23 Should Pastors Be Paid? Living on Support Part 1 (1 Corinthians 9:1-14)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome to Wednesday in the Word. My name is Krisan Marotta, and this is the podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. We are studying 1 Corinthians chapter 9, verses 1 through 14 today. This is the 23rd talk in our series on the book of 1 Corinthians. You can find lecture notes for today's talk on the link below this podcast, or you can find them on my website. Just go to wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 2.3. And while you're there, take a moment to check out the website. There's no charge, no spam, no ads, only Bible study. And if you're coming into the middle of the series and you want to go back, sometimes it's easier to find the beginning of the series by going to the website rather than hunting through your podcast app. In either case, thanks for joining us and let's get started. Well, since chapter 8, verse 1, Paul has been addressing the issue of meat sacrificed to idols. This issue was a problem for the church in Corinth. Some in the church there argued that they were free to eat the meat that has been sacrificed to idols because they know the idols are fake and it's just meat. Others have said, no, we're not free to eat the meat because eating it is a form of idolatry and you're participating in idol worship. So far we have seen three themes emerge from Paul's answer. First, there's only one God and he is not concerned with religious restrictions on food. The meat eating group is right that there are no idols and the meat is just meat and it is okay to eat it. Second, on the other hand, the meat eating group is wrong in the way they've been exercising their freedom to eat this meat. They have not been using their knowledge in love or considering the impact of their actions on their fellow believers. They have even been pressuring those believers who think that eating such meat is wrong into eating it anyway, and thereby encouraging them to do what they think is sin and that could cause them to stumble. And then third, it's not enough to know the truth and be correct in that I have the freedom to act a certain way. I must also use my knowledge in the context of loving my neighbor and making sure I am acting in such a way that seeks my neighbor's best. And we've seen that this dispute is an example of the relationship between knowledge and love. In 1 Corinthians 9, it might look like Paul is switching to a new topic because all of a sudden he starts talking about how as an apostle he has the right to support or to be paid. And that might seem like a new topic, but I don't think it is. I think chapters eight through ten are one coherent argument. So I'd like to read the passage and give us an overview of chapter nine, and then we'll go back and look at the details. So this is 1 Corinthians chapter 9. I'm going to start in verse 1 and read through 14. 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 am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or 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 is 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 ploughman ought to plough in hope, and the thresher to thresh and hope of sharing 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 do 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 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. The immediate context is this discussion we just reviewed. On the one hand, you Corinthians, are right that you have the right to eat the meat, but on the other hand, you need to love your neighbor and consider how your actions are influencing him. And Paul concluded chapter eight with this strong statement that he would never eat meat again if it caused his brother to stumble. In chapter nine, then, he's using his own situation as an example of how the Corinthians ought to think about exercising their freedom. So, yes, in theory they have the right to eat this meat, but in practice it's unloving to do so. Likewise, as an apostle, in theory, Paul has the right to receive financial support, but in practice, Paul declines such support out of love. And Paul has just argued that the Corinthians have the right to eat the meat, but they need to consider the impact of their freedom on others. Now he's going to say similarly, I have rights. As an apostle, I, Paul, have the right to receive financial support from you, Corinthians, but Paul considered the impact of receiving such support from them and decided against it. And he wants them to learn from the reasons that he decided not to exercise that freedom and then to exercise their freedom in the same way. So that's where we're headed in chapter nine. The section we're going to look at today is the section where he talks about his right to be paid. But remember this is a two-part argument, and we're only going to look at the first part in this podcast. So as we think about these things Paul says, we want to remember both the larger context of chapter eight and that there is a second half to this argument that we're going to look at next week in the next podcast. So Paul is only talking about his right to be paid so that he can explain why he didn't exercise that right. He wants to urge them to think about their rights the same way. He's not complaining, he's not demanding that he be paid, he's not trying to inspire their guilt or their gratitude. He only wants to talk about his right to be paid so that he can explain why he chose not to exercise that right. And ultimately, he wants them to exercise their right to eat meat in like manner. Now we're only looking at the first half of the argument at this section where he explains that he has the right, but keep in mind there's a second half coming. So let's go back to 9 1 and 2. 