Church members turn against the pastor.  Pretty common.  Happened to Paul.  Corinthians didn’t like how he criticized their lifestyle; so they challenged his apostolic authority.  In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul hit it head-on.  The dispute has implications for us today.  (Hint:  if he’s not an apostle, why should we listen to him?)

PAUL DEFENDS HIS APOSTLESHIP.

 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my work in the Lord? Even though I may not be an apostle to others, surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord (9:1,2).

“Well, yeah.”  That’s the response Paul’s rhetorical questions expect.  “Am I not free?”  In other words, “Don’t I have the right to use or not use my apostolic rights?”  Ah, that’s the nub of the church’s charges against Paul.  Of course, others may question his apostleship, but surely not these Corinthians, since they owe their Christian existence to him.

PAUL ASSERTS HIS APOSTLE-RIGHTS.

Paul has the right to receive material support from the Corinthians; but, he hasn’t used it.

“If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right” (9:12).

Noble?  Crazy?  To the Corinthians, accustomed to paying itinerant philosophers, Paul’s choice to support himself by tent-making made Paul an “amateur”, probably not an apostle at all.  To defend himself, again with forceful rhetorical questions, Paul asserts his rights as an apostle. 

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?  If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.  Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel (9:3-14).

Paul’s grounds his defense on “the Law of Moses”, quoting Deuteronomy 25:4. Not only does God care about oxen, but “for us.”  So the spiritual-seed-sower should “reap a material harvest.”  “But we did not use that right.”  Why? Because, while this brought hardship, he doesn’t want to “hinder the gospel of Christ” by preaching for pay.

Though he’ll explain further in 9:15-18, we can say here that by preaching the gospel “for free” he illustrated the gospel’s “free” nature.

He climaxes his defense by referring to the Lord’s command—“the worker deserves his wages.”  A principle Jesus gave the 72 when he sent them out to preach (Luke 10:7).

PAUL RESTRAINS HIS APOSTOLIC-RIGHTS.

 But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast.  For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!  If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel (9:15-18).

Having forcefully argued his right to receive the Corinthians’ material support, he affirms “I have not used any of these rights.”  Nor does he want to now.  He preaches the gospel because “I am compelled to preach”—literally “I am under compulsion.”

Dr. Gordon Fee explains:  “God had ordained such a destiny for him from birth and had revealed it to him in the events of the Damascus Road (Galatians 1:15,16).  From that time on, proclaiming Christ to the Gentiles was both his calling and compulsion.  He ‘had to do it because God had so taken hold of him (Philippians 3:12) (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 4:18).” Therefore, he doesn’t preach voluntarily and so isn’t free to be paid. Because of the Spirit’s work in him, he isn’t free not to preach!

PAUL USES HIS APOSTOLIC FREEDOM.

Not accepting material support from anyone means he is free from everyone.  And he uses that freedom to be “a slave to everyone” . . .

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.  To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.  To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.  I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings (9:19-23).

The Corinthians criticized his chameleon-like conduct.  Socially, he became like a Jew among Jews and like a Gentile among Gentiles “so that by all possible means I might save some.”  He does it all so the gospel may progress and in the end, with his converts, he might share in gospel blessings.

PAUL MODELS SELF-DISCIPLINE.

Perseverance is required to share in eternal gospel blessings.  And perseverance demands self-discipline.  To make that point, Paul uses a familiar Greek athletic metaphor.  The Corinthians must “[r]un ins such a way as to get the prize.”  Specifically, they must not be idolaters (10:6b) by participating in idol-temple feasts (Chapter 8).

Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize. Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last, but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like someone running aimlessly; I do not fight like a boxer beating the air.  No, I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize (9:24-27).

Paul changes the image from running to boxing, opening his heart to the church.  Because he refuses material support and chooses to support himself, he sometimes does without.  He makes his body “my slave” so he won’t “be disqualified for the (eschatological) prize.”

* * *

What implication does this “apostle dispute” have for us today? Why should we care if Paul was really an apostle?  Because apostleship gives him authority to speak into our lives.  If he wasn’t an apostle, why listen to him?  Well, we say, he’s in the Bible.  No, he’s “in the Bible” because he was an apostle.  So he speaks with authority from Christ to us as he did to the Corinthians.

