Surrendering for the Sake of Others

Bible Passage: 1 Corinthians 9:1-22

As you turn to our passage this morning, you may recall we began to examine this topic of Christian Freedom last week. We closed with an fascinating declaration from the Apostle Paul saying if it meant a brother would not stumble, he himself would never eat meat again. We continue to develop our understanding of navigating our freedom responsibly and today we are going to be reminded how true Christian freedom often means surrendering personal rights for the greater good of others and the mission of the church.

Join me now as we read verse 1-22 of chapter 9. These are the words of the Living God:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2 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.

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4 Do we not have the right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop. 11 If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 12 If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. 13 Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14 In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing these things to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of my ground for boasting. 16 For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but if not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship. 18 What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.

19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

May God Bless the Reading of His Word

Let us Pray

Now here in the 9th chapter we truly begin to see the example of Apostle Paul who would in non-essential matters such as comfort, preference, and style would prioritized the gospel over his own rights. He would joyfully and willingly surrender certain personal freedoms for the benefit of others, for the sake of the mission, and the need to become all things to all people.

Last we began to see some of the limits of Christian liberty, and this week looks closer at Paul’s approach which mirrors Christ’s humility and sacrificial love.

In fact, when studying this message, I couldn’t help but notice that everything about Paul’s approach to liberty is a perfect example of what he says in chapter 11, “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”

What verse 13 one chapter back set us up to see is how this approach to freedom is a settled principle in Paul’s life. His example to the church is following the example of Christ, whose life was defined by humility and service. “The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.”

Our lives as we navigate liberty should imitate Christ’s life of humility and sacrifice, and that’s exactly what Paul displays.

One thing we continue to glean from this text is as Paul writes in Romans 15:1-3:

We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For Christ did not please himself, but as it is written, “The reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me.”

There are times for Christian to pick-up that weight, bear an obligation, not simply tolerating a weaker brother, but a way to shoulder their burdens by loving them and showing practical consideration.

The stronger saint does so as to build up and edify the weaker brother. To help them become strong. It’s exercised in a way that shows sensitivity to others in the church, but we are sensitive in a way where we do not become a slave of another's conscience.

Reformer John Calvin puts the point well when he says:

that we restrain the exercise of our freedom for the sake of weak believers, but not when we are faced with Pharisees who demand that we conform to what is unscriptural. Where the gospel is at stake, liberty needs to be exercised; where the stability of a weak Christian is at stake, we need to restrain it.

But there’s that need again, a need for balance. A balance to know when this demand is legalistic and when to know liberty needs to be exercised.

So we look at the 9th chapter and Paul gives us several more considerations.

He begins by calling upon the Corinthians to let go of their “right” to eat meat sacrificed to idols, even as he has let go his own rights as an apostle.

Christians never want to compromise the truth, but sometimes the things we let get in the way of us reaching people with the the Gospel is nothing more than our preferences, our styles, and our silly traditions. Some of the the very things that causes division, discord, and disunity are the very same.

Yet, the church should be marked by a group of saints who are willing to make themselves uncomfortable for the sake of others. We look at Paul and he is an apostle.

He asked them: am I not an apostle? This was really a rhetorical question, of course he was, even if some doubted it did not change this reality.

In fact, the Corinthian churches existence was evidence of his apostolic authenticity.

As an Apostle he was free, and he wasn’t under anyone’s authority except Christ. As an apostle, like the other 12, he had a divinely granted power and responsibility given to him by Christ. He had unique authority to teach, command, and write in Jesus name.

Unlike the Corinthians, unlike their leaders and elder, he had authority over other Christians, and they were few groups of people who should have understood this more than the Corinthian saints who had seen his work personally.

Paul could issue apostolic commands, in fact, you look at some letters such as his letter to Philemon and he would be willing to lay the right down. Driven by love for brother Philemon, Paul appealed to him to act in love and did not command him to free Onesimus because he wanted to be sure that Philemon’s motives would please the Lord.

Yet, Paul had a freedom that other Christians did not have and there in verse 3 makes a defense, asserting his right, challenging anyone who would examine him. Like a defense attorney he uses two legal terms apologia, which means defense, and anakrino, which means examine.

Paul in a ways feels on trial before these Corinthians, who have failed to examine him, they failed to investigate before rendering a decision. So he sets out over the next three verses defending his rights as an apostle.