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. Paul says, Okay, up till now we've been talking about your freedom to eat meat, but let's consider my situation. I, Paul, have freedoms too, don't I? I'm an apostle, I've been taught and called by Jesus Himself, and you believe because I came to Corinth and taught you the gospel. Being a an apostle gives me certain rights. I am free to exercise the rights of an apostle. I think that's what he's saying. Now Paul needs to emphasize that he's an apostle because some in Corinth don't think he is. You may remember from our discussion of chapters one to four that Paul's authority was in some dispute in Corinth. Some in the Corinthian church had rejected his authority as an apostle. They thought that he lacked wisdom as they defined it, and they rejected Paul in favor of Apollos. And that's the situation he addressed in the first four chapters. It's not unusual for Paul to have to defend his authority as an apostle. He was not one of the original twelve. He didn't work alongside the other apostles. He ministered primarily to the Gentiles, not to the Jews, and all of that created this suspicion about his authority. So Paul wants to make this analogy about how he exercised his freedom, but first he has to defend the idea that he has this right that he is not exercised. He has to defend his claim to be an apostle and his claim to having the rights of an apostle. So he's reminding them that Jesus appeared to him personally after the resurrection and commissioned him to be one of his chosen apostles or representatives. Like the other apostles, Jesus communicated the gospel directly to Paul. I think that's what he means by this have I not seen Jesus. He's not just referring to the fact that he saw him. Lots of people saw Jesus. Paul's referring to his experience on the Damascus Road and his calling, not just the fact that he was he physically saw Jesus, but that Jesus called and commissioned him. And then in 9 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. Here I think he's adding, not only objectively did Jesus personally call me, Paul, and commission me to do his work, but you Corinthians of all people ought to know that this is true. You're the seal of my apostleship. I lived among you for one and a half years, teaching, preaching, doing miracles. You believe because God sent me to you. Think about the message I brought you. Think about the impact it's had on your community. You know the message I teach. You heard it, you saw me, you know the work I do. You have seen it, you're the result of it. So of all people, it ought to be obvious to you that I'm the apostle I claim to be. Then he goes on, 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? So here his point is don't I have a right to have a livelihood for the work that I do? Don't I deserve to be supported so that I can be free to teach? So he's just made the case, I'm an apostle, therefore I have a certain freedom that goes with the fact that I'm called to this role. So I'm an apostle, and that means I have a certain right as an apostle. I have a right to eat and drink, or I have a right to a livelihood. The other apostles bring along their families as well, so the support that they receive covers more than just one individual. It supports their wives. Their families go with them as they minister, and their families support it as well. The groups that they minister to support them. They give the other apostles what they need to eat and drink so that they can be free to teach the gospel. And Paul's question is, do you think only the other apostles have this right to receive support and that I lack it? Of course not. Don't I have the right to have my family supported as well so that I'm free to teach? Or do only Barnabas and I have to get a day job so that we can support ourselves while Peter, the brothers of the Lord, like James and the other apostles, they get supported? Well, he's expecting the answer no. Of course, I have the right to this support. So his first argument is look, I am no different than the other apostles. I have the freedom to accept money when I preach and teach among you. So he appeals to the precedent of the other apostles. The other apostles don't have day jobs, they're free to accept support while they travel and minister to others, and they take support for their wives while they proclaim the gospel or for their families. So his first point is look, all the apostles have this right, and I'm an apostle. Now he moves on to his second argument. Let's look at 9 7. 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? So he gives three analogies from experience. A soldier risks his life to serve his country. He doesn't pay his own way while he's doing that. He's serving his country. His country provides what he needs so that he can do his job defending them. He is fed and clothed while he's being a soldier. He is not a soldier at his own expense. Likewise, the person who plants a vineyard expects to eat the fruit of it. And I think Paul has in mind here someone who's actually doing the physical labor of planting the vineyard. The vineyard worker expects to be paid for his work. He's fed and he's housed and he's clothed while he works among the vines. He expects to be paid for his labor, either in money or by enjoying a share of the fruit of the vineyard. Likewise, someone tending a flock expects to reap the rewards of having a flock. They don't throw away the milk from the flock. So his point is whatever you do, you receive the benefit of having done the work. That's the way life works. If I make my livelihood by being a