Paul’s Rights as an Evangelist

 In 1 Corinthians 8, Paul said idol meat ought not to be eaten if it served as a stumblingblock (occasion to sin) for others. Denying oneself that right ought to be practiced rather than allowing the use of that freedom to cause someone to sin. This is exactly what Paul practiced in regard to eating meat.

 The extent to which Paul was willing to go in the application of this principle of self-denial is illustrated in chapter 9. Paul first establishes that he has a right to receive financial support from the brethren among whom he labored, vss. 1-14, and then says in vss. 15-27 that he had not used this right with the Corinthians lest his work among them be hindered. It is in Paul’s explanation of his “rights” that he says things about the support of evangelists which are of interest to us now and that ought to challenge the thinking and careful study of those who are serious about serving God.

The first four questions, vss. 1-2

 1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

 Because of Paul’s repeated references in these verses to his being an apostle there were evidently some questions among the Corinthians about the validity of his claim, probably due to the fact that his wages had come from other churches while he labored among them, 2 Corinthians 11:8-9. Paul’s four rhetorical questions, all of which these brethren knew had to be answered in the affirmative, were intended to cause them to think. Paul was a free man with the liberty to act as he desired. He was an apostle, had seen the Lord, and these brethren were his work in the Lord. The statement in vs. 2 indicates that Paul knew the Corinthians were well aware of the truthfulness of these things. He had both the right to receive wages and the right “not to use to the full my right in the gospel.” To exercise his privileges in regard to these matters did not make him any less of an apostle.

The rights of an evangelist, vss. 3-6

 3 My defence to them that examine me is this. 4 Have we no right to eat and to drink? 5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working?

 Preachers wanting to find out and teach about their wages need look no further than this passage for the necessary information. Some in Corinth wanted to examine Paul regarding his not accepting support. He responds with a defense which consists of a series of questions. These questions were not designed by Paul to establish his rights to do or engage in any type of these activities, but were intended rather to establish his right to receive wages from brethren while he did these things or in order that he might do them.

1-The right to “eat and drink”---The phrase “eat and drink” is used in various ways in the New Testament. It refers to a normal diet (Matt. 6:25; 11:19; Mk. 2:16; Lk. 5:30); a limited diet (Matt. 11:18; Lk. 7:33; Matt. 3:4); or contrasted with fasting (Lk. 5:33). A full determination of what is involved in “eating and drinking” will become clearer as we study the context, but this much is obvious: Paul affirms his right to be supported in order that he might make adequate provision for the normal “eating and drinking” needs that he had.

 2-The right to “lead about a wife”---Does this mean to have a wife or be married? All the other passages where the word periago occurs (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 23:15; Mk. 6:6; Acts 13:11) are references to travel. Paul is claiming the right of having a wife as a traveling companion and receiving wages from brethren in order that he might do so.

 3-The right to “forbear working”---Paul had worked as a tentmaker along with Priscilla and Acquila while in Corinth, Acts 18:2-3. But here he affirms the right to receive a wage from brethren so that he might cease such activity in order to give himself totally to his work as an apostle and evangelist.

Summary

A number of conclusions can be drawn and lessons learned from a study of these first six verses.

 1-Evangelists should not hesitate to teach and defend what is contained in these verses as it is needed. Paul didn’t. Brethren who fail to properly support preachers are in just a precarious a position spiritually as those who fail in their God-given duties in other areas. Malachi accused the people of robbing God for not bringing the tithes and offering (Mal. 3:8-9) which, as we shall see as our study progresses, were designed to be used in the support of the priests and Levites. Thus, regardless of the charges of being self-serving, greedy, materialistic, etc., preachers will be held accountable for failing to teach brethren to do what God expects of them in this area of responsibility, as surely as they will be for failure to teach on other needed subjects. Nehemiah rebuked the officials in his day who had sat back and not seen to it that the portion due the priests and Levites was given to them. As a result of that failure many had gone back to their own fields, Neh. 13:10-14. Let us make sure that brethren understand that our motive in teaching is that of Paul: “Ye think all this time that we are excusing ourselves unto you. In the sight of God speak we in Christ. But all things, beloved, are for your edifying,” 2 Cor, 12:19.

 2-These are a preacher’s rights in regard to financial support. He is not a parasite and should not be made to feel as though he were one as he refrains from the types of labor that others engage in and accepts wages from brethren to do the work of an evangelist.

 3-Providing for the expenses of a preacher’s wife is a legitimate consideration. Brethren who either question or begrudge the practice of providing an evangelist “traveling expenses” (especially when he has his wife with him) would do well to consider what Paul says here.

4-Preachers have the right to not “work” and be provided with a wage while they do so. What preacher hasn’t heard the jokes (?) about the fact that they don’t work? Let such who are serious about such remarks take notice that Paul not only says the evangelist has a right not to “work” but also has the right to have the brethren provide him with a generous wage while he refrains from working.

1 Corinthians 9:7-14

Paul has asserted his rights to receive financial support from the brethren among whom he labored, vss. 1-6. But he was not content to merely assert what he had a right to receive. He now very carefully establishes the basis upon which he had those rights with a series of arguments that progresses from the least to the greatest in importance in order to show that men pay wages to and make physical provisions for other men because of the work they do.

