Please be seated. We'll go ahead and take your Bibles and open with me to 1 Corinthians chapter 9. 1 Corinthians 9, we should be able to cover the whole chapter, but just to begin with, we will read verses 1 through 12. 1 Corinthians 9 verses 1-12. Paul says, Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense to those who examine me is this. Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of the fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the law also say these things? For it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing. God is not concerned about oxen, is he? Or is he speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. Let's pray. Father, we pray as we come to your word today, we would come with hearts of a servant to receive teaching and instruction and commands from our Lord. We see in this chapter, Lord, Paul dealing with a people that are stiff-willed, Lord. And yet, Father, we confess we are so often very much that way. We pray, Lord, as we've been addressing these matters of conscience and laying aside our rights with one another, if there be anything within us, Lord, in which we be guilty of not laying aside those rights, would the words of the Apostle thunder against us, Lord, today, that we might live as he did, laying aside our rights, that there might be no hindrances to the spread of the gospel. Would your spirit come now, illuminate your word to our hearts, and plant it, and would it bear fruit, Father, in the name of Christ, amen. Amen. Well, today we are wrapping up our series, brothers and sisters, on matters of conscience within the local church. Before we go to that, though, I would just briefly draw your attention to take a moment and consider the fact that today also wraps up three months of joint services. three months of joint services. The first day we had joint services, Jason and I were sweating in that back room, praying on our knees, literally praying on our knees because we were quite anxious. And yet we can look back now after three months and just see what a testament to the Lord's faithfulness and his provision and kindness. And I would just draw your attention to that. As I said, though, we are wrapping up today our series on matters of conscience in the local church. We saw last week 1 Corinthians 8, and really, as I said, all we set out to do last week was to kind of establish the context, establish what was going on and who were the parties involved because, as I said, While there are many similarities between 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14, there are some significant differences. Namely, in Romans 14, the weaker brother, as Paul calls him, is almost exclusively, most likely, a Jewish Christian who is still clinging to some elements of the ceremonial law of Moses, though not raising them to the level of justification or salvation. In 1 Corinthians, however, while the term weaker brother probably has in mind the Jewish Christians to some degree, we saw that Paul also has the Gentile Christians in mind as well, particularly those who had had extensive history or involvement in sacrificing food to idols. Furthermore, as I said, not only do we see in this two different types of weaker brothers, but really two different types of weak consciences, meaning that consciences may be weak, but not all consciences are weak for the same reasons. If you recall, we read from William Perkins, he says, some are weak of simple ignorance. Some are weak of simple ignorance. That's not meant to be an insult. He's not saying you're dumb, that's why you're weak. To use the word very literally, you are ignorant. You are not knowing something as you ought to truly know. There's some deficiency either in your interpretation of scripture or your theology or both. I gave the example of a Christian. who is indeed a true Christian, has true faith, but is sincerely believing in the fact that the Bible absolutely forbids alcohol. Maybe that's what they were raised believing. Maybe a pastor who loved them, who was a godly man, stood every week, well, not preaching this every week, but taught them throughout a lifetime of teaching that the Bible does absolutely forbid alcohol under all circumstances, and they believe that, right? Well, they're still true Christians, but they are ignorant on that one point. To my mind, that is more the case of Romans 14, or the case of the Jewish Christian who believes that some elements of the ceremonial law are still in force. They are true believers, they have a genuine faith, but they are ignorant on the matter because all of the ceremonial law of Moses had been abolished. But we saw last week, Perkins gives us another scenario, another reason why a conscience might be weak. He says that others are weak, not so much because of simple ignorance, though I guess these aren't hermetically sealed categories. Some of ignorance could play into that, right? But he says because they have been deceived by the abuse of long custom. They have been deceived by the abuse of long custom. That would be more the case of someone, for example, who may agree that the Bible does not absolutely forbid the drinking of alcohol. They might even say, in moderation, the drinking of alcohol is fine and can even be a good thing. But for them, if they were to partake, they would feel condemned. They would feel tainted by it, even