Q1. Right to Support

[Pastor Ralph]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself? Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

[pickledilly]

Just because Paul chose not to ask for financial support from the church, it doesn’t mean that the church had no responsibility to provide it.  But he chose not to demand it when the congregation was founded because he wanted to avoid any situation that could become an obstacle to the advancement of the gospel.  He didn’t want his position and influence to seem mercenary or self-indulgent because that would spotlight him instead of the message of salvation.  He knew these young believers needed to spiritually grow into the concept of the kind of giving required to provide support for those who served them in proclaiming and teaching them the gospel.  Pressure to give could push unsaved people away from the gospel.  Paul wanted to be received as a servant of the gospel, not a financial burden on the congregation that would distract them from Christ.

 

As to rights, I also think of the example we have in Christ.  Philippians 2:6-11 shows us how Jesus set aside every entitlement of His divinity when He took on physical flesh and was born as a human baby in order to become the sacrifice for our sins.  In no way did this mean He no longer possessed those rights.

[Delivered]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself?

 

Paul was able to financially support himself which allowed him to preach the word to all - free of charge, Paul regarded this independence as his reward, however, for those who are not able to do the work of the Lord without some financial help is why the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. 

 

 

[JanMary]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself?

 

Paul taught that others should have the privilege of receiving support, according to Biblical teaching, but chose not to avail himself of this, as he said it would deprive him of any ground for glorifying Christ in this matter. The law supported this teaching, but  Paul chose to live in the grace he'd received and was teaching....freedom from the law. To provide for himself through his occupation as tent maker gave him the means to do so.

 

Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

 

Paul was already hounded and persecuted by the Jews for his conversion to Christianity and missionary work. His new converts were largely poor and some were suspect of his motives, and he wanted there to be no question regarding his integrity and motivation.

 

For any missionary to have to ask for support from new converts might appear as though ones support was the only or main reason for preaching the Gospel,  rather than for the Gospel message to lead then to salvation.

[Sank T Monius]

1 Corinthians 9:4-12
Q). Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself?
A). Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported just as other workers receive their support. "If 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."
(1 Corinthians 9:11-12)
#
Q). Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?
A). Paul doesn't want his need for money to get in the way of winning people to Christ. And after the church became established, it was difficult to change the status quo and ask for support. As a missionary, he was quite aware that expecting his brand new hearers to pay for his support would get in the way of his mission.

[charisbarak]

Each worker deserves his pay.

Money would be something that would detract from the gospel in new believers.  God has to move each one of us to support them.  God has to move new believers too eventually.

[hanks]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) 

Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself? 

Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

Paul’s aim was for the gospel to be preached and he was willing to endure hardships so that this was not hindered in anyway. He acknowledges that the church must pay their workers adequate wages. We know that the spiritual work they do is of eternal importance. When it comes to missionary work one has to be careful. It can easily hinder missionary work if the any missionary expects their new converts to support them. The reason being that most missionaries work is done in very poor and remote areas. One has to be careful that new converts or potential converts must not think that the gospel is preached only for selfish motives, or that it is done for monetary gain. It is better if missionaries are able to support themselves or have the support of fellow believers. Once a group of believers have been established and they are in position to pay a wage then it would be okay for them to do so. 

 

[Lion of Grace]

Paul argued for the right of the apostles and other Christian workers to be supported because this standard does have a Biblical backing. He has decided though, not to claim his "rights" because his heart of hearts was to preach the Gospel. He didn't want the burden of people having to support him to hinder his Gospel message in any way. Paul worked and had financial freedom to move about and preach without burdening others. He could preach to everyone, rich or poor and did not hinder the poor from coming for lack of funds. I think too, Paul knew the dangers of ministries for pay. He wanted to remain a servant in humble service to God dependent on God to provide for him. His life was for Christ....in every circumstance. I really respect Paul in the face of what some ministry has become today. Not a "call" but a "job". The Biblical standard for supporting some in ministry is being abused and outrageous salaries and lifestyles show more greed than a heart to serve the Lord.

 

It would hinder Paul's ministry if new converts are expected to support him because they would see it as preaching for pay. They would not see His true heart for the Gospel and wouldn't accept a pure Gospel message in the way he could offer it if he gave it for free. The Gospel of salvation through Jesus is a pure message and free for everyone. A gift! What better way to convince listeners than to show it is freely given and should be freely received? What a wonderful heart for Jesus Paul had!!!

[WinstonY]

P(1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself? Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him

When Paul did not accept wages for preaching some of his opponents began to suggesr that paul was in fact not a true apostle. First in his rebuttal paul insists upon the wages for an apostle and insists that as he is an apostle because he has seen the Lord and as the Corinthians accept pay for work of apostles than they should accept paul as an apostle.