The manner of men, vss. 7-8

7 What soldier ever serveth at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same?

 1-The soldier---No soldier undertakes his tasks without being provided a “wage”. The word “charges” in the ASV is opsonion and occurs elsewhere onlyh inLk. 3:14; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 11:8. Moulton and Milligan in The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament, p. 471, observe that this word meant “provision,” then ‘ay or ration money, andfinally came to be applied to wages or salary in general. It is in this sense that this word is used in our test. As can be seen in other places, Paul used his wages for his “wants” (2 Cor. 11:9) and “needs” (Phil. 4:16). “Wants” is husterema and refers to “poverety, want, destitution,” Thayer, p. 646. “Needs” is chreia and means “the condition of one deprived  of those things which he is scarcely able to do without,” Thayer, p. 671. Thus Paul’s argument is that even the military personnel of his day were provided with the very thing he had a right to have: a regular wage that would enable him to provide for the things in life that he needed.

 2-The husbandman—Those who plant vineyards live off the fruit they have labored to produce (Deut. 20:6; Prov. 27:18).

 3-The shepherd---One who tends sheep is provided  with his sustenance from themilk of the flock that he works to care for.

 While these arguments are good and strong ones, Paul now progresses to what can be seen in God’s revelation.

The law of Moses, vss. 9-13

9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God careth, 10 or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, (to thresh) in hope of partaking. 11 If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others partake of (this) right over you, do not we yet more? Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 13 Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat (of) the things of the temple, (and) they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar?

 Paul uses two illustrations from the law to make his point:

 1-The ox---The law said (Deut. 25:4) oxen were not to be muzzled when treading corn. But this was not written for oxen because, as Martin Luther said, oxen can’t read. It was written for “our” sake, referring to Paul and those like him who preached the gospel. And why was it thus written? So that those who plow and thresh (evangelists) might do so in hope of “partaking” (Greek koinoneo: to have a share of, to share with, take part in…” Vine, vol. 3, p. 162. Paul therefore thought that it should not be such a “big deal” for evangelists to reap the carnal things of those among whom they had sown spiritual things.

 2-The priests and Levites---Those who ministered about sacred things and waited upon the altar ate of the things of the temple and had their portion with the altar. To what extent and how well were these individuals provided for? The answer to this question is extremely important because of the statement in the next verse and the one who made it.

The Lord, vs. 14

14 Even so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel.  

Paul’s final and greatest argument is based upon the word of the Lord himself. There are three words in this verse that need to be defined and understood:

1-Even so (Grk. houto): “By virtue of its native demonstrative force it refers to what precedes; in the manner spoken of; in the way described; in the way it was done, in such a manner; thus; so,” Thayer, p. 468.

 2-Ordain (Grk. diatasso): “order, direct, command,” Arndt and Gingrich, p. 188.

 3-Live (Grk. zao): “the maintenance of physical life,” Vine, vol. 2, p. 348

 Those who benefit from the spiritual work done by evangelists are to provide them with wages that are sufficient for the maintenance of physical life, so that they don’t have to labor in other areas. This is what the Lord has ordered and commanded that we do. And, He directed that it be done in the way it was done with the priests and Levites under the old law. In order to appreciate the comparison between the financial support of God’s servants today and those under the Levitical system we must answer the question raised above: To what extent and how well were these individuals provided for? In order to answer that question we must go back to the old law and investigate the manner in which God intended the priests and Levites to be supported. This we will do in the next portion of our study.

 Conclusion

What can we learn from our study of this section?

 1-It should be no “great matter” with brethren if evangelists who sow unto them spiritual things should reap their carnal things. Too often preachers are put in the position of going “hat in hand” to brethren to ask for a modest wage or an increase in their existing wages. This is bad enough. But to be met with reactions of reluctance, unconcern, and begrudging violates the very spirit of the text we are studying. It is no wonder that many evangelists over the years have “gone away, each to his own field” like those in Nehemiah’s day.

 2-This right of evangelists to be provided with wages from brethren is a God-given one as the appeal to the law, vs. 9, and to what the Lord ordained, vs. 14, clearly shows. It is highly presumptuous for brethren to suggest that this arrangement is no longer workable and another system is needed. This is not “our” system or “church of Christ tradition” any more than weekly assemblies on the Lord’s Day are. God ordained both and those who think they’ve discovered a better way of doing it would do well to go back and carefully read 1 Samuel 15.

 3-All preachers have a right to receive a fair and adequate wages that enables them to provide for life’s necessities. To provide them with anything less is to deprive them of less than they have a right to have and less than what God wants them to have. To provide them with anything more is to give them more than they have a right to expect and more than God has authorized. Brethren who carelessly or knowingly keep the preacher’s wages so low that he has difficulty providing even the basic needs of life, and has to scrounge to pay his bills and make adequate, prudent provision for his family and their current and future needs, would do well to examine closely the development of Paul’s argument in the rest of the context and to give more careful, serious attention to this matter.