Writers' Community!

Log in / Sign up

Home » Writer's Blogs » Phillip-Ross Arsy Varsy - Recovering The Gospel Phillip Ross (136) Phillip Ross Pilgrim Platform Necessary Freedom Posted Friday, November 20, 2009 (2 days 16 hours ago.) Viewed 1 times. Paul said that "necessity" (1 Corinthians 9:16) was laid upon him. He was talking about preaching the gospel, and the gist of his words suggest that he preached not out of desire, but out of necessity. It was necessary for him to preach the gospel. He could not do otherwise. What is necessary is required. What is necessary is not optional. "Woe to me," he said, "if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Corinthians 9:16). To not preach would put him under God's woe, God's curse. For Paul not to preach would be an act of disobedience, and act of unfaithfulness, and would open him to God's chastisement. To love God is to live in obedience to His Word. "Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments" (1 John 2:3). "Whoever keeps his commandments abides in him, and he in them" (1 John 3:24). "And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments" (2 John 1:6). 1 Corinthians 9:16 tells us that Paul understood that God had commanded him to preach, and he could not do otherwise. This raised the question that Paul answered in verse 17. Was he acting freely or out of necessity? Was he acting out of his own free will? Or was he being constrained by God's will? His answer was, "For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward, but not of my own will, I am still entrusted with a stewardship" (v. 17). He was talking about his call to preach the gospel. He was saying that if his preaching issued from his own will, he would receive a reward. The Greek word literally means wages. Jesus said, "the fields are white for harvest. Already the one who reaps is receiving wages (misthos) and gathering fruit for eternal life" (John 4:35-36). Paul was saying that if he was preaching out of his own desire, out of his own willingness to obey God's call, then he would receive a just reward. And that is good. He would be rewarded for his obedience. However, if Paul did not preach out of his own will -- but wait a minute! What does that mean? How can someone do something if they don't will to do it? There are two possible meanings here. One, that Paul was preaching unwillingly, as in begrudgingly. We all know that obedience can be done begrudgingly. We can do something even if we really don't want to do it. We can do something when our hearts are not in it. It's a attitude thing. Is that what Paul meant? I don't think so because Paul doesn't have a begrudging attitude. That's not what we find in Paul's preaching or anywhere in his writings. The second possible meaning is that Paul was preaching, not out of his own will, but out of God's will, or in response to God's will. Note that Paul doesn't understand these two wills to be in opposition, but in harmony. And what is more, he seems to be saying that it is not his own will that is taking the lead in his cooperation with God, but that it is God's will that is in the lead and his own will that is following. It was not that God was helping him to preach (though surely He was), but rather that he -- Paul -- was engaged in service to the will of God, in the cooperation of his will with God's will. It wasn't so much that God was helping him, but that he was helping God. God's will was in the superior position. God was leading. God was dominant. Paul was subservient. He was following, but he wasn't following begrudgingly. He was following in willing obedience, gladly following. If you ask me to do something, and I do it willingly, whose will is accomplished? Yours. My will would be involved through my compliance, but doing the thing was not my idea. It was your idea. I would be doing your will. And I would not be doing it of my own accord, but in response to your request. Paul understood himself to be a steward, a manager of someone else's property. He had a stewardship entrusted to him. He had an obligation to properly care for and to properly invest the gospel, which was not his own but God's. He was preaching out of obligation, out of duty -- yes! But that does not mean that he was doing it unwillingly or begrudgingly. Rather, it was for Paul a source of great joy, though it caused him much trouble, much difficulty and pain. It was a labor of love. It was hard work, and he would be rewarded for his labor. But that was not why he did it. He didn't preach so that he would receive a personal reward. He preached because he was compelled to preach. He was obligated to preach, called to preach. He could do no other. It was his duty to invest his Master's talent, his Master's possessions, to increase his Master's holdings. Though he would be rewarded for his efforts, he was not motivated by his own reward, but by the obligation of his stewardship of the gospel. He put aside his former concerns and took the concerns of his Master to be his own. He put aside his own priorities and took up God's priorities. -------- Phillip A. Ross has been a pastor for over 25 years and is the