First, he calls upon his right to eat and drink, what is mean here isn’t that Paul had the right to eat or drink, but the question for the Corinthians was does he have the right to eat or drink at the expense of the churches he served?

The answer to this is of course yes: it’s implied here, but emphasized in 1 Timothy 5:17–18: Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.”

He shows here that one who labors in word and doctrine is worthy of financial support. Many people seem to debate this, and there are some who think the church should not support their pastor financially, some who would call paid ministry an abomination, but that argument goes against the clear teaching scripture.

A lot of people make this argument and contend such money should be used to go to the poor, but you look at Paul’s words and he says the poor, widows, and needy are worthy of honor, which in this context speaks of financial support, but building off that in 1 Timothy he says those who faithfully ministry the church are worthy of double one.

One theologian paraphrased Paul’s idea saying: “What I have been saying about the support of widows reminds me of another question of Church finance: the payment of presbyters. Equity and scriptural principles suggest that they should be remunerated in proportion to their usefulness.”

The laborer deserves his wage, and should be fairly compensated for their effort, like any job well done there should be fair compensation.

Secondly, he was entitled to be married. He was entitled not only to marry a believing wife, but also to bring her along in his missionary endeavors. So building on this previous point, not only would it be within his right to expect support from himself, but for his family, also had the apostle had one.

This was the case with most of the apostles, Paul seems to allude to the fact the most, if not all of these other Apostles were married. They had believing wives, and those wives traveled with them. There is no doubt Peter we are told in Mark 1:29-31 he was married in fact Jesus heals his mother-in-law. Likewise, Paul re-affirms this here, likely not to make a major statement, but because of the Corinthians familiarity with Peter. Simply to say, Cephas who you know is married, and compensate this is his right.

Yet, interestingly enough it becomes a statement because the Church of Rome who like to point to Peter as the “first pope” find their teaching on mandatory celibacy greatly contradicted here.

Of the Apostles, it seems perhaps the only to remain unmarried and celibate was Paul. That’s even a debatable point as it seems that Paul implies in chapter 7 he’s a widow.

What Paul’s status was doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things, because as he show us in that chapter there is no expectation all believers remain single, marriage and singleness done to God’s glory are gifts from God. What one choses is a matter of choice.

Paul found great benefit remaining unmarried. He found himself free from certain concerns to set himself apart exclusively for the LORD’s work.

Yet, for the sake of the mission God gave to him, and for the advancement of the Gospel Paul often laid this right aside.

He shows both and Barnabas had ever right to receive support. He had every right to be married.

They willfully chose, they were not obligated, it was not a necessity, they voluntarily went with out support at time. It was their personal conviction.

Paul often is what we would call co-vocational. Not to be confuse with what we often hear today bi-vocational. The difference between the two is co-vocational is completely voluntary, bi-vocational that usually isn’t the case.

Paul was also entitled to financial support, but chose to work voluntarily as a tentmaker to build the church and advance the Gospel.

He continues to highlight this point in the next few verses asking now:

Who ever goes to war at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? Do I say these things as a mere man? Or does not the law say the same also?

In any army, the soldier is supported. A farmer is able to eat the food he labors for. In fact, Paul writes Timothy saying in 2 Timothy 2:6 (ESV): “It is the hard-working farmer who ought to have the first share of the crops.” He goes on then to say: A shepherd is supported by the sheep he cares for. It should not seem strange them that Paul has this right.

Yet, Paul is not stating opinion here, this is stated in the Mosaic law. The scripture says theses thing. He points them to Deuteronomy 25:4 which spoke to the ethical treatment of a working animal.

Paul’s argument argues from the greater to the lesser. It would be cruel to force an ox to walk over all that grain and then muzzle him to he couldn't eat. How much truer is that application here?

Warren Wiersbe points out: “Since oxen cannot read, this verse was not written for them.”

God established a greater principle with this verse. Paul shows us it would be cruel to starve those providing and preparing your food. To do so would deprive them of hope and to make them feel abuse.

He then says in verse 11: “ If we have sown spiritual things” showing the Corinthians those who do spiritual work should be repaid with the material support of the people they minister to.

Yet, it’s interesting because Paul shows that the Corinthians had no issue supporting others in their ministry, look at verse 12, others had this right, other share this authority.