soldier or planting a vineyard or having a flock, I expect to share in the rewards or the product of that work. My livelihood is taken care of because I'm doing that work. So having appealed to experience, he now brings in a biblical example. Look at nine eight. I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or 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 is 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 ploughman ought to plough in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. So having just argued from experience in his three analogies, he says, Look, we can see this is the way God intends the world to work. Paul is not saying these things merely because it's human judgment or human ideas. He says we have this in the law of God. The oxen is yoked to a wheel that's turning around and grinding the grain, and as he grinds, some of the grain falls down off the wheel at his feet. And he says, Don't put a muzzle on the ox so that he would be unable to eat any of that falling grain while he's turning the wheel. God prohibits that. When the ox is turning the wheel that grinds the grain, God says don't muzzle him. He must be allowed to eat some of the grain that he's producing. So he is sharing in the product of his work. Now notice what Paul says next. God's not concerned with oxen, is he? Or is he speaking for our sake? I don't think Paul's saying, look, God has no concern for animals. That's not his point. Rather, Paul is asking, what's the point of this command? Is this command given solely for the benefit of the ox? Or is there a principle behind it that God wants us to learn? And his answer is there's something bigger behind it. This is a picture of something more important that God values and wants us to learn. So even though the command is about oxen, there's something even more important at stake than just the welfare of the ox. God didn't say this because his primary concern is that we treat our animals well. There's another reality behind that that applies to people and the way we treat each other. And I think what he's saying is there is something greedy and unfair about putting the ox into work for you, having it grind out your grain, and being unwilling to let it share in the fruit of that harvest or in the grain. The deeper problem is being so greedy that you hoard every last grain of wheat and withhold it from the very creature that is helping you produce it. The ox is working on your behalf to help you, and you're refusing to share the gain with it. That's the picture in the law. So he's saying it's appropriate for the one who works to expect to be compensated for their work, and you can see that principle with the ox, but it applies to more than the ox. The ox has a right to expect to be paid for his work, but think about what that says about us. That's what he goes on to say in 9 10. 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 in hope of sharing the crops. So it's right and appropriate that the one doing the work should expect to share in the results or the gain or the product of that work. The law is not just about oxen, it's about this principle. If I have a person working for my benefit, it's wrong of me to be so greedy that I refuse to share the benefit with them. I've gained by their labor. They can rightly and appropriately expect to share in the gain. They can rightly and appropriately expect to be compensated for the work that they do. Then he goes on in nine eleven and twelve, 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. So now Paul's applying this to his own situation. He says, Look, I've been working on your behalf. Just like a field worker sows physical seed in the field, I have sowed spiritual seed in you. I have been proclaiming the gospel to you and explaining to you how to find life. I have given you the most important thing you can have, and that is knowledge of how to find eternal life. That's infinitely more important than, say, baking you a loaf of bread. You pay your baker, how much more ought you to pay me who brought you the bread of life? So given that I've done this for you, isn't it appropriate that you would contribute to my livelihood so that I can continue to minister among you and to others? And you extend that right to others, you support others, isn't it right that you support me? I'm the one who founded this church. Isn't it appropriate that I share in the support that you give? In one sense, don't you owe me Paul even more? Wouldn't it be even more logical and appropriate that I share in the support you hand out? So basically, Paul says, look, it's right and appropriate to support those who work to benefit you. And then he says, I, Paul, have worked to your benefit, and it's right for you to support me. It would be inappropriate, like muzzling the ox, for you to withhold that support. And then he says in twelve, 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. This verse introduces the second half of his argument. He says, I could appropriately have asked you for support, but I didn't. I worked and I supported myself, enduring all things so that I would create no obstacle to the gospel. Now, what sort of obstacle is he talking about? We're gonna get into that into the next podcast. He's gonna go on to say I didn't exercise this right so as not to hinder the gospel, and therefore here's what I want you to learn from that, and we're gonna talk about that next week. Before he explains though why he didn't exercise this right, he brings in one more piece of evidence to justify his claim to financial support. In thirteen and fourteen he says Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple and those who attend regularly to the altar have their