author of many Christian books. He founded http://www.Pilgrim-Platform.org in 1998. He published a exposition First Corinthians In 2008 that demonstrates the Apostle Paul's opposition to worldly Christianity. Ross recounts how Paul turned the world upside down in his book, Arsy Varsy -- Reclaiming the Gospel in First Corinthians. Permalink         Comments (0) Freedom's Limits Posted Saturday, November 14, 2009 (9 days ago.) Viewed 3 times. Paul begins this 1 Corinthians 9 with a series of questions. The original letters in the New Testament were not divided into chapters. Rather, like any letter they just flowed from one thought to the next. By asking questions Paul was, in effect, making statements. The implied answer to each question is yes. Paul states: I am free. I am an apostle. I have seen the Lord Jesus. You (the Corinthian church members) are my workmanship in the Lord. And finally, Paul tells them that they are the seal of his apostleship in the Lord. A seal is a mark of identity, or proof of authenticity and ownership. They themselves were the confirmation of Paul's authority, apostleship and the effectiveness of his ministry. Paul also told them that they themselves were the "defense to those who would examine" (1 Corinthians 9:3) him. What examination was he talking about? What defense? What proof? Who was calling for an examination or a proof? Why was Paul on the defensive here? Who was calling his apostleship into question? And why? It helps to keep the larger context of this chapter in mind. Paul was writing to the Corinthians in response to a controversy that had irrupted in the church. That was the reason for this letter and his impending visit. A lot of issues were dealt with in this letter, and yet the context of the letter was laid out in the first chapter as being the wisdom of the gospel vs. the foolishness of the world (the Greeks). That concern played itself out in several ways -- sexual immorality, unity and diversity, food laws, spiritual gifts, etc. Paul identified the underlying issue as a philosophical and/or theological dispute between two groups of people who had deep-rooted and opposing views of things. He explained the issues by talking about how the wisdom of Christ was different than and opposed to the wisdom of the world. Today we call this kind of thing competing worldviews. One group interpreted everything through the eyes of the prevailing worldview of the day -- various forms of Greek philosophy. The other group interpreted everything through the eyes of Christ. Many new believers had been added to the roles of the Corinthian church, and in the midst of their growth pains one of the church leaders was found to be involved in an illicit romantic relationship with his "father's wife" (1 Corinthians 5:1). No doubt more was going on than what had been expressed in the letters to or from Paul. The issue that had been presented to Paul concerned a church leader who had been teaching, implicitly or explicitly, that there was nothing wrong with such a relationship because in Christ Christians were free, in Christ Christians were no longer bound by the Old Testament or by their old moral habits. We tend to think that we in our day are different than the early Christians were, but here we see that things have not changed much regarding the fundamental concerns of the churches. Such concerns are still rife in the church today. Paul was responding to a question (or a series of questions) that the Corinthians had written to him about. That original letter has been lost, but we know about it because Paul referred to it. In chapter seven Paul wrote, "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman'" (1 Corinthians 7:1). After answering that concern with the traditional biblical view of marriage in chapter seven, Paul clarified the issue of freedom in Christ using the concern of food sacrificed to idols in chapter eight. Yes, we are free in Christ, he said. But there are limits to our freedom that impact more than our own salvation and morality. There are social issues that involve us in the care and concern of our brothers and sisters in Christ. Though we may be technically free to do so, we must not model behaviors that can be misunderstood by others. So, though we are free to eat food that has been dedicated to idols, though we are free to participate in pagan (popular) holiday festivals and celebrations, the better course of action, said Paul, the more mature and responsible thing to do is to avoid such activities, not because they are in and of themselves wrong or immoral, but because other Christians who are less discerning may misunderstand our actions and motivations and fall into temptation and sin as a result of misreading our actions. Paul understood the tensions related to the issue of Christian freedom. Paul understood the ease with which the most sincere Christians can misunderstand the most basic things. On the one hand, freedom in Christ was the evangelistic cry of the Early Church in the face of political domination by the Romans and similarly in the face of religious repression by the Pharisees. The cry of freedom, then as now, was