One of Paul and Barnabas’ concern was the rise of false teachers in the early church. False teachers sought money, and they did not want to be grouped with such. The Corinthians seemed to take offense to this. Instead of respecting them more, the respected them less.

Paul shows just as it is my right to receive this, it’s also my right no to receive this as well. His concern is not hindering the Gospel.

Paul wasn’t concerned about being paid or not being paid. It was the work of the Gospel.

So look how Paul’s liberty plays our here, because it was better for the Gospel in this specific context, he did not receive support. He’s showing the Corinthians, this is why we do not take payment, it’s not to offend you, it’s not because we’re frauds, but so the Gospel is not hindered here.

Those who preach the Gospel should live from the Gospel. Paul did not write this to make the Corinthians feel obligated to support him, rather, this was to help them understand the value and the reasons why one would give up their rights.

The reasons are two-fold. There are two questions when it comes to why would a Christian lay aside their right:

One, does it advance the Gospel best in this community?

Number 2, does this serve the church best?

Whether a gospel minister assert this right or releases it should be based on whichever will serve the gospel and the church better. Whatever way he choses doesn’t change the fact he should work hard to earn his wage.

But this is a voluntary exercise of freedom and because in Corinth this served the gospel and the church in this city better he surrenders these rights freely.

Which brings us back to the question of idol meats and really any other matter of Christian liberty. If Paul was willing to deny himself such an important right for the good of the gospel and the saints in Corinth; then shouldn’t they deny their “right” to eat meat sacrificed to idols for the same good?

There’s the value in doing this. The Gospel advances and the church is edified.

We lay aside our liberty not to limit ourselves, but because we want to see the church built up and the Gospel to reach the ends of the earth.

And I think that should really cause us to think a bit deeper about this matter.

A few years ago I heard JD Greear ask this: "Do we care more about sowing division on secondary issues than we do pointing people to Jesus. Do we care more about preserving our traditions than we do reaching our grandchildren?"

One thing that flows from our passage is the reality that at some point we need to consider how willing are we to put up with things we don’t like in church for the sake of reaching others? To put up with music, styles, or topics that may not be our favorite but that help us reach someone else?

Look to Paul’s argument now in verse 19-23, it’s a passional call to evangelism, to be fishers of men, to reach the lost. To be willing to do what it takes to reach them.

It’s a call to remove stumbling blocks, to take away the background noise so to speak, to remove any distractions, that would stand in the way of someone hearing the Gospel.

This is not a call to compromise or accommodation. This is not a call to water down the gospel or sugar coat the truth. This is a statement Paul makes and he sacrifices no integrity.

This is really a picture of Paul’s flexibility in ministry and his willingness to use his freedom for the service of others.

He is free, he enjoyed his liberty, but bringing people to Jesus Christ was more important to him than using his freedom selfishly. Which is why he said: For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more.

He says he became 'all things to all people.' He did this to save some through the gospel. To see that the gospel reach everyone as it should because everyone needs it. Everyone needs this news.

So if there was something he could do to remove that “background noise” he willingly would forgo his liberty. He says he willingly became a “slave” to self-support so that he could remove the offense and reach more people for Christ.

So he says: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.”

So within the limits of God’s Word and the conscience, when in the presence of Jews he would be socially and culturally a Jew. The same thing was true for for the Gentiles, to the Gentiles he behaved himself as if he himself had been a Gentile.”

He sought to be sensitive to the needs of those around him, he sought to identify with them in ways that were not sinful or compromise. He shows us that we should reach people where they are.

This wasn’t Paul pretending to be something he was not. Some people have misconstrued this statement, but it’s a call to adapt to cultural norms, set aside preferences to remove obstacles that might hinder a relationship with someone.

In fact, we see example of what Paul does in Acts 21:23-26 where he participates in Jewish purification ceremonies. Paul had just returned from Gentile lands and was considered ceremonially unclean. One of the reasons Paul did this was there had become a perception that Paul preached against Jewish laws and customs for those Christians who wanted to observe them.

So what does Paul do because he knew were not necessary for his own life, but that by doing so it would help build a bridge of ministry to the Jewish people. It provided him an opportunity to show them that their ceremonies were in effect useless useless but not destructive. Paul goes along because they were not dangerous, they were not required of the gentiles. It showed they were only dangerous when they depended on them for salvation.