Their share from the altar, so also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. Now I think Paul is talking about the temple in Jerusalem here, not the pagan temples, although it was probably true of the pagan temples as well, but I think he's pointing to the temple in Jerusalem because this is evidence of God's design. He's saying God Himself set up this system such that those who minister in the temple receive a share of the benefits. The Levites lived off the offerings that came to the temple, and God instructed them to do that. They weren't mooching off the temple, God set it up that way. Everyone knows that when they come to worship at the temple, they're supporting the Levites who serve them at the temple. This is an example of God's design, God's intention. God intended those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel, as he says in 914. 914 makes his point, I think, very specific. The Lord gave instruction that those who proclaim the gospel make their living from the gospel. As a general rule, God wants them to be free to proclaim the gospel and not to be hampered by taking a day job. The gospel is their day job. As a general rule, those who serve the gospel should be able to make their living from it, and those who benefit by them proclaiming the gospel should be willing to support them. So let's summarize what we've seen so far. Paul's made three points here. First, Paul is a true apostle, and he has the same right to support that the other apostles have. Second, it's wrong not to pay the one who works on your behalf. Experience suggests this, and the law of Moses confirms it. And then three, the temple shows that God intended for those who served him to be paid by the community their teaching and serving. So God instructed those who proclaim the gospel to make their living from the gospel and those who received the instruction from them to support them. Now remember this is only half the argument. We're waiting for the second half. Paul has said he did not exercise this right. And remember too that he's making this argument to explain why, although they have the freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols, they should refrain from doing so. Paul is not trying to convince them to pay him. He is not saying all this to point out that they now owe him back wages or to send them a bill or something. He's making the point I have the right to be paid, and I didn't ask for that payment for a reason, and that reason is what I want you to learn. Now, before we look at the rest of the chapter, I want to think about what he said here and consider Paul's argument in light of his related argument in 2 Thessalonians. And I want to ask the question, what does this mean for me as a giver of support? And what does this mean for someone who lives on support? How should we respond and what should we learn from Paul's argument? But before we sort that out, let's look at Second Thessalonians. This is chapter three, and I'm going to read six through fifteen. Now we commend you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life, and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For 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 the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order, if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we commend and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in a quiet fashion and to eat their own bread. But as for you, brethren, do not grow weary of doing good. If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that person and do not associate with him, so that he will be put to shame, yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother. Now notice the similar themes here. Paul's addressing the subject of idleness among some of the believers in Thessalonica. They've refused to work, they've laid down their tools, and they refuse to work, and they're leaving it to the rest of the community to take care of them. And Paul says, Look, if you don't work, you don't eat, and exhort them, command them, stop associating with them if they don't listen to you. So how are we supposed to put this together with what he's saying in First Corinthians? Well, he gives three directives to the Church of Thessalonica regarding work. First he says, follow our example, that's in six through nine. Then he says, work for your own bread. Basically, everyone needs to work, that's in ten and twelve. And then thirdly, mark the people who don't want to work and teach them to work. That's 13 through 16. So he starts telling them keep away or draw back from this unruly brother who leads an undisciplined life, and by contrast, follow his example. Well, what example is he talking about? Well, we know that his example is that he worked to provide for his own needs while he was preaching to them. In three eight he says they paid for their own bread and they worked day and night so as not to be in burden. Then in three nine he says, Not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you so that you would follow our example. Well, this is a similar point to what he's been making in first Corinthians. He's saying, We had a right to support, but we refused it so that you Thessalonians would follow our example. Now in Corinth, Paul wanted them to learn something about his willingness to decline to exercise his rights. Here in Thessalonica, he wants them to learn something about his willingness to work. The part of the example he has in mind here is working. He's urging them to be responsible for their own financial needs. It's almost the flip side of the coin. He's telling them everyone needs to work, and he makes it perfectly clear if you're not willing to work, then you don't eat. Look at three ten again. For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order. If anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat either. For we hear that some among you are leading an undisciplined life, doing no work at all, but acting like busybodies. Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to work in a quiet fashion and eat their own bread. The problem in Thessalonica was that some are unwilling to work and they're relying on the generosity of others to get by. So they're able bodied, they're healthy, they're in a position where they could support themselves, but they're refusing to work and instead relying on the generosity of others. And Paul's saying, look, when I was with you, I had the right not to work, but I chose not to, and I worked. Follow my example in being willing to work and take responsibility for your own financial needs. Those being idle and undisciplined, as he calls them, have decided, I'd rather you work for my livelihood than I work for my livelihood. And Paul's going to argue here that's incompatible with loving my neighbor as myself. Now to the givers, he encourages them to continue being generous to those in true need. He talks about don't get weary of doing good. But he does tell them to stop supporting the idle who are refusing to take responsibility for their own needs. So we want to stop and think about this. We all desire to prosper with as little effort as possible. I mean, I would much rather take care of my needs without hardship than take care of them with hardship. And we'd all like to have work that is doing something fun and creative and enjoyable, and we really don't want to do work that just meets our financial needs. It's easy to get this attitude of, you know, I really want to fulfill my needs in a way that's convenient and easy and not too hard. And it can lead me to say, hey, I'm in this group of people who are generous and they're willing to help those in need, so I'm just going to kick back and give them an opportunity to be generous and to support me. And Paul's arguing, the problem is loving my neighbor as myself demands something different of me. God has called all of us to take care of ourselves and to take responsibility for our own welfare. God gave Adam work before the fall. Work did not result from the fall. Hardship in work resulted from the fall, but the work itself is a good gift of God. And if I said, look, I don't want to take care of myself, I want you to take care of me for the rest of your life. Hey, I'm your teacher, I work hard at my teaching, you have a job and I deserve support, so you have to take care of me. Is that attitude loving my neighbor as myself? I think Paul would rebuke me and tell me, you need to work. You taking care of yourself is your responsibility and no one else's. And especially if my attitude could be seen as what he calls peddling the gospel or merchandising it in order to gain other people's money, he would definitely rebuke me. So there's a difference between generously helping someone in true need and enabling someone who is being irresponsible. And as givers, we're called to be that discerning. It's not loving to be irresponsible, and it's not obedient to our calling to be lazy and refuse to work, and it's not loving to help someone else be lazy and irresponsible. Now, there are times when financial need is real and unavoidable, some medical emergency or long-term illness or disaster or something makes it impossible for me to care for my family. And if you find yourself in that kind of need, you have nothing to be ashamed of. Now, we might be ashamed for not helping you meet that need, but if you find yourself in that place, I'm not rebuking you for being there. Paul's not describing that kind of situation. He's talking about someone who is simply not stepping up when he ought to step up. He's talking about someone who can and should participate in meeting his own needs and he isn't. And in those situations, it's not loving to support or enable that person to continue being irresponsible or to continue down the wrong path. Sometimes the most loving thing to do is say, if you don't work, you don't eat. Not in a judgmental way, but in a way that calls them to see they have a responsibility. There's a popular attitude today that says, you know, I would be really foolish to graduate from college and then settle for a job that's less than stellar and less than rewarding every minute of every day. I couldn't possibly start at the bottom of the office totem pole and work my way up because, you know, a job should be rewarding and fulfilling and it should recognize my full potential and creative insight. Well, if you can find a job that's rewarding and that you would do even if you weren't getting paid for it, great, go for it and thank God for it. But if you can't find such a job, if your only opportunity is to find a job that you would only do because it puts food on the table, then do it. It's better to put food on the table than be idle. If cleaning floors, making coffee, waiting tables, whatever is your only option this season in life, then you should do it. In fact, you should do it for God, do it for his honor, and do it in such a way that brings glory to his name. And then just wait and trust God and see what he has in mind for the future. Paul didn't want them to think that he was spreading the gospel in order to get their money. So he worked while he preached to them. He set an example for them. Sure, it would have been easier for him to give up his day job and preach full time, but he wanted to teach them a lesson of love and responsibility and working while preaching was the best way to do it. Okay, so how do we