Pauls Apostleship & Freedom - Part 1

Let's read the whole passage. Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not ye my work and the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yea, doubtless I am to you, for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. Mine answer is to them that do examine me in this.

Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?

Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feeds a flock, and eats not of the milk of the flock? Sayeth these things as a man, or sayeth not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, I shall not muzzle the mouth of an ox that treads out the corn. Doth God take care of oxen?

Or sayeth he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he that plows should plow in hope. and that he that threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope. 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 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. I've combined a few verses to have a theme about them and then I've done one at a time when I think one at a time is more appropriate.

1 Corinthians 9, 1-2 Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work and the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yea, doubtless I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship and the Lord. So what's an apostle? What are the qualifications of being an apostle? Some of them are listed there for you, but the handout is not to be your help here. Well, having seen Jesus Christ is a basic principle of being an apostle, and I list all kinds of verses there for you to document that. Another attribute which I did not drill down on in terms of what an apostle was, working of wonders and miracles.

And I think after the church age, the Apostolic Age was complete, this is not something we're looking to today. The Apostolic Church, if you will, Randy's had that experience, are looking to wonders and miracles to be done today. But God doesn't have anything more to prove to us, does he? But this was an attribute of the Apostolic Age.

And finally, another mark can be found in the results of his preaching. So here Paul refers back to Acts 22. Let's turn momentarily to Acts 22, verses 14 to 16. And I think this attribute is often forgotten. We're talking about seeing Jesus, or living with Jesus, or experiencing his physical presence. We're talking about miracles and wonders. But we often don't look at the results of the preaching that also is an attribute of the early apostolic age. So anyone who's ever got it, please read. And he says, God of our fathers, oops, did I do this right? Acts 22. And that is actually one. It's 20, 14, 16. Not correct. That's right. OK. That's 22. We're still 14 to 16. I think that's correct.

And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldst know his will, and see that just one, and shouldst hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be a witness unto all men, and to what they have seen and heard. And now, why talk terrorists thou?

Arise, and be baptized, and wash away us, as it is going on in the name of the Lord, and keep the past. Is this the idea of a seal of apostleship is really the outcome of this preaching? probably another sign of being an apostle at the time of the early church. And their conversion, meaning the people to whom Paul is referring in Acts, this couldn't have been accomplished by man. This is God working through Paul in a very special way to bring about this conversion.

All right. From what is Paul being freed from here? Am I not free? Free from what? This whole world. Free from the world? Free to do His will. Free to do whose will? The Lord's will. The Lord's will, okay. Alright, so what's Paul being free from? Is it like free from the law? Yeah, I think so. That's part of it.

And free actually to allow the spirit of the Lord to work in him. One of the main things Christ himself said, I'm going to make you free and when I do you're going to be free indeed. And was that just to abuse the truth of the word? No, the freedom we have in Christ is one to live a spirit led life. And I think that's what Paul's saying here. Look, I'm breaking out of this legality that I'm used to, and I'm free. I'm free not to do what I want, but free as the Spirit leads me to live this new life in Christ.

Now, do you think Paul in any way is doubting himself here? Well, he was born to call all these technical fowls, and when he was a Jew of the Jews, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, and now here he is completely walking back to camp and saying, this is different, this is something new, the Lord is doing a new thing because of what the Lord did for me. So there's a lot of redundancy in these inquiries that Paul is addressing in this section of the Bible.

I mean, he's basically saying, asking questions because there appears to be kind of some sort of charge or something he's defending here that he feels like he needs to provide evidence. And he's answering accusations with questions just to allow, I think, us in even today's age of the body of Christ to really see that the defense sometimes is to kind of examine ourselves by inquiries to position ourselves correctly in the way of the Lord. Any thoughts about that? Yeah, Randy?

I think that when I came to Holly Hills, I was challenged by the Socratic method of teaching, the idea that you would use questions to teach, and Paul's doing that in a masterful way here, where he's coming in and he's asking questions to reason with. If he were to just make a declarative statement, you might read and glaze over it. But when you ask questions, people have to engage with the idea more personally, and I think Paul is asking them to do that. Yeah, and I think before he came in I mentioned that there are at least 20 questions that are present in this text, and they're all the same type you spoke well of the Socratic method. All right, we've combined now verses 3 through 6.

My defense to those who examine me, here's the idea of accusations, right? People are questioning him. What we might ask is, who's questioning him? Is this the body? Or is this coming from the world around him? What do you think? It might be other Jews that are upset with Paul and his ministry and whatever. They're probably not believers necessarily. Or maybe they are believers, but they're upset that Paul is doing this. Who do you think you are? That's kind of the idea.