dirty, perhaps, in their conscience. Perhaps they used to abuse it. Or maybe they knew others who used to abuse it. As I said, I know people who would feel guilty if they drank because in their history, in their life, they have seen the very worst of humanity come out of otherwise normal, good people when they drink. Some people become monsters when they drink. And some people, that's been their only experience with alcohol. So for them to drink is almost just like drinking liquid sin. That's all they've seen come out of this. And to my mind, that is what Perkins is getting after when he speaks of those whose consciences are weak by the abuse of long custom. Again, That seems more like the case of 1 Corinthians 8, where you have Gentile Christians who Paul says are accustomed to the idol until now, or as the ESV says, through former association with idols. They eat food as if it were sacrifice to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled. Two different kinds of weaker brothers, but also two different kinds of weak consciences. Well, as we saw, Paul warns the stronger Christians that to cause one of these weaker brothers to stumble and therefore defile their conscience is not only to hurt and sin against their brother for whom Christ died, but even more than that, it is to sin against the Christ who died, since that brother belongs to his body. Therefore, Paul concludes chapter eight with verse 13. Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again so that I will not cause my brother to stumble. Well, today we are looking at chapter 9 of 1 Corinthians. We'll look at a bit of chapter 10, a bit of chapter 11 even, but really we're going to keep ourselves to chapter 9 simply because it's long enough in its own right and you could easily get three sermons out of this and we're just going to barely do justice with one sermon, okay? Now, in chapter 9, Paul is basically going to give support to that very bold statement he made in verse 13 of chapter 8, namely, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again. Paul will spend a whole other chapter supporting this statement, on the one hand, to give the Corinthians some positive reinforcement, to show them the good that comes from caring for their brother's conscience. In chapter 8, he really only focused on the negative, sinful effects. In chapter 9, he's going to give some positive reinforcement. The other reason, though, why I think Paul takes a whole other chapter to deal with this is because he knows that the Corinthians very likely still need some persuading. We will see that the Corinthians are very big on their rights, their liberties, their freedoms, so much so that sadly Paul knows in their selfishness what he said up to this point has not been persuasive enough. They still need more persuading. And indeed we'll see Paul's tone in chapter nine gets much sharper with a total of 16 rhetorical questions to really drive home the message. Now, the way that Paul does this in chapter 9 is somewhat unexpected. And I confess, I personally, before this study, had never fully grasped Paul's main purpose in chapter 9. I had understood his sub-purposes, his sub-points, and we'll see there are quite a few of those. We could say that Paul will hit multiple birds with One stone, so to speak, right? But I confess that even before my own study of this, I'd never fully seen how Chapter 9 fits into the larger discussion of caring for the weaker brother. Indeed, some people argue that it has nothing to do with Chapter 8 at all. One commentator says, Paul's vehement emphasis on his apostleship, the apparent introduction of the new subject of rights to financial support, and the series of very forceful rhetorical questions lead many to argue that Paul moves on to an entirely new topic. Contrary to that, however, we'll see that this passage is still very much connected to chapter 8. And in fact, what Paul will do is point to all of his own rights. His rights, not just as a Christian, but as an apostle. And yet he will do this not to defend his apostolic ministry, but to prove that though he had these rights, he has not made use of them. More or less, he will be saying, you Corinthians, I get it. You have these Christ-bought rights, they are precious. I understand, I have them too. But I have laid them aside for the furtherance of the gospel. There is more to live for. There are far greater, far more precious things to guide your life around than the mere exercising of your liberties. Really, what Paul will do is show them what has motivated him to lay aside those rights. He will say, be like me. Follow my example. In fact, at the end of this whole discussion in verse 1 of chapter 11, which I think would be better as the last verse of chapter 10, he will say, be imitators of me. Follow in my footsteps, you Corinthians, or we could say, you members of the future Christ Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, follow in my footsteps because there are far greater, far more precious things to live for than the mere exercising of your rights and freedoms, so much so that I, Paul, am willing to become a slave that I might attain unto them. Well, let's go ahead then and look at our text. If you are a note-taker, I have the following points for you. Sorry I didn't get these to you beforehand, Jason. First, we'll see that Paul establishes the fact that he too has rights, just as the Corinthians, and in fact, even greater rights. He establishes the fact that he too has rights, just as the Corinthians, and in fact, even greater rights. Secondly, that he has not used these rights so that there might be no hindrances to the spread of the gospel. He has not used these rights so that there might be no hindrances to the spread of the gospel. And thirdly, all this he has done that his heavenly reward might be greater. All this he has done that his heavenly reward might be greater. That's ultimately what motivates him, all right? So first, Paul establishes that he too has rights, beginning in verse 1. Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense to those who examine me is this, do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? Well, in these first several things, there are several important, first several verses, there's several important things we want to note. First, as I said, Paul does introduce a new topic here to some degree, the topic of the legitimacy of his apostleship. This is a larger theme of 1st and 2nd Corinthians. It seems that some other men came in after Paul left claimed that they were true apostles, implying that Paul was not. They sought to not only discredit his apostleship, but even to imply that by not receiving pay for his work, Paul had ulterior motives. He was really trying to take advantage of them. He would be the first con man in history to do so, mind you, right? That tends to be part of being a con man, taking money from people. But they implied he was up to no good and he is responding to that here by arguing, indeed I am a true apostle and I too have rights. Next, notice the use of very important terminology, particularly the word free in verse one, am I not free, as well as the language of rights. For example, verse four, do we not have a right to eat and drink? These two terms, free or freedom, you could say liberty and rights, are all very much related ideas and they are very much things that the Corinthians were zealous for and unwilling to lay down. In fact, there's a phrase throughout 1 Corinthians that Paul interacts with several times, and it was most likely a motto of the Corinthians that they had written to Paul. And it really just shows their mindset. It shows their priorities. For example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6, 12, all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by anything. And then in chapter 10, verse 23, all things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. That phrase, all things are lawful for me, is clearly some kind of motto of the Corinthians that they have written to Paul. But the word lawful there is related to the word for rights. It's part of this larger idea of having freedom and rights. In fact, the NIV translates the phrase, I have the right to do anything. I have the right to do anything. Furthermore, all of this is connected to the idea of freedom, which is why Paul says, am I not also free? Indeed, in the ancient world, one where there was slavery, a free person was a person who had rights and liberties and privileges that a slave did not. This is why the word for right can sometimes be translated as liberty or freedom because they're kind of the same thing. For example, Paul says in chapter 8 verse 9, but take care that this liberty of yours, it's the same word used as a right in chapter 9, does not somehow become a stumbling block. At other times, the word freedom itself can be used interchangeably with the word right. For example, Paul asks a rhetorical question in chapter 10, verse 29, why is my freedom judged by another's conscience? Again, all this to say, freedom and rights, they're all kind of getting at the same idea. And this tells us Paul has not shifted to a new topic. He's rather bringing a new argument to the same idea, okay? The other thing to note here is that all the things that Paul mentions as his rights are in one way or another something he had given up for the furtherance of the gospel. For example, in verse 4, he says, do we not have a right to eat and drink? Probably given the context of eating and drinking things sacrificed to idols, meaning that they too had such rights, but they had foregone that for the sake of the gospel. He says in verse 5, Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? This too, marriage, Paul had foregone in order to be more effective in ministry. In fact, he tells us in chapter 7 verse 32, one who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord, but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided. Though Paul did not bind the conscience of the Corinthians on this matter, yet he personally had chosen not to marry. And by doing so, he could travel more lightly. He could travel more quickly. He could endure things and dangers that he most likely would not subject himself to if he had a wife and children. And therefore, he gave this up to be more effective in ministry. Lastly, in verse 6, he says, or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? Apparently, Paul and Barnabas were on the same mind of the matter. They had both given it up so that there would be no hindrance to the gospel. That's why Paul mentions these specific things, all right? Continuing on in verse 7. Here he pulls out all the stops, makes it abundantly clear he indeed has a right