put these two passages together? How do we know when to support someone and when not to? And what does Paul's example mean if you're in a ministry position that relies on others for support? I'm approaching this topic from the giver side of the coin. I've been in ministry over 30 years, but no matter what ministry I've worked in, I've my husband and I have always had jobs and supported ourselves. That's just the way God provided for us. So I'm coming at this issue from the position of wrestling with the question of how do I know who to support, when is it appropriate to give, and when it is not appropriate. For the other side of the coin, when should a full-time ministry worker get a day job? I'm going to share the thinking of my friend and mentor, Jack Crabtree. He has been on support and in Christian ministry his whole working life, and he wrote a very thoughtful and engaging article on this topic from that perspective, where he's wrestling with the question, if I'm a full-time ministry worker and my support is inadequate, what should I do? And I'll put a link to that full article in the lecture notes. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but I am leaning heavily on his perspective for that side of the discussion. So how should we sort this out? Well, for the sake of argument, let's assume we're talking about reasonable needs. We all know there's a gap between what I want financially and what I really need financially. And for the sake of argument, let's assume we're understanding financial needs in a reasonable and normal manner. So the first principle I think we can gather from Thessalonians is we have an obligation not to be a burden to other people. Each and every one of us has an obligation to provide for our own needs and our own families. It's wrong of me to expect others to do for me what I will not do for myself, and that is take care of my own needs. I think that's the unavoidable teaching of Thessalonians. We are called to work and we need to be willing to work. If I am healthy, able-bodied, and capable of working, and my support does not meet my financial needs, it is my problem to solve. It is not my donor's problem to solve. I'm going to quote Jack here. He's talking about a related passage in 1 Thessalonians 4, and he's talking about being on support and finding that support lacking. And he writes, The question holiness asks of me is not are you laboring hard? Rather, it is are you taking care of your own financial needs? Are you being economically productive? The idleness which 1 Thessalonians 4 exhorts us to avoid is not the idleness of ease, sloth, and laziness. It is the idleness of being economically dependent upon others to meet your financial needs because you are not being economically productive yourself. Again, I'll put a link to that full article in the lecture notes, which are at Wednesdayintheword.com slash 1 Corinthians 2.3. So all of us need to take seriously or need to provide for our own welfare, whether we're in full-time ministry or not. Nothing in what Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 9 ought to be used by those in full-time ministry to demand or require others to support them. Now, why might I support someone in full-time ministry? In his article, Jack boils it down to three reasons. First, gratitude. I have benefited from your work in some way, and I'm grateful for it, so I give a gift of financial support as a token of my thanks. That seems to be what Paul is arguing for in Corinthians, as his right that he is not exercising. And it's what he's arguing for with his examples of the ox and the workers and the Levites. It is right and appropriate to give back to those who give to me. If I benefit by someone's work as a teacher of the gospel, then I ought to gratefully support them. There's something appropriate about me recognizing that others have worked on my behalf and supporting them out of whatever means God has given me. As Paul argued, it's analogous to the situation of hiring someone to sow seeds in my field, to plant my vineyard, or to mow my yard. It's wrong of me after they've done the work to refuse to pay them. I benefited from their labors and it's appropriate for me to recognize it. Similarly, if I benefit from someone ministering in my life, I ought to give back to them and be willing to support them. But notice where the analogy fails. This is not a contract. This is not an obligation in the sense that the minister has a right to place a demand on me. This is an obligation I have before God, not a contract or an obligation the minister has the right to demand from me. So if I don't pay my plumber, he has the right to feel gypped. But if I teach and no one responds financially, I do not have the right to feel gypped. Teaching or ministering or proclaiming the gospel is not a contract. It was given to me freely, and I should give the gospel freely to others regardless of their ability or willingness to pay me. Yes, it is appropriate of the receiver of the ministry to give, and if I withhold support from someone who has worked hard on my behalf, especially if I'm being selfish or greedy, then I am in the wrong. But that's an obligation I have before God. It's not appropriate for the minister who ministered to me to expect, require, or demand payment. It seems to me that Paul is arguing that he has the right to accept support. He is not arguing that he has a right to expect it, to demand it, or to require it. And we see him working to meet his own financial needs. He is grateful when his needs are covered and he can preach full time, and he is willing to work when the support is not there or when there's some more important principle at stake. While his argument