What's up with Paul? - Conversation 5

Hey, I've been looking more closely at 1 Corinthians 9 and 2

Corinthians 11 and I'm a bit confused about Paul's views on preaching for pay.

Yeah, you're not alone and most people are confused by it. So yeah, as we've talked about before, in both passages,

Paul says that he preaches the gospel free of charge. Now before we go further, we should probably read both of those verses together.

So here's 1 Corinthians 9, 18. And then in 2

Corinthians 11, 7, he asks, Did I commit a sin in humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I preached

God's gospel to you free of charge? So Paul doesn't want to accept anything in direct exchange for his ministry work.

Well, some people think Paul refuses Corinthian funds to maintain his independence, though I guess that's just an assumption.

So if it's not that, what could be his actual motivation? You're right.

Paul never explicitly states that he's trying to maintain his independence. It's most likely that Paul rejected support because he realized that the

Corinthians were immature in their thinking and they wanted to pay Paul as reciprocity instead of co -labor.

Okay, but Paul doesn't always reject financial support, does he? I mean, he talks about being sent to Macedonia, for example, with the

Corinthians' help in both his epistles to the Corinthians. That's correct. In 1 Corinthians 16, 6,

Paul says, Perhaps I will stay with you or even spend the winter so that you may help me on my journey wherever I go.

And in 2 Corinthians 1, 16, he mentions, I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia and to come back to you from Macedonia and have you send me on my way to Judea.

The Greek word for help and send in these verses is propempo, which implies financial support for the journey.

Okay, so I guess Paul did accept payment for ministry at times then for some reason.

Well, if you look closely, Paul makes a distinction between accepting direct payment, which he refuses, and receiving support as a form of co -labor.

So he views his propempo support as co -laboring with the

Corinthians and spreading the gospel rather than as payment for his ministry. For example, in 2

Corinthians 1, 24, he calls himself a co -laborer. So once again, the

Corinthians were trying to send him money as an exchange or payment for the spiritual blessing they received from him, which he refused to accept.

But he was willing to accept support from them for his travels since those travels would mean supporting his work of ministry toward others rather than paying him to receive some kind of ministry themselves.

Does that make sense? I guess, but I'm still struggling to wrap my mind around it.

Well, let me use an illustration. Let's imagine that you have a 10 -year -old daughter who sees her mother pay the babysitter for playing with her.

So she naturally concludes that if you play with her, you're doing it for money just like the babysitter and that she should pay you.

It's kind of a silly scenario, but stay with me. Okay. Yeah, I'm with you. So I think

I know where you're going. I need to make it clear to my daughter that I'm not like the babysitter and I play with her simply because I love her and love

God. Exactly. So you reject the money she offers you and tell her why, right?

But then another situation arises. You hear about a widow in your church who got robbed and you decide as a family to help her.

In that situation, it would be perfectly appropriate to invite your daughter to contribute to the money you're going to give to the widow.

In that context, it would be perfectly clear to your daughter that she's not paying you for something that you did for her.

Rather, she's co -laboring with you to bless others. She's participating freely in God's work and not out of a sense of obligation to you, but rather to God.

Ah, okay. That definitely helps. So in this illustration, I'm Paul, the

Corinthians are my immature daughter, but who's the babysitter? Yeah, well, that's where the analogy breaks down a bit.

We can imagine the babysitter as the false teachers, but obviously Paul didn't pay them.

The Corinthians had learned that these false teachers normally charged money for ministry. So they expected

Paul to do the same, or at least they thought that Paul would expect payment from them. I see.

But how do we know that the Corinthians were really that immature and misguided?

That's actually really easy. Paul says it directly in 1 Corinthians 3. Here's what he says,

Okay. Yeah.

I guess that's pretty clear. Good. So let me give one more illustration. Let's say you share the gospel with a friend and he decides to become a follower of Christ.

Great. A few days later, he sends you a text and says, After you ask him a few questions, it becomes clear to you that he wants to repay you in some way for the newfound joy in his life.

So you tell him, no, he's a baby Christian and he still needs to learn the importance of giving money as support for ministry rather than as payment for ministry and only out of obligation to God, not man.

Yeah, that makes sense. Oh, so if someday, for example, down the road, he offers to help pay for my trip to do evangelism in another city, then

I should accept his money? That's a perfect example. Yes. In that case, it would be biblical and appropriate because it's clear that he's not trying to pay you for some spiritual good that you blessed him with.

Got it. Again, the key difference lies in the nature of the support. When Paul accepts support in the form of co -labor, it's a shared effort in spreading the gospel.

It's not just about the money. It's about working together in service to God.

This is seen in how Paul uses the term propempo in the New Testament, where it refers to assistance in the form of travel, companions, and other resources.

So this kind of support fosters unity and shared responsibility in the mission.

Okay, yes. So it's about the intention behind the support, right? Right, exactly.

When believers give sacrificially to support Paul's ministry, they're sharing in the hardship and suffering for the sake of the gospel.

As Galatians 6 .2 says, bear one another's burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.

In this sense, those who support Paul are co -laborers with him working for the same master.

So just to be clear, Paul doesn't reject all money. He only rejects money that would compromise his free of charge proclamation of the gospel.

Is that right? That's correct. The main idea is to prioritize one's duty to God over any perceived debt to a minister.

Right, yeah. It's starting to make sense now. So the main takeaway here is that Paul is willing to accept support, but only if it comes in the form of co -labor and doesn't compromise his commitment to preach the gospel free of charge.

Yep. That's the essence of it. So just to make sure I understand the implications of this, is it wrong for pastors or church leaders to receive a salary then?

Good question. And the answer is no. Receiving a salary for serving in ministry isn't inherently wrong, as long as it's given as co -labor and not as a form of reciprocity or an exchange of money for spiritual blessing.

A pastor's salary should be a way the congregation bears his financial burdens with him, which is different from the pastor saying,

I will deny you ministry unless you pay me. Right, okay. Yep. That makes sense. Well, thanks again for helping me think through these things.