
by the people to whom they were ministering. Verse four, whatever
house you enter, stay there until you leave that city. I’m still
thinking this through, but I’ll be at one of your houses this
afternoon for an undisclosed period of time. Now let’s pause
here. There is a running joke regularly
regarding ministry that pastors only work one day a week. I’ve heard the joke. Hilarious,
right? I remember years ago when I had
first gone full-time in this church, we were talking with
a bunch of the people in the fellowship room after church
one day, just kind of talking and fellowshipping, laughing.
And I remember distinctly wincing when someone asked little TJ
if it was good to have me home more often. And he said, yes,
I’m glad my dad doesn’t have to work anymore. See, everyone wants to get in
on this joke. Well, Paul pointedly asks, are
we, Barnabas and I, are we really the only ones who need to support
our gospel efforts by working a second job? We know that Paul
did work bivocationally. Acts 18.3 presents Paul as a
tent maker by trade. Sometimes he was freed up by
others, but more often than not, he was laboring a second job. In Acts 20.34, Paul admits that
his ministry was largely self-supporting. You yourselves know that these
hands ministered to my own needs and to the men who were with
me. Paul told this very church in
412 of this epistle, we toil. We do hard, arduous work, working
with our hands. And I can imagine him holding
up his tired, hands.” To the Thessalonians who knew the character
of this apostle firsthand, he said in 2 Thessalonians 3, 7
through 9, he called it to memory. He said, you yourselves know
how you ought to follow our example. Because we did not act in an
undisciplined manner among you, nor did we 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 not because we do not have a right to this but
in order to offer ourselves as a model for you so that you would
follow our example he had the right so paul was working but
even as he says Also to the Thessalonians here, he had a right to be supported
by his churches. Why does he say this? You see,
this criticism of him had a double edge to it. On the one hand,
Paul could be criticized for expecting or accepting or asking
for financial support. It’s just another charlatan coming
through. He’s only in it for the money. But on the other hand,
there was an even more cynical criticism. You see, the Gentiles
were not of the same religious mindset as the Jews, Paul’s Jewish
countrymen. The Jews were used to supporting
their spiritual leaders. Gentiles, on the other hand,
had been beset by charlatans, greedy for gain. So Paul and
Barnabas had likely come to some kind of strategic agreement that
they would not seek support from Gentile churches, lest they be
perceived as money grubbers. They wanted to be able to offer
the gospel to the Thessalonians, the Philippians, the Corinthians. They wanted to be able to offer
the gospel completely unfettered. Well, Paul Paul’s critics deviously
turned this against Paul, arguing that he didn’t accept financial
support because he wasn’t a true apostle. Paul was in a no-win
situation. But he actually has the Corinthians
right where he wants them. He’s free. He’s an apostle. He had seen Jesus our Lord. His
ministry had borne fruit, even the Corinthian church itself.
As for support, he did have a right to eat and drink, be provided
by the churches to which he ministered. And he did have a right to refrain
from working. He had all these rights as a
genuine apostle of Christ. And yet, He had not used them. He had not exercised these rights.
He was willing to sacrifice his rights and to exercise self-denial
for the sake of others. The very thing he had asked of
the Corinthians in 813. He was free. He could well have eaten whatever
he pleased, including idle sacrifices. But as an apostle, Paul could
not only have asserted many of his God-given rights, he could
have flaunted it. He didn’t. Paul was a man of
integrity. He was a genuine leader. He was
willing to lead by example, even in the very things which he asked
of his flocks and followers. Oh, that we had leaders like
that today. Oh, that we were leaders like
that today. Would you humble yourself before
him?