In that regard, this chapter’s conclusion both exhorts and warns us.  He makes  his body his slave “so that . . . I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.”  Disqualification for the eschatological prize was a  real possibility.  How to justify that with assurances like “God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability”–10:13a, I don’t know. But both are biblical.  That warns us:  “Don’t be complacent!  Don’t let your bodily appetites dictate your conduct!”

With the warning comes the charge: “Run in such a way as to get the prize.”  We’re in a race.  It’s no time for sinful-nature-detours.  We must conduct ourselves like runners straining  toward the prize.

So let’s grab our running shoes–I mean, Bibles . . . and get going.

Can’t remember the last time I attended a dinner party with food offered to idols.  So why should we study 1 Corinthians 8:1-11:1?  Because it’s God’s Word to us . . .

THE SITUATION

Food, offered in worship to idols, was sold in the marketplace.  Do the Corinthians, who have eaten it all of their lives, have the right to continue now that they’ve become Christians? Do they have that right even if it leads “weaker” believers to follow their lead and commit what their consciences say is sin?  Before going into detail, Paul begins with what shouldn’t and should guide our behavior.

KNOWLEDGE OR LOVE?

Now about food sacrificed to idols: We know that “We all possess knowledge.” But knowledge puffs up while love builds up. Those who think they know something do not yet know as they ought to know. But whoever loves God is known by God (8:1-3).

The Corinthians have written to Paul about “idol food”, arguing they have the right to eat it, as they always have.  Indeed, most meat was sacrificed, then sold.  It’s apparent that the Corinthians believe they have special gnosis (“knowledge”) from the Holy Spirit about idols.

Knowledge, however, says Paul, leads to pride.  While love expresses concern for the welfare of fellow-believers.  Those who presume to be “in the know” about idols and idol food don’t know as they should, because real knowledge in Christianity leads to love—loving God and thus being recognized by God as “really knowing.”

Theological knowledge mustn’t be the primary guide in our relationships; love that builds up the other must be.

KNOWLEDGE

So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live (8:4-6).

Paul addresses the issue at hand:  “eating food sacrificed to idols”.  He agrees with the Corinthians’ knowledge:  “An idol is nothing” and “There is no God but one”.  However, pagans, by believing in idols, give them what we might call a “subjective reality”.  Some new converts to Christ do the same. But “there is but one God”.  He is “the Father”, the source of all things and the one “for whom we [believers] live”.  And “there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ”.  All things came into existence through him and we believers have new life through him.

Thus Paul affirms God’s uniqueness and the “nothingness” of idols, though many believe they are “gods” and “lords”.  This isn’t just a profound theological statement; it’s the ground for ethical behavior.  God is our Creator.  Jesus is our Redeemer.  Thus he (God the Father and God the Son)—what he is like—must govern our conduct.

LOVE

But not everyone possesses this knowledge. Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled. But food does not bring us near to God; we are no worse if we do not eat, and no better if we do. Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols?  So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.  When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.  Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall (1 Corinthians 8:7-13).

Some among them haven’t yet outgrown their old pagan ideas.  They haven’t come to really know that an idol is nothing.  To them “idol food”  has been “sacrificed to a god”.

Their inner moral sense of right and wrong is “weak”; that is, they haven’t fully grasped that idols are nothing.  Therefore, when those who “have knowledge” eat idol food, it encourages the “weak” to eat—and thus by eating they believe they are worshiping “another god” and defiling their relationship with Christ.

Paul agrees food holds no spiritual significance. He warns them, however, not to demand their rights and become a “block” weaker believers stumble over.  If they do, they will allow their knowledge to destroy a brother or sister “for whom Christ died”.  Thus this is “sin against Christ”.

Paul sets himself out as the model to follow.  “ . . . if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into (what is to him or her) sin, I will never eat meat again . . . “

* * *

Application is obvious:  if my brother believes it a sin for him to drink wine, or if he’s a Muslim convert to Christ who believes eating pork is a sin, I mustn’t lead him into “sin” by drinking wine or eating pork (at least in his presence).

A broader application.  We presume what we do affects only us.

For example, how often do we think, “If I skip Worship today, how might that affect other worshipers? If they see me missing again, what message do I send them about seeking God’s presence in worship?”  I have the “right” to skip Worship again.  But am I acting in love?