I mean, if you think of every other church that's gathering here this morning and we would go to their place or they would come to ours, there might be questions asked in terms of our theology and the applied theology to our Christian existence in life. So this criticism could come from within or it could come from without. The world is very skeptical and they're probably challenging him to defend this. Gee, you grew up under law. I'm looking at this very objectively at a distance. You grew up under all these laws and now you've got this freedom. What's that all about? So I think we have this inquisition.

We're not told who's examining Paul, but he's being examined. Do we have no right to eat and drink? Do we have no right to take along a believing wife as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord and Zethus? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? Wow, these verses are packed, packed with information and inquiries. In a sense, these are rhetorical.

Paul is asking questions to provide better documentation of really what the Lord's doing in his life. So my question is, what do you make of Paul's defense of those who examine him? And here, the term defense really implies, the Greek term implies the response to an accusation or a charge. What do you think? and challenges the accusers to think for themselves and check the evidence. But, you know, people can be very critical when someone asks you a question and you answer them with a question. You don't answer what they're telling you.

But it is a way to make the inquiry, the person providing the inquiry, to really rethink what they're really asking, right? So, I mean, it's an avoidance tactic, but Paul knows the answer. He's, I think, providing an opportunity for the people who are addressing him and charging him ultimately to reexamine their own question to see the validity of it.

All right. To those who examine him, a forensic term which implies judges. This would be like a courtroom, you know, an inquiry or a testimony in response to the defense or to the prosecutor. And here are examples, verses that relate to this examine him, implying kind of a forensic or legal term.

So what's Paul defending? Isn't this his liberty and freedom? And that liberty and freedom is not, should I continue in sin that grace shall abound? God forbid. No, that's not what he's defending. He's defending this new pathway called grace. And he provides numerous examples. And the idea here of this right is kind of a, when we think of rights, what do you think? I mean, is health care right? I don't know. I mean, I get this conversation all the time. Are interstate highways a right?

Well, I consider much of what government does a privilege. I mean, they want to pay for some stuff, wonderful. Anyway, so we're talking about the right or the power to eat. Now, right and power kind of might be interpreted a little bit differently. So right is the, in a sense, what's right is really what one expects to be right, whereas the power gives you a proactive position to take on these issues. So maybe similar. Now, I listed three kind of ways that this power can be used, reflecting the eating and drinking.

So the legal interpretation, Galatians 2.16, so let no one judge you in food or in drink regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbath. So that's kind of the legal position. Once upon a time, you were judged because of what you're reading, but that's no longer applicable here.

Paganistic, 1 Corinthians 8.4. Therefore, concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other god but one. That relates to the paganistic history of what we eat and what we drink, in terms of what was ultimately being offered to idols. And then finally, the idea of eating is in compensation for services. And we're going to get to that in verse 4. Actually, it's in this particular section that I have listed here. Now, do we have no right to take along a believing life? That should have been followed by a question. And this is an interesting inquiry.

Athletes in Action is a ministry that Clint Mahan, who's the brother of Kristen, my second daughter's husband. So in other words, Kristen's married to Wade. Wade's brother's Clint. He works for Athletes in Action. And apparently, he was dating a young lady who, in fact, was a nurse. And their relationship was increasingly maturing. And marriage seemed to be likely. But Athletes in Action would not allow her to continue working as a nurse if, in fact, she married him in the ministry of Athletes in Action. Now, they've reconsidered that position. But I think this is kind of interesting.

Because what it says, apparently, most apostles, and I've read a little bit further about this, Most apostles traveled with believing wives, and family of course, but not Paul and Barabbas. We don't know much about Paul and Barabbas. I think, isn't there some record of Paul being married, but I couldn't find that. We know nothing if he was. This is sometimes the verse that people will point to in saying, implying that he was married. I don't think Paul was married. That's an opinion and I can't scripturally find evidence that he was.

Well, we just spent many verses earlier in Corinthians where he defends being single and he says, as I am, so it seems like he's single. I mean, he certainly has defended that point and he references himself as being single, so I don't know, it seems like he's making a point, you know, he's asking a rhetorical question. shouldn't I be allowed? I should be allowed, but he's already chosen a signalist, it seems like, from earlier verses. Well, right, and I think we're going to build into why that might be true here in terms of his being compensated for his service. We'll come back to that in a second.

