Obligation and Compulsion Conversation 6

Hey, good to see you again. So, I've been having trouble explaining to a friend what it means that we should be obligated to God and not to man in our giving.

Could we talk about that some more? Yeah, of course. So, let's try another illustration.

Imagine you finally get to meet your grandfather, your mom's father, for the first time. You're an adult now and he's always lived in another country.

And let's imagine that your mother died when you were very young. So, when you finally meet your grandfather, he showers you with gifts and love even though he knows almost nothing about you.

And he tells you that out of love for your mother, he feels like he owes it to her to show you extravagant generosity and kindness.

He has a duty to you, but not because of anything you've done, but rather because of his relationship to your mother.

Right. So, that's an example of what you call mediated obligation, right?

Yeah, exactly. And the application is obvious. We should be generous to fellow believers out of love for God.

We should feel duty bound to God and then express that in generosity to our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Yeah, that makes sense. So, where do we see this in Scripture? Let's take a look at 1

Corinthians 9, 7 through 14. So, Paul talks about how to keep ministry going and he uses several analogies to illustrate the principle of co -labor and reinforce the notion of mediated obligation.

Do you want to read the first part of that passage? Sure. Yeah, I can do that. 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?

Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the law say the same? 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? Does he not certainly speak for our sake?

It was written for our sake because the plowman should plow in hope, and the fresher fresh in hope of sharing in the crop.

Okay, great. So, let's take these one at a time and see where the obligation falls in each case.

First, a soldier, right? Who is obligated to pay the soldier's wages?

Well, I guess his superiors are, but the actual money is going to come from the government.

And in those days, that would be the king. Right, right. So, let's think this through.

In those days, it was the king who ensured his soldiers were paid, but he himself received money through taxation.

So, when citizens give taxes, they do so out of obligation to the king, who then pays the soldiers their wages.

So, the soldier needs money to keep doing his job. But here's the thing. If he circumvents the king and demands payment from citizens directly for his work, it's wrong.

That's called extortion. Gotcha. Citizens are obligated to give to the king, who is obligated to give to the soldiers.

But soldiers aren't to take directly from citizens. That makes sense. But what about the person who plants a vineyard?

He supplied his own needs, right? Well, no. It's more likely that someone else owns the vineyard he's working in.

So, remember, these are all metaphors for those in service to God. So, it's the owner of the vineyard who employs a vine dresser.

But part of that employment would involve workers being able to enjoy some of the fruit of their labor, right?

So, the vine produces grapes for the owner, and the owner is obligated to look after the workers in his field by sharing some of those grapes.

I see. So, grapes belong to the owner who gives some to the vine dressers.

But vine dressers can't just take whatever they want without permission. So, the next one where Paul talks about the shepherd would be that the animals are obligated to produce milk for the owner, and the shepherd then gets to share in that, right?

Yeah, exactly. And the same with the ox. The ox doesn't own the grain that it's treading, but the owner allows for the ox to share in the grain.

Okay, but I guess those last few examples don't seem very clear to me.

Not as clear as they could be. Yeah, I understand completely. And I think that's why

Paul's last example in verses 13 and 14 serve to make it more clear. So, here's what he says.

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.

Okay, so people give offerings out of obligation to God rather than the

Levites. Yes, exactly. The law of Moses permits the priests to receive co -labor, that which is offered to the

Lord, but forbids reciprocity. So, just as the Levites were supported by the

Israelites, modern -day pastors are supported by their congregation? Right.

And the key is that the support is provided voluntarily, and out of a desire to honor

God and support the work of the ministry. Yeah, it makes sense. And another thing I should mention is that Paul speaks to this very issue in 2

Corinthians 9 -7, where he says, each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly, or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

So, this verse emphasizes that giving to support the work of the ministry should be done freely and willingly without any sense of obligation or pressure.

Yeah, when he says not under compulsion, that speaks volumes about what we see today.

There's just so much compulsory payment for ministry or spiritual things that it keeps people from obeying

Paul's teaching here. Exactly. And when we sell Jesus, we force them to give to the ministry of the body under compulsion.

But sadly, we've all gotten used to it. It's just so normal. Yeah, lots to think about.

I need to talk to more people and raise awareness of this. Thanks for the conversation. Yeah, brother.