The Extent of Self-Denial

1 Corinthians 9:8–14 AV

Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

In last week’s message, we saw that it’s sometimes necessary to put our rights on hold for the sanctification and edification of other believers. This is what the Bible calls self-denial. It’s something that the apostle Paul practiced. He even used himself as an example for the Corinthians to imitate.

But how far should we take this? Of course, a little inconvenience is not a problem. None of us, I trust, would entice a brother who conscientiously objects to eating meat offered to idols to eat a steak that had been sacrificed to Poseidon. We might even be willing not to eat the steak in his presence, since doing so might be construed as an enticement or, at the very least, an unnecessary flaunting of our liberty. But we can always eat our steak some other time, right? So, giving it up temporarily is not that big of a deal.

Now, suppose that the inconvenience demands a lot more than denying ourselves a one-time pleasure. Let’s say it comes with a huge price tag. Would we still be willing to suffer that inconvenience for the sake of our brother?

That’s what the apostle Paul did. In the last verse of chapter 8 he wrote, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. He didn’t say that he would refrain only from meat that had been sacrificed to an idol. He said that he wouldn’t eat any meat at all for the rest of his life, if that were what the situation required. Now, maybe he deliberately overstated his case to make a point, like Jesus did when he told his followers that they had to hate their fathers and mothers, or maybe he didn’t. In either case, he was telling us that we sometimes have to be extreme in our self-denial for the sake of our brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Interestingly, though, Paul’s willingness to give up all meat was still only a minor inconvenience compared to what he says in this evening’s text. So, let’s see just how far the great apostle to the Gentiles was willing to go.

The Testimony of God’s Word

The first thing Paul wrote in this evening’s passage is that the right that he has set aside is not just an observation (like “people who take care of themselves generally live longer”) or a preference (like “I would rather be paid for preaching so that I don’t have to be distracted by outside employment”). No, the right to be paid for one’s work, just like all other rights that we value, comes from the Word of God. Paul wrote, Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?

He was referring specifically to the three examples of how people derive their living from what they do that he had mentioned in verse 7: soldiers, viticulturists and shepherds. These examples were not random. They come from the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 20:6 teaches that growers of vines should eat their grapes. In fact, it goes far beyond that. It says that a man who has planted a vineyard and not eaten of it should be excused from military serviced until he has eaten of it. Moses wrote, And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it. A few verses later, the Word speaks to soldiers, who also derive their living from warfare. Speaking to soldiers the Lord says, But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. (v. 14; see also vv. 19–20).

In these passages, the right to profit from one’s labors is clearly established. There is no suggestion that we should work according to ability and receive according to need. Rather, the principle for able-bodied people is that we receive according to our labor. Someone who manages a multimillion dollar company will no doubt have greater responsibilities than someone who runs a newspaper stand, and therefore each should be rewarded according to his individual level of responsibility. One’s economic value is much greater than the other’s.

Although Paul established his point from Scripture, he wasn’t willing to leave things there. In verse 9 he quoted a very specific verse from the Old Testament to make his case. The verse is Deuteronomy 25:4, which says, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. This refers to the practice in ancient Israel of farmers having oxen drag large stones over the threshing floor to crush the hulls of the grain to release the seeds. When an ox was engaged in this very difficult work, it was allowed to eat as much as of the grain from off the threshing floor as it pleased. Clearly, the Lord expected his people to be kind to their animals.

Several other passages also teach the same thing. Proverbs 12:10 says, A righteous man regarded the life of his beast. Proverbs 27:23 adds, Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds. People who have animals must inconvenience themselves at times to care for them.

A few months ago I read somewhere the average cost for owning a dog, including the food he eats, vet bills, medication, license fees, etc., is about three thousand dollars. Then, of course, there’s also the inconvenience of daily care. So, when a person considers bringing a dog into his home, he has to ask himself if he’s willing to inconvenience himself that much. Do the benefits of having a dog outweigh the costs of ownership?

At this point, Calvin raised an interesting question. He wondered why Paul didn’t choose a clearer example to make his point. Deuteronomy 24:15, for example, requires employers to pay their impoverished workers daily so that they wouldn’t have to borrow money just to survive until payday. Doesn’t that speak more directly to a man’s right to be paid? But Calvin explained that it really doesn’t work that way. By arguing from the lesser (oxen) to the greater (man), Paul destroyed anyone’s hope of excusing inhumane behavior towards another man. If God requires men to care for animals, which are nothing but brutes (not bearing God’s image or having the ability to reason), then he clearly demands that we show proper regard and care for our fellow man, especially those of the household of faith.

In this we must follow the example of God himself. If taken out of the greater context of Scripture, Paul’s question at the end of verse 9 — Doth God take care for oxen? — might be interpreted to mean that the Lord has no concern for animals at all. The laws about proper animal care were given only to give hope to men, so that those who plow and those who thresh out the grain might look forward to the fruit of their labors. Now, it is true that the laws regarding oxen are targeted specifically at man, but this does not imply that God has no regard for the life of animals.

What do the Scriptures say? Psalm 104:14 says, He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man: that he may bring forth food out of the earth. Psalm 147:9 adds, He giveth to the beast his food, and to the young ravens which cry. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus spoke in the same vein, adding also that God’s greater concern is his people. Jesus said, Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? (Matt. 6:26).

In following God’s example, we too must care for our animals. But also following God’s example, we must be all the more concerned to satisfy the needs of other men. Both require us to inconvenience ourselves. We must be willing to deny ourselves as needed.