No, believing-wise. You know, a ministry of a missionary, an evangelist, or whatever, is one in which, if there's marriage, you've got to have both. in the Lord. You can't have a division here in a marriage and ultimately expect the apostleship to be appropriate. He's speaking specifically about apostles here, by the way. And I think, in general, we're expanding that to our current view of what the missionary should be.

And despite Peter, who was apparently widwied, this verse is one in which papists and the flock felt was critically important about making priest and nuns celibate and single. I mean, isn't it amazing? Peter, according to this verse, traveled with his wife. But yet, based on Peter, which the Roman Catholic Church is founded, there's no marriage.

Now what does, or is it only Barnabas and I, by the way, Acts 18.3, these are both tent makers. So they have kind of, they've worked the world system, they have an income related to their tents. who have no right to refrain from working indicate here?

What do you think that conditional statement means? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working? I think it's a lame argument because circumstances with everybody change. You're going to run into low spots where you do have to work for a living. There's no welfare system in place.

It is what it is. It is. And I think it implies the fact that they have labored and have been compensated for their labor as tent makers. But now they have a different task, and that's spreading the gospel. So in fact, if I'm going to be rewarded for tent making, why should I be rewarded? I mean, they're not looking at this selfishly. They're just setting doctrine. for what a pastor or a minister should be compensated for his service.

So I think, again, it's rhetorical. This is full of rhetoric here, this whole section. Now, is Paul's defense a bit too defensive, do you think? Or I think we're just looking at the way he's dealing with these inquiries in a way that would make those who are inquiring reconsider what they're really asking. And so this defense of Paul's, by the way, you can see multiple other examples of him defending the gospel, defending his position as an apostle in these texts. And we'll not turn to all of those right now. All right, verse 7. 7 and 8 are interesting. Whoever goes to war at his own expense, who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock? Again, a series of questions. And this is kind of the obvious, duh. How would you describe these inquiries?

If you're accusing, you know, Paul and ultimately the ability of his new work, his new life to be compensated for, how would you interpret these, Tom? Well, he had to go through this lengthy explanation with the First, while pagans, you probably did not know all that much about rabbis, unless they were basically co-opted by the rabbis to refute Paul. So here he is, just telling the people the facts of life.

Whatever your conviction is, you deserve remuneration for it. And we're going to see in a second that that's not an arrogant demand of the church at Corinth. And that's what's so neat about this, because ultimately, I'll finish our lesson now almost, if Paul was so content with spreading the gospel without being compensated, he wasn't going to act on his right, quote, to be compensated. But this is one of many areas of New Testament scripture that reinforce the idea that we need to pay our pastors. And by the way, what's the principle of Christian giving?

One simple line. Love. Well, love, yeah. God loves a cheerful giver. And if you're given reluctantly, or stubbornly, or illegally, That's not what God calls us to. He loves a cheerful giver. And that's the kind of support that we all are called to in terms of how much we give and how frequently.

So the principle here is that everyone lives off of the proceeds of their occupation. And the preaching of the gospel is no exception. I think through a series of rhetorical inquiries that Paul has to deal with, this is the bottom line. And there's just no exception to thinking of the need to pay no taxes.

If you don't mind. Yeah, please. Yeah. Interrupt any time, everybody. This is on the same lines as if you took mathematics, which is actually an offshoot of Greek study. And just going through the point by point, here a little, there a little, on and on, to prove a mathematical principle, or an algebraic principle. So it shouldn't be anything strange to these Corinthians, who probably had all the Archimedes and others, that they could stand and still survive. Right. This is a fairly sophisticated society, too, that Paul's really addressing here.

Now, do I say these things as a mere man, or does not the law say the same also? Is this first inconsistently verse 7, do you think? Obviously not, the Lord allowed it. But what are your thoughts? Verse 7 says, basically, my summary is again, preaching the gospel as an occupation should be reimbursed. I mean, it's not an occupation the way the world thinks about an occupation. It's a ministry.

Now this verse says, do I say these things as a mere man? Or does the law say the same thing also? So as a mere man, what would Paul be saying as a mere human being? I need to be compensated. This is my due. This is just reward for my time and effort. That's his being a mere man, expecting to be compensated for his job.

And what about the law? So what law are we talking about here? The verse that says, Paulus gives a clue. This is Mosaic law. Let's further this inquiry. How does this relate to being free? And why would Paul bring up the law here? So these are questions that lead into, I think, the next verse.