to these things. He says, who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk? of the flock. Pastor Jason, several weeks ago, when he talked about the minister's maintenance, or the right that those who labor in the gospel have to receive a living from their work, he explained that these arguments given by Paul are what we call arguments from the light of nature. Arguments from the light of nature, or as our confession elsewhere says, things common to human actions or societies. Things common to human actions or societies. And really, the idea that those who perform a certain service, whether soldiering, farming, or shepherding, the idea that they should receive a living from the service they provide, that indeed is something common to human actions and societies. All of you here, maybe not the kids, All of you here, in one way or another, provide some kind of service and you all receive a living by that service, right? This is kind of just a normal thing. Paul's argument is that if this is true of other human institutions, why should the institution of the church be any different? It's an argument from the light of nature. But Paul continues. He says in verse 8, I'm not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the law also say these things? In other words, if that's not good enough for you, not only do I have arguments from the light of nature, I have arguments from scripture itself. It says in verse nine, for it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing. God is not concerned about oxen, is he? Or is he speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. Again, it's not just the light of nature that proves my point, Paul says. It is the word itself. He says then in verse 11, if we sowed spiritual things in you, Is it too much if we reap material things from you? You know, in all those examples that he gave, soldiers, shepherds, or farmers, they perform a material, an earthly service, if you will, and their wage is a earthly material wage. Paul says, we perform a spiritual service for you. Should we not then at least have a right to the material, the earthly, the greater things? That's his argument. Verse 12, if others share the right over you, do we not more? This again is probably a reference to those imposters who had come to Corinth who were probably receiving wages from the Corinthians. Paul says by the fact you pay them, it shows that we have the right to such. But how much more so since we planted the church, right? In all these things, Paul makes it abundantly clear that these were indeed his rights. In fact, he adds one more argument in verses 13 and 14. He says, do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? Also, so also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. Again, one more example from scripture. But from all these things, he makes it clear his not receiving of financial support was not because he didn't have a right to it. Why, Paul, then, did you not make use of this apostolic right? I'm glad you asked, he said. Which brings us to point number two. Paul had not used these rights so that there might be no hindrances to the spread of the gospel. He says in verse 12, Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the spread of the gospel of Christ. For Paul, there was a bigger guiding principle over his actions. The questions that the Corinthians asked themselves was merely this, is this lawful? Do I have a right to it? And if I do, how dare you tell me to not take advantage of my full rights? The question that Paul asks is this, is not merely is this lawful, but does this hinder the gospel? If it does, he doesn't do it. Even if it's lawful, he won't do it. He says in verse 19, we're gonna jump around a bit here, verse 19. For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more. To the Jews, I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews. To those who are under the law, as under the law, though not being myself under the law, so that I might win those who are under the law. And to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God, but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." If exercising his rights meant he could save some, he would gladly do it. foregoing his rights, even, notice the language, even becoming a slave, the opposite of free, if that furthers the gospel, then that was Paul's course of action. Furthermore, importantly, brothers and sisters, notice here that this guiding principle of Paul does not just have application within the church. I know we're kind of discussing matters of conscience within the local church, and that's true, but it has application for those who are not believers as well, those outside just as well as within. For example, look over at chapter 10 with me, verses 32 through 33. Chapter 10, verses 32 through 33. He says, give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the Church of God, just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved. If something causes an unnecessary hindrance to the gospel within the church or outside of it, and let us not forget that what happens within the church has effects outside of it, then he will not do it. If something caused an unnecessary hindrance to the gospel, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, says Paul. Paul hated the idea not only of harming the one who had been bought by the blood of