There were reasons that Paul did not accept pay. It could hinder the growth of the gospel. Some would suggest that Paul was preaching only for the money. Also the church may find it difficult to pay. Some may not come because they would not be able to pay. Paul's message was readily accepted by the poor and slave.

Jesus said the worker is worth his keep. Matthew 10.9. Also he deserves his wages Luke 10.7. Paul also uses the OT quote do not muzzle anox when it is treading out grain.

[IvoryEagle]

Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself? FOR THOSE COMING AFTER HIM, IT NEEDS TO BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT CONDITIONS.

 

 

 

 

Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him? MISCONSTRUED UNDERSTANDING CREATES DOUBT AND SUSPICION.  IT COULD HINDER THE GOSPEL.

[parkerslope]

Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself?

When Paul is establishing a congregation, he must be careful when teaching about the funding of the preaching and teaching.  So that he would not hinder people from understanding the truth when it costs them nothing.  As the Mosaic Law gave instruction about the ox who treaded out the grain to be able to eat any of it, and the priests to take some of the meat offered on the altar as part of their compensation.

 

Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

All people like things that are free and that is why we send missionaries out with support from congregations in the U S.  But once the new convert understands that it costs something to be a Christian, they need to give to support the one who is teaching them.

[lighthouse2014]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself? Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

Paul argues that those who preach the gospel are to benefit from it, as in the Old Testament, the priest received food and tithes from the people. This food is what the people brought to the priest for their sacrifices.This was the wages for the priest. Paul refuses to take his wages from the Church, so he is not accused of using the gospel for profit or wages.

[Jwalane Mofokeng]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself?

I think everyone never cares about him as it is happening even today. deut 25: 4 When an ox is working in the grain,( treading the grain) do not cover its mouth to keep it from eating.

 

Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

Because as a missionary you must focus on the your calling

 

 When an ox is ·working in the grain [treading the grain], do not ·cover its mouth to keep it from eating [muzzle it

[van]

Paul states that spiritual work ought to be paid material support, and since the Corinthians recognize others who are paid then preachers of the gospel ought to be paid also. Paul didn't exercise his right to support because it would have hindered the gospel message of Christ and he didn't want to take that chance. If you expect pay from new converts, they will feel as though all you want is the money and see it as a regular paying job.

 

[Old Jerry]

I think that the reason that Paul argue for the right of the apostles and other Christian workers to be supported is that there is are going to be others that will be following him and they are going to need the support from the Christian community.

I think that if the missionaries expected the new converts to support him that they would think that they were in it just to get material goods.

[Craig]

Paul preached that the laborer is worthy of wages --  a Biblical principle.  Enough though Paul deserved wages or support in turn for preaching/teaching the gospel among the Corinthians, he chose not to take help to make it easier on the new church.  Paul didn't want anything to get in the way of the gospel ministry.  Additionally, Paul had a source of income independent of the ministry as a tent maker.

 

In not taking support from the Corinthians Paul was taking the focus off the material and placing strictly on the spiritual.  Paul wanted the church to know that his motivation was not support but their spiritual growth and welfare in Jesus Christ.  His motives were pure in Christ. Sometimes the material can get mixed up with the ministry and confuse and distort that ministry.  Paul was keeping it separate.

[Rod Beenleigh]

Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself? Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

 

Apostles and other Christian workers, according to Paul, had the right or authority to claim support for their labours just as the plowmen and threshers did.

Paul chose not to obstruct the mission by requesting from the Corinthians as he was more interested in winning people to Christ. The new converts might construe that Paul was just making money out of them.

[Guitar Jim]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself?

 

The Lord Jesus Himself set the example for preachers and missionaries to be supported by the people they're serving. In this context he's arguing that the church in Corinth should recognize his right to material support, even though he was supporting himself. He's contending with people who deny his apostleship.

 

 

 

Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

 

Going somewhere to preach the Gospel and convert people to Christianity would be quickly seen as a rort if missionaries expected the people they'd just signed up to start paying them money and/or supporting them in other material ways. The world at large is quick to condemn Christianity and any religion for that matter as nothing more than a money-spinner. Christianity would be reduced to nothing more than another Amway! Folks would see you coming and shut the doors and turn the lights off!

[haar]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself? Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

He argued for the right of apostles and other workers to be supported even though he himself did not ask for the support because it was an entitlement for a worker to be paid for his labour.

 

He himself chose not to exercise the right because he did not want to burden his young converts. Furthermore, he did not want the issue of his right to be distract him from his serious ministerial or apostolic purpose.

 

Young converts may think that the apostle was working just for the money and not for the spiritual needs of the church.