So what Paul does here was exactly what he says in verse 20: he rebuilt his relationship with the Jewish brethren all while remaining free of compromise.

It’s understanding what is an is not sin and when opportunities arise to show cultural sensitivity without compromise it becomes a way to become all thing to all people.

Like a tourist participating in a local custom to fit in and show respect. By showing respect for those we try to reach and the culture opens doors for conversations about faith. Paul’s actions remind us that sometimes, adapting to others can create opportunities for ministry.

Imagine if you were in South Korea and were invited over to someone’s home and have an opportunity to share the Gospel. Yet, you know before entering that home one of their customs is to remove your shoes before entering.

While it may not be your practice, it’s an appropriate way to show respect and adapting to a practice all while avoiding compromise.

Small actions like this are simple ways we can lay down our liberty to better connect with people. Doing something rather small like removes potential stumbling blocks that might hinder this relationship.

Paul’s call here to sacrifice our own comforts to meet others in their contexts, for the advancement of Christ’s kingdom.

Which might look like putting on camo and sitting in a tree stand. Where as in other places it may look like putting a Styrofoam cheese block on your head and yelling “Go Pack Go!”

But this idea here has it limits. So many people have called for contextualization. Yet do not hold to the balance that Paul has here.

What Paul is calling for is for us to balance our zeal to see the lost come to faith with a zeal for the law of Christ and the moral law of God.

We might contextualize a cultural boundary, but we never contextualize the Gospel or compromise the truth.

Many will see all things to all people, but miss his controlling principle in verse 21: “outside the law of God but under the law of Christ.”

We must never, ever, violate the law of Christ.

As John Calvin comments, “It was only in things indifferent, that are otherwise in our choice, that [Paul] accommodated himself to the weak.”

Nothing Paul did in becoming all things to all people broke the law of Christ.

Calvin continued by saying: it is a great error not to distinguish between things indifferent and things unlawful.

It’s one thing to surrender our freedom and wisely adopt some of the practices of the culture. But never in in matters of evil.

Yet, the only way we can do this is to know God’s Word and have a thorough understanding of the law of Christ, the eternal moral law of God.

Never is Paul’s statement here license to to live worldly lives, assuming that unrepentant sinners will be impressed and want to come to Christ. Rather Paul knew how to behave and act among the culture he was surrounded by.

So what are some things we can do no matter where we are?

As we begin to close this morning may I suggest three thing was can do to be all things to all people no matter where we are:

Listen. When you’re evangelizing yes we want people to hear about Jesus, but sometimes there is immense value in spending time and listening to a person to understand their values, their story, and their belief. It helps you learn things about them, their culture, basic greeting, family traditions, and it goes along way to build a genuine relationship. It’s a basic fact of life that people are more willing to listen if they feel like they have been given that courtesy. A listen first approach shows we care about that person and we’re not just viewing them as a convert we can tally up.

Be Respectful. You’re representing Jesus. You’re representing Jesus online, in the workplace, after getting cut off going down the highway. You’re representing him wherever you go, we must maintain that. In challenging conversations it can be tempting to get in the last word. Say our piece and think won, but in reality all we did was lose the battle, create a stumbling block and lost that person’s respect. Think of James 1:19–20 “be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.”

Don’t be afraid to step a bit of out your comfort zone and strive to be the “salt and light” where your are.

Maintain your integrity.

Be Sensitive to the culture. Before you can really engage with a group you need to understand particulars. This might seem like something that is only applicable in a foreign context, but it’s true even when you leave your own city. Consider where we are New York City has a vastly different culture than us in the central part of the state. You go do a different burrow in the city alone and there’s a different culture. Yet, American culture is rapidly changing, and in many places what were places where Judeo-Christian principles were assume they are no longer accepted or even understood. Be sensitive to the culture, know the audience, and know that none of this means we approve everything about the culture. Rather its going back to principle number 1, listening, seeing where they are spiritually, so that we can reach them with them with the truth.

Paul is showing us ultimately, the only offense we give to them is the message of the Cross. We don’t need to add to offense, rather learn to follow Paul’s example and become all things to all people by humbling ourselves, letting go of our perceived “rights,” meet people where they are, and do what Jesus calls us to do.

Let us Pray