at the forefront of social and political change. Against the tide of unrestrained freedom, Paul argued for caution and restraint. Here and elsewhere Paul argued that freedom in Christ did not mean that Christians were free to do whatever they wanted to do, even if there was nothing ultimately wrong with some particular action. But rather, Christians were free in Christ to live in obedience to Christ, free to care for and model behavior suited to the least discerning of Christ's people. Christians can err by improper evaluation of their freedom in Christ, and they can err by improper evaluation of their duties of obedience to Christ. But the danger dealt with here in First Corinthians lies in unrestrained freedom. Other dangers and concerns are dealt with elsewhere. -------- Author of many Christian books, Phillip A. Ross has been a pastor for over 25 years. He founded http://www.Pilgrim-Platform.org in 1998. In 2008 he published a exposition First Corinthians that demonstrates the Apostle Paul's opposition to worldly Christianity. Ross recounts how Paul turned the world upside down in his book, Arsy Varsy -- Reclaiming the Gospel in First Corinthians. Permalink         Comments (0) Pay The Piper Posted Saturday, November 14, 2009 (9 days 3 hours ago.) Viewed 1 times. Paul's point in 1 Corinthians 9:4-8 is that Christian freedom incurs a cost. Turning Paul's questions into statements he said that Christians indeed have the right to eat and drink whatever they want. Apostles and pastors can marry just as anyone else can, and they can take their wives with them as they minister. Speaking of wives, he implied that it is costly to care for a family and that those costs don't go away because a person is in the ministry. Ministers have the freedom to marry and have families, but not everyone has the means to do so without actively working to support them. Those serving the Lord Jesus Christ in ministry should not have to pay all their own expenses. It's just not realistic to try to engage in ministry and work another full-time job -- and try to raise a family. The way that the question is phrased suggests that Paul was a little angry that he had to work a job and take the lead in the ministry of the church(es). Paul seems to be saying that it is unrealistic to expect pastors to work a secular job in order to pay for their own ministry expenses. The fact that Paul was not currently married was a blessing in this regard. It helped to keep Paul's expenses down. But many of Paul's experiences were not to be norms for ministry. The synagogue model, upon which the Christian church was built, required at least ten families to establish a local synagogue. Those ten families would then contribute ten percent of their incomes for the maintenance of the ministry, which would support a Rabbi and his family. As the synagogue grew, they could then engage in other ministry projects and mission efforts as more families and funds became available. The point is that the model for church growth was not only self-perpetuating, but would encourage young men to enter into ministry without sacrificing their natural passions and desires for their own family. Paul seemed to be suggesting that the model of church leadership that he had personally set was not ideal. The ideal was not to roam the countryside as he had done, but to serve in a settled church. Paul's itinerant life as an apostle was not the norm for Christian leadership. We are to model Paul's faith, his commitment to Jesus Christ and his habits of study, prayer, etc., but not his itinerant lifestyle. That was particular to Paul. Paul's itinerant lifestyle was the result of his former position, his drastic conversion and his change of political allegiance, and, of course, the fact that the Jews perused him relentlessly because they wanted to kill him. In Paul's day, the church was under persecution by both the Romans and the Jews. During his entire life as a Christian, Paul had been running from powerful people who sought to stop his ministry and ultimately kill him. He knew that such a life was not normal. So, in these few questions he was lobbying for churches to provide for those who would take on Christian leadership. A settled ministry by a resident pastor was to be the norm. Paul went on with his questions. You feed your oxen, don't you? Is God concerned about more than oxen than pastors? You feed the plowman and the thresher, don't you? All of the workers of the fields share in the bounty of the harvest. Why should it be different in the churches? It shouldn't be. Paul was lobbying for a church model that collected tithes and administered local social welfare ministries, providing for the poor, widows without families, orphans, etc. These kinds of local welfare concerns were the providence of the local villages, synagogues and churches. This was the model for Christian churches that Paul taught. Obviously, local churches would help other local churches when the needs at hand were more than a local church could handle, as during the Jerusalem crisis (Romans 15:25). In verse 11 Paul asks, "If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?" Those