Paul’s Inconvenience

By now Paul has stated his case so many times and in so many different ways that it’s pretty hard to miss it. Profit comes from labor. Oxen get their food from their work, and so do those who manage them. Even preachers of the gospel should be paid for preaching. And let’s not forget that Paul insists that this is a right. He used the same Greek word (ἐξουσία), which is usually translated authority, in verses 4, 5, 6 and twice in 12. This right is even given as a commandment in verse 14: Even so hath the Lord ordained [this word would be translated better as “ordered” or “commanded”] that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

But why? How does this fit into Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 9? In this way: the church gets far more out of this arrangement than the preacher does, regardless of his salary. Verse 11 says, If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

Suppose your car breaks down and you tow it to the mechanic. After diagnosing the problem, he tells you that it will cost you $3000 to repair it. You think to yourself: $3000 cuts a big hole in your checking account, but not having a car would be an even greater inconvenience. So, you tell the mechanic to do the work. This is an equitable trade for both of you. The mechanic makes money by doing what God has called him to do, and you get a working car. Everyone’s happy.

It doesn’t work that way with preaching, though. There’s never an equitable trade. The preacher, as an instrument of God’s grace, gives you everlasting life. He teaches you how to trust Jesus Christ alone. He prays with you and for you, sharing your joys and sorrows. And what do you give him in return? A little money? Even all the money in the world wouldn’t make this a fair trade. Jesus said, What shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matt. 16:26; Mark 8:37).

Even so, no preacher worth his salt preaches for the money. Most accept the money to provide for their families. There’s nothing wrong with that. According to verse 12, other preachers were exercising this right, perhaps even other apostles. But money should never be either the primary or the secondary motivation. Preachers preach because that’s what God called them to do. They declare his glory and pray that he will use their effort to work his grace in the lives of his people. That is, preachers are first of all ministers of the Word. Preachers are also ministers to the people, but their first duty is to the Word.

However, the apostle Paul chose not to exercise his right to be paid. That’s what he wrote at the end of verse 12: Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

We need to pay very careful attention to what Paul actually wrote here. For one thing, keep in mind that he wrote these words to the Corinthians. When he was in Corinth, he did not accept pay for his ministry. He did the same thing in Thessalonica. He reminded the Thessalonians that he and his company had not sought glory when they might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ, and that everyone in the church knew how they had labored night and day so as not to be chargeable unto any of you (1 Thess. 2:6, 9). In these two instances, Paul chose not to accept the church’s support. But this wasn’t his practice everywhere. According to 2 Corinthians 11:9, he accepted the support of some of the churches in Macedonia. In fact, when he was in Corinth and lacked funds, it was the Macedonians who provided for him. In Philippians 4:14–16 we learn which Macedonian church had done this. It was the church at Philippi — a small, poor church, consisting at first of only a few women who gathered weekly by the river for prayer and a jailor.

But verse 12 teaches us one thing more, viz., under what circumstances a preacher can refuse pay. It’s not because the church is small or poor. These are very bad reasons for not making some attempt to provide the preacher’s income. If they were good reasons, Paul would never have accepted money from the Philippians. No, a preacher can refuse pay when accepting the pay would hinder the gospel of Christ. That was the case in Thessalonica, where itinerant philosophers had repeatedly taken advantage of the people. Paul did not want to be lumped together with them. He refused pay in Corinth because he knew that his acceptance of it would be misinterpreted as an attempt to gain glory. He was right. He even commented on it in his second letter to the Corinthians (ch. 11).

After saying this, Paul wrapped up his argument by insisting on the right of preachers to be paid one more time. In verse 13 he cites the example of Old Testament priests, who received a portion of some of the sacrifices that they offered. Then in verse 14 he said very clearly that God commands those who preach the gospel to profit from their work.

Now, after two sermons on this subject, you might be wondering why you need to hear about it. The first and obvious answer is that you need this because God gave it to you. This is his covenant Word to his covenant people. But this is only where we start.

It’s fascinating to me how often the New Testament highlights this very point. Jesus mentioned it when he sent out the seventy disciples. He expected those who hosted them to provide for them during their stay. Do you remember what he said? He said, And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7). Paul quoted these words in 1 Timothy 5:18. He also instructed the churches at Rome and Galatia to pay their preachers. To the Romans he wrote, For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things (Rom. 15:27). And to the Galatians he wrote, Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto [or share with] him that teacheth in all good things (Gal. 6:6). Romans, Galatians and 1 Corinthians were some of the earliest of Paul’s letters. He wanted to make sure that this very practical matter was clear right at the very beginning of the Gentile church.

The fact that this very practical issue came up so often emphasizes its importance. Its importance is this: how well a church pays its preacher often speaks to how highly the church values the ministry of the gospel. In Puritan New England, preachers were generally paid very well because the Puritans valued the Word. In fact, one could argue that they exalted the preacher too highly by giving him too much say in certain things. Today evangelical churches go the other way. Many do not pay their preachers very well, and we see the results of that as well. The modern evangelical church is inundated with a touchy-feely, anti-doctrinal pragmatism that has taken the place of a Word-centered theology.

What about you? When you give money to the church, do you consider how providing for the ministry of the Word is not just for the glory of God, but also for your own benefit — for your sanctification? Do you understand that by paying the preacher, you are caring for your own souls and the souls of your brothers and sisters? Do you appreciate the gigantic return on your small investment — life in Christ instead of a few small coins?

The Lord is so extremely rich and generous toward all who believe. Ought we not be generous in return? Amen.