A personal example.  The Corinthians’ had knowledge others didn’t.  They knew an idol was nothing.  And their knowledge led to arrogance (8:1-3). These days my illness has challenged my faith.  I think of young preachers exuding confidence they can handle whatever hits.  I say to myself, “Wait ‘til your aging body won’t work.  Let’s see how full of bubbly faith you are then.”  My knowledge produces arrogance; I’m not loving my brother.

In the Christian community, we don’t live to ourselves.  We mustn’t presume what we do is our private “right.”  My behavior affects you.  That’s why I must do what builds you up in Christ.

Sounds like a title for a sex-saturated Hollywood comedy.  Actually, it’s the last group the apostle Paul addresses in 1 Corinthians 7.

He’s writing in response to matters about which they wrote him (7:1).  So far he’s addressed marrieds (7:1-7), unmarrieds (7:8-11), and believer-unbeliever marrieds (7:12-16).  He’s written about circumcision and slavery (7:17-24).  One theme runs throughout:  serve the Lord in whatever condition you find yourself, fulfilling the responsibilities of your position.

This issue arose because the Corinthians believed that, having been gifted by the Holy Spirit, they should abstain from all forms of bodily indulgence.  (Right.  These are the same guys who argued that what they did with their bodies was of no spiritual consequence!)

Even though it’s long, I want to finish the remainder of the chapter.  So we’ll plow through reading the whole chunk, then I’ll comment.

Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.  Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.  But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.  What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not;  those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep;  those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord.  But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.  I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married.  But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing.  So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.  In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is—and I think that I too have the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 7:25-40).

“Virgins” (7:25), distinct from the unmarried and singles, are probably betrothed (“engaged”) women and men.  Should they marry or abstain?

The question arises because “ . . . this world in its present form is passing away” (7:31), “the time is short” (7:29) and there is “a present crisis” (7:26).  These eschatological realities inform Paul’s counsel throughout the entire chapter.

What’s the “present crisis”?  Paul is thinking eschatologically, referring to distress associated with this present age’s end and Christ’s Second Coming.  Likely, however, there is a specific eschatological distress they know about, but we don’t.

In what way is “the time . . . short”?  The Greek sustello can be translated “near the end.”  Paul may mean that Christ’s first coming “set in motion” the age to come, so now we’re “near the end”.  Therefore, we see that “this world in its present form is passing away”.  And this future should motivate us to live accordingly in this present age.

Paul offers his “trustworthy” opinion (7:25) and thinks that “I too have the Spirit of God.”  Thus, his “opinion” counts.

He opines:  in whatever state you are, stay.  But, “if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.”  Why does he say that?  Because the Corinthians think their spirituality demands celibacy.  Paul insists single, engaged, married or not are all irrelevant as far as one’s spirituality is concerned.

However, due to the present crisis, a married man may have more “trouble.”  His interests are divided between pleasing the Lord and pleasing his wife.  “So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better” (7:38).

A brief comment on 7:29b-31—“From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep;  those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.”

Obviously, Paul doesn’t mean literally.  The interpretation-key is the last sentence.  Because the world is passing away, husbands shouldn’t live as if they couldn’t live without their wives (no marriage in heaven).  Don’t mourn as if what you treasure is forever lost and don’t ground your happiness in this world’s things (treasures will be more than restored in heaven and this world’s form is passing away).  For the same reason, don’t overly-treasure this world’s things; use them, but don’t be absorbed by them.

* * *

What can we take away?  If we’re not virgins in a present crisis, not much it seems.  For me, though, two things.

First, I don’t think enough, or even correctly, about “the time is near the end” and “the form of this world is passing away.”  I’m more a man of my culture than of Christ.  I presume the sun will rise tomorrow as always.  End-of-the-world-talk is extremism.  But one morning the sun won’t rise.  Though my mind can’t conceive it, this world will end.  And Christ has already set the passing in motion.

Not only do I not think enough, I think “too small” about what’s coming.  In that, I’m a man of my culture too.  “Heaven” will be a “nice” ending to death.  Scripture knows no such idea.  The future that’s coming is really big.  It’s a new and perfect creation.  Bigger than Columbus discovering The New World.  Bigger than colonizing a new planet.