Christ and harming the Christ who had died, but the idea that scandal would bring scandal to the name of Christ and the gospel would not spread. How tragic it is, brothers and sisters, when unbelievers look upon the church and see us not unified in love, but divided by selfishness. They think to themselves, this is the church of the holy, loving God. These are His people. This is what I'm being offered. No, thank you, I have enough problems of my own. In fact, I could give you some very simple life advice. Maybe I'll go down the street to the Mormons, or maybe I'll go down to the mosque. They at least have a semblance of piety. In the name of Christ, He's not glorified. And the fame of his name does not spread. That killed Paul inside. Brothers and sisters, I pray that in the church and outside of it, you would be not so eager for your own rights and privileges, though you do have them, as to forget the larger picture, the spread of the gospel. I pray we not be fools in this regard, but wise. And yet, Perhaps someone would say here, hold on a minute, Paul. On the contrary, it's the very heart of the gospel I'm seeking to protect by sticking my rights. On the contrary, by standing fast, I'm trying to preserve the gospel of free grace. In fact, I'm trying to love my brother by not giving in to his delusions and weaknesses. I'm trying to encourage him to stand fast. I do what I do for the gospel as well. Well, maybe you're a regular old Martin Luther. Maybe you're a Paul fighting the Galatians. Maybe. Or maybe you're just stiff-willed, not having love in your heart for your brothers. Because don't forget that the same Paul who fiercely rejected circumcision when it came to justification, The same Paul who said to the Galatians, behold, I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is under obligation to keep the whole law. The same Paul who said, I wish that those who are troubling you would mutilate themselves and the senses that they would emasculate themselves. That same Paul, we're told in Acts 16, took Timothy and circumcised him. because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. He wanted no hindrances to the preaching of the gospel, so much so that Paul himself was willing to circumcise Timothy. But this raises a very important and practical question. When do we stand strong in liberty? Because there is a time to do so. Or when do we lay it aside for the furtherance of the gospel? It depends on the person you're dealing with or whether or not it furthers or hinders the gospel. If they are simply a weaker brother, you are to forego your liberties. In fact, the quote from William Perkins that I have read several times now is dealing with this very question. Listen to the full context. May a man use his liberty before such as are weak and not yet persuaded of their liberty? Answer, some are weak of simple ignorance. Or some are weak because they have been deceived by the abuse of long custom. And before such we must abstain, lest by example we draw them to sin by giving occasion to their doing that whereof they doubt." Perkins says, for such we must abstain. But then he says this, but some are weak upon affected ignorance. Affected ignorance. In Perkins' day, affected either meant artificial ignorance, meaning they really know what the Bible teaches, they just reject it, or it could also mean pretentious. They are judgmental. Even if you're willing to keep your liberty to yourselves and not flaunt it before them, they're still going to judge you, contrary to Romans 14. Some are weak upon affected ignorance. Or, he says, of malice. They just hate and oppose the truth. In the presence of such, Perkins says, we need not abstain. In the presence of such, we need not abstain. And then he gives a biblical example. Upon this ground, Paul, who circumcised Timothy, would not circumcise Titus. Upon this ground, Paul, who circumcised Timothy, would not circumcise Titus. What he's referring to is what we read in our scripture readings from Galatians chapter 2 verses 1 through 5, where Paul goes up to Jerusalem to confer with the other apostles and brings Barnabas and Titus along with him. He says in verse 3, but not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you." Note, In that situation, he's dealing with false brethren, not the apostles, but others who are in Jerusalem. Those who are intentionally seeking to subvert gospel truth. They are weak of affected ignorance and malice, and Paul says he would not yield in subjection to them for even an hour. But with Timothy, Paul was going to preach to Jews who had not yet heard the gospel. They hadn't had a chance to reject it yet. They had no ignorance at all. It was, well, not affected ignorance. They were purely ignorant. They hadn't heard it. And if circumcising Timothy gave them more opportunities to preach to more people, that more might be saved, he gladly did it. But the furtherance of the gospel is the key. I pray, brothers and sisters, that we would be a church that can discern the difference between standing fast in grace for the sake of the purity of the gospel and laying aside our rights that we might save more. This was something that the Corinthians were confused about, but Paul had great clarity on it. But you know what's interesting? This was not something that was Paul's own idea. This was not his own principle, but really