 

[dixonle]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12) Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself? Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

 

In these verses, Paul asserted two right of the church, one of which is the right  to food and drink, what he calls material support. In our notes, we find that "right" among other meanings relates freedom of choice.  He referred to soldiers who were expected to be paid, vineyard workers paid to get a share of the harvest of grapes, and shepherds who were entitled to drink of the goat's milk as part of their sustenance.  And in verse 10b, he refers to plowmen and thrashers being entitled to share in the harvest.

 

Paul was on a mission and that mission was to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.  That was his only focus and therefore did not want to "muddy the waters" of the message by making any efforts about getting paid. He felt that would confuse his message away from the LORD to getting paid.  Although a Christian worker should get paid, Paul' stance was more to be with the people and accept whatever they give him.

[blezed]

Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself?

1.  Paul gave up that right to win souls to Christ.  He did not want to do anything that would hinder the gospel. 

Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?      

2.  New converts would not quite understand that Christian workers are to be supported.  They would think that he was just interested in money or being paid to say what he was saying.  Some would stay away and not received the word because they had no money to give. 

[JoanG]

From the beginning of the Jewish civilization, God has proposed that the religious leaders were to be supported by the faithful. Paul is stating that just because they are following Christ now as converts, they still need to follow the old rules. But now, the teachings stress more about love than the law. If all missionaries wanted to be supported all the time, the poor would not be able to have them stay. People had and still have problems feeding themselves. It would be impossible to feed another person. Paul was being very considerate of the people he was dealing with. He did not personally want to cause them any discomfort.

[Irmela]

Q1. (1 Corinthians 9:4-12)

Why does Paul argue for the right of apostles and other Christian workers to be supported, if he has decided not to exercise this right himself?

Why would it hinder missionary work for a missionary to expect his new converts to support him?

From the O.T.  times we find that the priests were supported from what the people gave. Reading in the Israelite's History we find that when there was support as God directed then the priests functioned correctly in their role. Paul points all this out, and shows the logic behind the Christian worker being supported, as he and his family also have the right to live.  He decided not to exercise this right as he did not want to burden the fledgling church group.

Asking for support is a very sensitive issue.  Before newly converts fully understand that the missionary is there to actually "serve them", instruct them or teach them in their new way of life, it can easily put them off when requesting for support from them.  Very often they themselves live below the breadline.

One does find though that often they are eager to give , if you are just willing to accept that what they have to give.

[Krissi]

I'm going to be a bit contrarian here.

God promises to meet our needs. We are not to worry about what we're to eat, drink or wear ... our "life", says Jesus, because the Father knows of our needs and will meet them. This applies to leaders as well as  struggling believers in the pews.

Ministers should be mature examples of faith which means they must show the congregation how to depend on God to meet their needs. That’s what the apostles did – they left everything to follow Him. They left their things, their attachments to home and family, and the status they had prior to following Him. God, for them, sufficed.

There’s a reason why secularists scoff at tv evangelists and many pastors of big churches – they see the ostentatious displays of new money and assume, not always rightly, that the church leader is a huckster scamming desperate people of their last two mina. To avoid any appearance of sin and protect not only the witness of the church to unbelievers but also to those young in faith, perhaps leaders should be chosen from a subset of people willing to pray for provision and not ask for it?

In truth, the church should meet the needs of every person in the congregation. It’s not just apostles and full-time Christian workers who deserve to be supported, but the single mom who can’t make her rent, or the man with mental issues that can’t hold a job, or an elderly person whose social security doesn’t cover the cost of her medicines. These people, too, have needs that God may choose to meet through the church.

I can see the logic behind the claim that the leaders of the church cannot hold another job while leading the church therefore deserve more support than the rest of the people in the church. This makes sense, is fair, and seems, too, to be what Paul is arguing. Yet Paul willingly made tents to avoid asking for money. This, perhaps, should be the goal to which ministers should aspire?

I really don’t know.

A few years ago, I read a couple books about George Mueller, a British man who lived 150 years ago who built orphanages that fed and clothed thousands of children. He never asked for money but built these orphanages by prayer alone. People who recall him today aren’t impressed by his buildings or even the number of kids he helped and brought to Christ, but by his faith … his total dependence on God to meet his needs. Mueller declined a salary, like Paul. As his financial needs grew, his reputation grew as well. More people knew what he was doing and supported him. But he never asked for money. He just asked God to provide.  

I have spoken with too many unbelievers who are revolted by the un-humble lives of Christian ministers like Joel Olsteen. They have seen the fancy jets of evangelists and shake their heads in derision. Many people I’ve spoken with think Christians are frauds and Christian leaders are money-grubbers. A display of wealth gave them this idea. Just money.