Second, I don’t live now in view of “the time is near the end” and “the form of this world is passing away.”  For example, I allow depression over my permanent and progressing disability to dominate me, when in the new creation I’ll run (and maybe dance).  How differently might you live?

While “about virgins” seems nearly irrelevant to us, it isn’t.  Dr. Gordon Fee writes, “Being eschatological people is to free us from the grip of the world and its values . . . “  It calls us to think and live radically as people who know our roots aren’t in this world and a mind-can’t-conceive future awaits us.

What identifies who we are?  What determines how we see ourselves?  Paul’s words to the Corinthian church answer those questions.

In 1 Corinthians 7:1-16 Paul urged the Corinthian Christians to remain as they were–married, widowed, single, etc.  Here he applies that exhortation to circumcision and slavery.  First, he enunciates . . .

THE PRINCIPLE (7:17)

Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them.  This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

“Nevertheless” refers back to the one situation in which they shouldn’t remain as they were:  “ . . . if the unbelieving partner leaves, let it be so” (7:15).  Despite that exception, Paul writes, a believer should stay in the same social situation he was when converted.

Why?  The Corinthians thought their social status (married, celebate,7:1-16) held religious significance.  For example, being moved to a “higher plane” by the Spirit, they should strive to be celebate in marriage or, if a widow, they should remarry.

Paul tells them that Christ’s call transcends social status. It’s irrelevant.  It has no spiritual significance. The Gospel eclipses social standing.  Therefore, they shouldn’t seek to change it.  They should see marriage to a believer or pagan as the proper place God “assigned” them to live out their Christian lives. Now Paul applies that to . . .

THE CIRCUMCISED (7:18-20)

Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

A circumcised man couldn’t “become uncircumcised”.  But Paul is making an earthshaking point:  “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.”  Neither makes a difference to God when a man is “in Christ”.

Paul, then, repeats the principle:  “Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.”  There’s no need to change, because the believer is “in Christ”.

What matters is “keeping God’s commands”.  The Corinthians, particularly, need to hear this, because they considered themselves “spiritual” to the point where bodily sin doesn’t matter.

Paul, however, doesn’t mean “keeping God’s commands” as works of the law. Rather, obedience is the proper response to God’s grace in Christ.  One keeps God’s commands, not to become a Christian, but because God in Christ by the Spirit has made one a Christian.

This brings Paul to his second social situation . ..

THE SLAVE (7:21-24).

Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave.  You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of human beings.  Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.

To the slave-called-to Christ, Paul doesn’t counsel, “Stay as you are.”  In fact, he says, “ . . . if you can gain your freedom, do so.”  But his counsel is,  “Don’t let it trouble you”.  “Don’t let it be a concern to you.”

Why? “For the one called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person”.  He may remain a slave socially, but spiritually he is freed from his sins to know Christ.

In the same way, “the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave.”  His calling to Christ results in his belonging to Christ.  He no longer belongs to himself.

“You were bought at a price do not become slaves of human beings.”  In other words, the cross purchased you to belong to Christ.  Don’t allow a human way of thinking (I have to improve my social status) to enslave you.

“As responsible to God” is literally “with God”.  Paul’s sense seems to be that one–slave or free—is “responsible to God”, not to the mores of social status.  Slavery or freedman is irrelevant.

YOU AND ME.

To the Corinthians spiritual identity required certain social identity.  I’m approaching “identity” differently. What identifies who I am?  What determines how I see myself?

In 1989 we moved to Florida.  I thought I needed a “sabbatical” from pastoring, so I bought (believe it or not) a small carpet-cleaning company.  I remember complaining to my wife, Lois, “I don’t know who I am.”  My identity was “pastor.”  When I temporarily stepped away, I didn’t know who I was.

Then, three years ago I retired.  Again my identity changed.  No longer “pastor”, I became an old wheel chair-bound curmudgeon.  As a pastor, I was needed and respected.  People looked to me to interpret God’s Word.  Who needs an old curmudgeon?  I’ve become less important, less needed.  So who am I?

Incredibly, it took me a couple years to realize my identity never changed.  Whether pastor or curmudgeon, my identity has always been a man in Christ.  I’m a blood-bought sinner, joined to Christ, indwelt by his Spirit.  Sure, I’m a husband, father, grandfather and blogger (!).  But what identifies me, what determines how I see myself, is Christ himself.  I’m his.

How about you?