who focus on the spiritual aspects of the gospel still have material needs. He continued, "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" (1 Corinthians 9:11). Who were the others who shared in the rightful claim upon the tithes of the church that Paul referred to? The local leaders, those who were now opposed to Paul, those who were teaching false doctrine in the Corinthian church. Paul said that the Corinthians were rightly supporting their leaders, in spite of the fact that those same leaders were teaching falsehoods in their midst. And by extension, then, Paul, who came to correct the errors of the local leaders, was a legitimate recipient of the material care of the Corinthian church as well -- even more so, because he was the spiritual father of the church. And yet, in spite of that rightful claim upon the Corinthian purse, Paul did not request or receive any such care. Why not? Because he did not want to give the impression that his ministry was motivated by monetary concerns. He did not want to be perceived as a hired gun that had come in to clean up the Corinthian church. He did not want to put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. In order to insure that he did not give the impression that he was in it for the money, he provided for himself. He worked another job and neither asked for nor received any compensation for his gospel work. But he wanted to make sure that they understood that his actions in this regard were not to be set up as a model for Christian ministry. We can hear this concern in verses 13-15, "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? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. 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." This last phrase, "deprive me of my ground for boasting" is an unfortunate translation in that it is open to misunderstanding. Other translations render the phrase "make my glorifying void" (ASV), "make my reioycing vaine" (Geneva Bible), "nullify my glorying" (MKJB), "deprive me of this boast" (NIV). None of these translations do justice to this phrase. Paul was not boasting about the purity of his apostleship. As an apostle, he had a rightful claim upon some of the material wealth of the Corinthian church because he founded the church and because he was actively engaged in ministry in their midst. But he was not bragging or boasting about his claim upon them or about his position as an apostle. He was not boasting about himself at all, but about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Verse 14 sums up this argument, "In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." He was merely stating the facts. He was saying that he would rather die than have anyone or anything undermine the truth of the message that he brought to them. Paul was not in it for the money, though he had a rightful claim on compensation for his expenses. Rather, Paul was in it for the glory of God, and he would do whatever was necessary to make that point clear. So, he neither asked for nor received any compensation for his efforts. But he insisted that this was not to be a model for Christian ministry. Finally, in verse 16 Paul said, "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!" There is no ground for personal boasting in the gospel because the gospel message is a message of both condemnation and salvation, in that order. If there is no condemnation from which to escape by the grace of God, then there is no need for salvation. The message of salvation contains within in, implicitly and explicitly, the understanding of a prior condemnation. Another way to say it is that the gospel message rightly preached convicts both the hearers and the preacher. The gospel truth applies to everyone. Paul was not an exception. He had nothing to boast about in and of himself. The gospel laid the necessity for salvation upon Paul just as much as it laid it on anyone else. -------- Phillip A. Ross has been a pastor for over 25 years and is a pastor and author. He founded http://www.Pilgrim-Platform.org in 1998. Demonstrating the Apostle Paul's opposition to worldly Christianity, he published an exposition First Corinthians in 2008. Ross's book, Arsy Varsy -- Reclaiming the Gospel in First Corinthians, shows how Paul turned the world upside down. Permalink         Comments (0)

Archives: November 2009 M T W T F S S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30           « Oct     Previous Posts: Necessary Freedom Freedom's Limits Pay The Piper Morality and Maturity Unbelievable Truth Happy Holiday! Ethics, Morality and Love The Illusion of Knowledge All Posts by Phillip Ross Related Posts: Submission Did Jesus Christ Have Long Hair? Phoenix! The Apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe The Apparition at Knock Ireland - August 21, 1879 Send God A Text! Saint John of the Cross and His Path of Self-Renunciation Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up!

Home  |  Page Two  |  FAQ's  |  Contact  |  Terms of Service  |  Article Submission Guidelines  |  Questions & Answers  |  Privacy  |  Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company