that of the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact, the full quote from Paul in chapter 11, verse one says, be imitators of me, Paul, just as I also am of Christ. Just as I also am of Christ, I'm imitating Christ Jesus. If Paul was free, how much more so the one who freed him? If Paul was free, how much more so the one who is truly free on a whole other level as he is God. Theologians speak of the doctrine of divine freedom, that God does what he does of his own good pleasure and free from any sort of necessity or compulsion. He is truly the freest, and in a certain sense we could say, the only free being. And yet Paul tells us in Romans 15, and interestingly, it's at the tail end of his conversation on Romans 14 about accepting the weaker brother. He says, therefore, except one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers and for the Gentiles to glorify God for his mercy. Christ became a servant. The most free God became a slave to slaves of sin that he might free them, not for the mere spreading of the gospel, but its full accomplishment. I pray that you and I would have followed the example of the free Christ, who though free, though he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant, a slave, a doulos, and being made in the likeness of men, being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Christian, Christ has purchased precious liberties for you with his precious blood. But he did not free you from your slavery that you might exercise your rights for the mere sake of exercising your rights, but rather that you would follow in his footsteps and spread the fame of his name. As Paul says in chapter 10, verse 31, whether then you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. You're to glorify God with your liberties. But with the mention of the glory of God, this is a good point to get to point number three, that Paul does all this, not merely that more might be saved, but that his heavenly reward and glory might be greater. He says in verse 15, But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case. For it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one." Now, Paul here with his boast, as he says, is going to introduce the concept of reward. But there's something very important to notice. He's actually making a play on words. The word in Greek for reward is misthos. And according to context, it can mean a reward, a prize. It can also mean a wage, as in something a worker gets for his work. So for example, in 1 Timothy 5.18, interestingly, Paul is quoting the same Old Testament passage as he does in our chapter. He says, for the scripture says, you shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing. And then he says, the laborer is worthy of his wages. Wages there is misthos. But misthos can also mean a reward. And so the irony of what he's saying is, I have not used my right to receive a misthos, a wage, so that I might receive my reward, that my misthos in heaven might be greater. And in the context, I believe he's speaking of a heavenly reward, since he refers to it in verse 25 as an imperishable wreath. He says in verse 16, for if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion. For woe is me if I do not preach the gospel. In other words, if he simply preaches the gospel, all he's doing is what God has called him to do, and no one receives a reward or a prize for doing what they're supposed to do. As far as I know, you men in the military can correct me, though I don't think you will, I've never heard of anyone receiving the Medal of Honor for KP duty. I've never heard of anyone receiving the, oh whatever, the Silver Cross or something, I can't remember what they all are, for making their bed in the morning. For simply showing up to their post. No, it's for something special. In fact, the citation given when the Medal of Honor is bestowed says it is given for this reason, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity and action at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. To a certain degree, brothers and sisters, so it is with heavenly rewards. The more above and beyond the call of duty, so to speak, the greater the reward. He says in verse 17, for if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward, but if against my will, I have stewardship entrusted to me, meaning if I forgo my rights, I will have a greater reward. If I just preach the gospel, I'm just doing my job. Calvin says, if Paul had simply discharged his ministry, he would in this way have done nothing else than what the Lord had enjoined upon him by strict necessity. Verse 18, what then is my reward? That when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel. Now here he calls preaching the gospel free of charge his reward. To be more precise, I think he means it's the cause of his reward, okay? Furthermore, this idea of going above and beyond is what he's getting at in verse 24. Look there. Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? You don't just get an award for simply doing what you're called to do any more than a runner wins first place for simply running. He says, run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore, I run in such a way as not without aim. I box in such a way as not beating the air, but I discipline my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified. Runners can, I suppose, the night before a big race, go out drinking, taking shots, eating cheeseburgers and hot wings. I suppose they have a right to do that, but they will not win a prize the following day, unless they're amazing. That is only for those who exercise not their rights, but self-discipline in pursuit of something much more precious Paul is saying, that's what I've got my eye on. There's something higher I'm after. There's a reward greater than I want than the mere exercising of my rights. Now here, brothers and sisters, we should probably briefly consider what exactly heavenly rewards are that we might be properly motivated. And indeed, once you see what it is, you will see why Paul was motivated by it. To put it plainly, Heavenly rewards are simply a greater portion of the bliss of the sight of the glory of God in Jesus Christ. One Scottish theologian explains it this way, there are degrees of heavenly reward proportioned to the capability of receiving heavenly blessedness. Each vessel of glory hanging on Jesus shall be full, but the larger the vessel, the greater will be its capacity for heavenly bliss. This helps us to understand the somewhat difficult verse of verse 23. Paul says there, I do all things for the sake of the gospel so that I might become a fellow partaker of it. What does that mean? He does all these things for his own salvation. This is all works-based. He's hoping he'll get to heaven. He's no better than a Mormon. No, no, not at all. I think what he's getting at is that he's doing all these things that he might be a partaker in a greater degree. The bliss of eternal life is a gospel gift, and yet our heavenly reward is a greater portion of that gospel gift, so to speak. So Paul says, I do all things that I might, in a sense, have a greater portion. I might be an even greater partaker of that gospel glory. Another theologian by the name of Walibius has this to say of the joys of heaven. He says, the communion with God will be such that we shall see him forever, love him without ever becoming bored, and praise him without ever becoming weary. And the magnitude of these joys will be such as not only cannot be described, but cannot even be imagined. Paul says, I'll run for a greater slice of that. Lay aside my rights. Lay aside what, food and drink? Having to work with my hands for a few years in the sight of eternity? What is that to a greater portion of the view of Jesus Christ and all of his glory? Now this does not mean that those who do not run their race well shall be filled with regret for eternity. Well, Leibniz explains no one will have cause to complain because of the lack of glory or to be envious of the glory of another. Nor do we mean that we merit our rewards. No, they are truly of grace. There is indeed a proportionality between the labor and the reward, but it is all of grace. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15, by the grace of God, I am what I am. And his grace toward me did not prove in vain, but I labored even more than all of them, the other apostles, yet not I, but the grace of God with me. Nevertheless, brothers and sisters, the greater the labor, the greater the portion of glory. What will it be? Will you be unwilling to relinquish your rights for the sake of your brother? If so, you relinquish a greater sight of the glorious Christ for eternity. Or are you willing to do whatever it takes that you might gain more souls for Christ than you will gain a greater sight of God in Christ for all eternity? I am reminded here of the famous words of the missionary Jim Elliott, who this very moment is drinking in richly the glory of Christ according to the greater measure of his reward for his sacrifice, who said, he is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. Paul was no fool. He was wise. He knew where it was at. He knew what he was going to be enjoying for eternity. And he said, I want that. Christians, I pray you'd be no fools, but wise in Christ. Do all according to the gospel. When you encounter a brother or sister who differs from you in conscience, ask yourselves not primarily, do I have a right to do this? You may very well, but it might also be irrelevant. Ask rather the far more eternity considering question, will this further the gospel? If so, then do it. If not, May we be of the same mind of Paul and say, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again. If we follow that principle, not only shall we give a good testimony of Christ to the world, but we shall delight in a greater portion of Christ for all eternity. Amen? Let's pray. Oh Father, how small-minded we often are. Lord, we can think no farther sometimes of the day, the week, the month, the year ahead of us, not knowing that these are merely the blink of an eye in the view of eternity. As we read earlier, Lord, teach us to number our days. Oh, Lord, help us to have a heavenly perspective. Help us, Lord, to enjoy our rights, but to love Christ more in his glory. And Father, I pray that you would give us the strength to be those who lay down their rights for the spread of the gospel. May we be able to say with Paul, by the grace of God I am what I am, and I did all these things, and yet it was not me, but the grace of God within me. I pray you would grant us that extra grace, Lord, that we might have a greater portion of Christ for eternity. I pray all these things, Lord.