For it's written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. I think I had corn in the version I read. Is it oxen God is concerned about? Well, the idea here is that the ox should not be prevented from eating when it's not muzzled.

When it's muzzled, the allegory here is that's working in the workplace. That doesn't mean you can't eat at work. But the point is when the ox is muzzled, ultimately it doesn't eat because it can't. The muzzle is attached to the mouth and jaw in a way that eating is not possible. But when it's not muzzled, it has free access to food. So the idea here is in the workplace we have an occupation and we put in our time and effort and then we come home to dinner. is that the law doesn't preclude the ox to eat. Just in its task, it requires to be muzzled. And the freedom God gives oxen relates to us as believers living in a real world system.

Most of us have jobs in the regular workplace, or we have jobs as spouses at home, helping raise children, being grandparents, etc. So we all have these earthly kind of responsibilities. But by the way, that doesn't preclude being paid so that ultimately food, drink, and other resources were made available to us. Other thoughts? It's a good word picture because you are actually preaching the gospel, well, that's putting to work what God's gift is in hope. If you're an ox, you're just putting to work what's going on with the rest of your body to make this search impossible. God put them all for the ox, and it becomes much more plain in the free will of humans that this fits the picture.

To be expansive just in terms of interpretation, we live in a real world system. Our citizenship's in heaven, isn't it? Our citizenship is in heavenly places, but yet we need to provide, and to be provided typically means to have an occupation. And there is due reward for our occupation. So that's simply what Paul says. Am I a mere man? My service is now spreading the gospel. And even though here he's not assuming that right to be paid, there's other examples. And we'll turn to those for you. Go ahead, please.

I was thinking in the Old Testament, the Levite tribe was basically, they were like the ministers there. And I think they were provided for. Right, and by the way, the Levites had no inheritance, right? It was one of the tribes of Israel that had no promise of anything future. Their job was simply to spread the truth of the Jewish word at the time. That they were provided for. Provided for by the Jewish community. Yeah, Ryan?

That was the tithe. The tithe was the 10% given to the Levites to take care of. And the Jews had other taxes and other things and duties that they were actually expected to give. which is always my favorite part when people say, we're under the tithe.

I'm like, you don't understand. But that's a legal responsibility, right? Yeah. And if you didn't tithe, you were made to feel guilty, I'm sure. When Jessica and I were courting or dating or whatever term you appreciate there. Look, we don't need to go there. I had set my sights on being a pastor. I was pretty sure that's what I needed to do. And so I talked to her.

I was like, if we get married, I'm expecting to live at a probably poverty level because that's the average. The average master in the United States lives at poverty level. And if you're doing that reluctantly, you're probably not there. Yeah. And I said, you know, let's let's not be halfway about this. You know, if we're committed to one another, we have to be prepared for that.

But this is a very big issue in the United States because we have pastors like Joel Osteen who's got millions, or Benny Hinn who's got even more. And then we've got other pastors who are living at a poverty level and have a flock that is small enough that you really aren't, you can't do that alone, you have to be a tent maker. But I think just to also generalize this, I mean, most of us are not pastors and are not in full-time ministry. I hate the term full-time ministry because we're all in full-time ministry, aren't we? Our mission field is different for each one of us. Different groups of people, different circumstances, different life paths.

By the way, at the end of the story I started before, so Clint then did not marry this young woman because Athletes in Action would not allow him to marry her under the circumstances. And so she married somebody else three months later. Anyway, so she clearly was on the path to get married. Anyway, you can chart that out however you want. But just reflecting back, I mean, Clint's not married still.

He's 43. And he's a great guy. We support his ministry and we're very, very It's just an example of how law and legal systems inappropriately apply. I mean, God knows everything. He knew about all this from time eternal, going forward. I'm not sure why I have 9, 1, and 10 anyway. Or does he say it all together for our sakes?

For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who brushes in hope should be partakers of his hope. So if you're going to plow a field, you're raising a crop, it's OK to think you're going to eat it. I mean, how practical is this?

Anyway. So all together here is best translated chiefly. In other words, it's not, oh by the way, but this is really written for your sakes. The body. This is written for our sakes. Not just that last verse. So in a way here, error shows up as the whole body precedes. Yes. Good point, Tom. And the answer is yes, unequivocally yes. He cares about oxen. And we can turn to verses, he cares about birds, every sparrow, right? And the hairs on your head. And beyond but no doubt in this verse, his ultimate care is for us.