implies that those who have received his labors have some moral obligation to support him, we never see Paul taking the attitude that he can demand that support from them. So the first reason I might give is out of gratitude. Someone has ministered to me and I want to give back out of gratitude. The second reason is patronage. I'm so committed to the work that they're doing in proclaiming the gospel that I decide to support it to help them continue. So I want the work to continue. I may not personally have benefited directly, but I see that what they're doing is important. And just like I might be a patron of the arts, I become a patron of their ministry. And some people minister to people who have no means to give back to them out of gratitude. Maybe they're refugees or they're chronically poor or they're bankrupt or they just simply lack the means to give back. And they may be truly grateful, but they're just unable to provide support back to those who are ministering to them. And that's where patrons can step in. They may not have benefited directly by the ministry, but they see its importance and they want to help the workers continue to do it. So the first reason is gratitude, the second is patronage, the third is charity, and that is I see someone in genuine need and I graciously help them out. I help them out of love and I give because I have the resources and they have the lack and I'm covering their need. Now Jack makes a really interesting argument in his article that it is wrong for someone who preaches the gospel to deliberately put himself in a position where he depends on the charity of others. It's not wrong for me as the giver to be charitable, but it would be wrong for me as a ministry worker to expect others to take care of me and And be unwilling to work on my own behalf, because as we've seen from Thessalonians, each of us has a responsibility to work for and provide for our own needs. You might want to read his article to get the full argument there. But I think he's right that it is appropriate for a minister to accept gifts of gratitude and patronage, but it's wrong for a full-time ministry worker to deliberately put him or herself in a position where they require charity. It's wrong to deliberately not take care of my own needs and put myself in a situation where someone else has to step in and bail me out. It's great if someone does act out of love and bail me out, but I should not create a situation where they're forced to do so and expect them to do so. So I think we can boil all this down to four ideas. First, all of us are responsible before God to work and provide for our own needs no matter what kind of work we do. Second, as a giver, it's appropriate to support someone out of gratitude, patronage, or charity. Third, if I have benefited from someone's ministry, I ought to be willing to support them as I am able. And fourth, as a full-time Christian worker, I have no reason to be ashamed for accepting gifts of gratitude or patronage, but I ought not to put myself in a position where I require charity. If my support is not adequate, it is my problem to solve, not my donor's problem to solve. Now remember, we still need to look at the other half of Paul's argument. He's going to argue that he declined to take support precisely so as to avoid the kind of charge that he was peddling or hindering or merchandising the gospel. And we're going to look at that in the next podcast. To close, I just want to add one more thought, and that is how a person works out and stewards their money is between that person and God. Each of us has many obligations to support ourselves, our families, and needs in our communities and so forth. And that is for each one of us to decide before God. I should not judge or condemn a minister just because he lacks a day job, nor should I dictate to someone else how much of their money they give away and to which causes. That's not my place. I'm to trust God, to try to be wise in my own situation and not resent, judge, or condemn others for their choices. When it comes to my finances, yes, there is a way to live that reflects God's ideas and a way that doesn't. And our choices matter. Financial irresponsibility is damaging and it can have serious negative consequences. And we can be financially irresponsible no matter what our circumstances are. We can be financially irresponsible if we're rich and if we're poor, and if we're on support and if we're not on support. All that is to say we don't know each other's hearts and circumstances, and we only have a limited view from the outside. So our place is not to judge and condemn others. Rather, we should examine our own hearts and be willing to work, be willing to take responsibility for our own needs, and be willing to give generously out of gratitude, patronage, or charity as we're able. And then we want to encourage others to the truth. We don't want to encourage them in irresponsibility or idleness, but we want to act out of love, seeking their best. You've been listening to Wednesday in the Word, my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. If you've been blessed by listening to this podcast, I don't need any financial support, but it would help me if you would leave a positive rating review wherever you listen to the podcast, subscribe to the podcast, and tell a friend about it. And if you can only do one of those things, telling a friend is best. Our theme music is graciously provided by my friend and favorite musician, Reggie Coates of Heartfeltmusic.org. If you're ever in a church where he is leading worship, you will be blessed. Thank you for joining me today. I'm Krisan Marotta and I'll meet you here next week at Wednesday in the Word.