And by the way, he infuses us with great hope. So what's our hope? Is our hope for our paycheck being increased next month? What is our hope? In Christ the Lord is our hope in terms of our daily walk, but we look for his coming, don't we? And we look for the promises made in eternal places where we're positioned now, but conditionally, flesh and blood and the call to be active in our faith and trusting God for what he's revealed. Other thoughts?

1 Timothy 5.18 For the scripture says, You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain, and the laborer is worthy of his wages. That seems pretty practical.

1 Corinthians 3.9 I corrected it here, but not on your handout. It says 9.9 on your handout, so please, if you have a pen, correct that.

For we are God's fellow workers, you are God's field, and are God's building. So we're turning now to the apostles. And I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So the concept here is ultimately the Lord is about his people and about his body. And oh yeah, the oxen and the birds and all the other creatures he's created, he cares about. But he cares even more about us. All right, 1 Corinthians 11 and 12. If we have some spiritual things for you, Is it a great thing if we reap your material things? If others are partakers of this right of you, are we not even more so? And nevertheless, we have not used this right, but endure all things lest we hinder the gospel of Christ." So this is what I was alluding to a little bit earlier. So I wish the if here were not conditional. But if I drilled down on the if and the ei and the way it's used in context, this is conditional.

That means, if we sowed spiritual things for you, meaning they may not have. Now I wish it were sense, because I'd love to interpret this sense, because I would think that Paul and Barnabas were about sowing spiritual things, and we know they were, but Paul still says, by the way, is your interpretation that we were sharing spiritual things? Because the if is not so much, we were sharing spiritual things, but it's the ability of Pat or Gary or Winnie to interpret these as spiritual food. So that's the conditional nature, I think, that we're dealing with here. So I wish this were unconditional, that the people who were receiving these spiritual things were acknowledging them as spiritual. But maybe not. The intent here is that spiritual labor should be rewarded as for physical labor, here to the Corinthian body of believers.

But if others are partakers of this right over you, Paul did not. So he's saying that this right I have to be compensated for my spreading the gospel, I don't expect anything here. And we're going to come back in the last verse to indicate that at other times he did. And that's important because Paul didn't live off the ground.

I mean, he needed to be compensated. But here he's saying, look, I'm going to really discount this right, so-called right to be compensated. Because the Corinthian church at this phase of his ministry was so critically important for him to share the gospel. Randy.

One of the things I think that is important when we look at these issues of finance here is also that there's a long-standing principle of the one and others within the body that we gave as we saw that there was a need. And I've watched that happen in this body on several occasions in a public way, but I'm sure it happens privately all the time.

There's this one another principle, but it's strange that we would consider either an apostle or a pastor or an evangelist or someone who might have, you know, missionary... Why would we treat them differently? Why would we not see their need and think, well, this is an opportunity? And the Corinthians apparently saw Paul as not a one another, but as another.

Well, you know, a lot of times I think we're ignorant about the needs. I think that's true of this body. This body is very kind of give cheerfully. And, you know, there's no offering plate. There's nothing like that. And this body is sustained by that mechanism.

But I think sometimes there needs that need to be ultimately not not in any other way than say, hey, We need a new roof. I mean, the point is that I think ignorance often can't be responded to. So it's not demanding. So, Roger, I think sometimes if there are needs for the church that the body needs to consider in more detail, maybe it's OK, I think, to let us know about that. And we have done that. Like when the parking lot, that kind of came along with doing the parking lot. And people responded to that. But isn't it neat, one of the first things that I couldn't believe when I first came here was no offering plate.

Isn't that a guilt trip when the offering plates pass through some mainline church and everybody's got to prove to the person next to them that they're, you know, a bowler? Anyway, never mind. Alright, do you think Paul was setting a precedent here that other apostles needed to follow? Is this a precedent that in fact if you're really engaged in spreading the gospel enough, by the way, you have a right to be compensated, but maybe under certain circumstances you won't be. I think it's kind of a precedent.

That doesn't mean, keep in mind, rights and action are not identical. The right to be compensated is scriptural and that's what we're dealing with here. But yet, there may be times when, in fact, there is no compensation. I mean, if you think about our elders, in fact, I mean, the time that they spend in ministry and counseling and all the things they go through, I mean, you're not being paid by hour, right? I mean, there's a lot that goes on in the body of Christ that is not expected to be compensated for.

The furtherance of the gospel is most important here, not hindered or without charge. So it's interesting. The Greek says, without charge, and that means there's no invoice that Paul is submitting for his time spent here. So the gospel is not hindered, but better translated, again, I'm not expecting to be reimbursed here by the Church of Corinth for whatever reason. But at times, Paul did accept compensation. Let's just look briefly at one of these, but I think I have a couple more to follow.

Philippians 4, 15, and 16, let's take a look at that passage if we could. You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, but you alone. For even in Thessalonica you sent a gift for more than once for my needs. Isn't that neat? Churches, they were supporting Paul from abroad. Macedonia, Thessalonica, and here he is in Philippi.

So that's one evidence, and we'll turn to a couple more in a second. Verse 13, do you not know that those who minister the holy things eat of the things of the temple, and those who serve at the altar partake of the offerings of the altar? Interesting. So now Paul is turning back to the law of Moses. And ultimately, Macaulay, I'm quoting him here. It was the right of the Old Testament priests to eat part of the sacrifices that they offered at the altar.

Numbers 18, big text that will not turn to that, Deuteronomy 18.1 support the idea that after the sacrifices were offered at the altar, ultimately they could partake of what was the leftovers, if you will.

Granted, it was capable of abuse. And I think in later times, and I didn't drill down historically here, this was a matter of abuse factually. I mean, ultimately. Again, I didn't look carefully at this in detail. But the idea that this was an abuse that the priests were making was well-documented historically.

So verse 14, even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel. live, meaning, notice, even so. So even so relates to the fact that people who plant and plow fields can expect to eat from that. The oxen can expect to eat when in fact it's not muzzled. This is kind of a, duh, I mean, the pastor, the apostle is spending his time ultimately in delivering the gospel and he also should live from the gospel.

And the Lord so commanded this. These verses aren't perfect here. The Lord and Matthew and Luke kind of commanded that ultimately that people in the homes of one another would be fed and ultimately reimbursed through food. Let's turn to these, please. We've got a few minutes. Matthew 10, 9 and 10 and Luke 10, 7 and 8. Roger, would you do the Matthew? And Margaret, would you do the Luke passage, please? These were referenced in one of the commentaries. They're okay, but this is church-age stuff. Remember, this is the Lord speaking to this. It's kind of like hospitality within the Jewish nation, which is expected.

Matthew 10, line 10. Do not acquire gold or silver or copper for your money belts, or a bag for your journey, or even two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the worker is worthy of his support. Okay, Margaret? Yes, Luke 10, 7 and 8. And the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. and into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, each such things as are set before you."

Okay, now that addressed the disciples in particular. So the idea is that you're going to be staying in people's homes. There's an expectation, not a selfish one, but an expectation that they would provide for you when you're there. So the Lord spoke about this somewhat indirectly, not church-age stuff, but at least in terms of, if you will, the principle of God being applied at that time dispensationally. Now here are the other texts that relate to Paul's reimbursement.

So Galatians 6.6, Tom and Cheryl, could you do 1 Timothy 5.17? One printed text, one electronic text coming up. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Yeah, the communication to him who teaches is the communication in terms of reimbursement and support. Cheryl? Just a second. Oh, I'm sorry. The electronic Bible is slower, isn't it? That's why court stands up front and waits for me to get it electronically. Brad is becoming increasingly patient.

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. So there's an idea of additional compensation there. I mean, the elders who work hard. Roger, how are you doing at this? So Roger's working hard, but Doyle's not, you know, if he were here, believe me, I'd say the same thing. So we have fun.

But anyway, the idea of maybe at times you would want to reimburse more generously based on whatever. This is an earthly metric that we're talking about. the body of believers, spirit-led, would sense that there's need for additional compensation under some circumstances. We're not going to be legal about that statement. But this does suggest the First Timothy passage. There could be times when, in fact, additional recompense is needed for that. I think that's done.

So let's just stop here and see what we've learned. I think we've learned that there's a reasonable expectation based scripturally for supporting our pastors. that ultimately this has a logical basis and has a spiritual basis and ultimately this defensive nature of Paul here is in response to accusations that relate to day-to-day living as a believer. Paul goes back to the legal basis for this and brings that forward and interprets it for the freedom he now has in the spirit living in the age of grace. system with the meat and being able to take meat from the altar.

Actually, that was Eli's son's problem. Eli's son's problem. When God condemned them, basically they were not taking the boiled meat, which is the meat that they were allowed to take from the sacrifices. They wanted it fresh from the altar. Let's face it, everybody likes barbecue. But literally, it was a sin. for the spiritual leaders of Israel. And that's a big gap. All right, Tom, close us in prayer, please. Amen. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were done. Okay, good. All right, good.