If we have sown to you spiritual things, [is it a] great [thing] if *we* shall reap your carnal things?
Paul has just claimed the same right other workers have: support from the people he serves. Verse 11 turns that right into a question. Is it too much for those who received the greater thing to give back the lesser?
Someone might object that a farmer eats the grain he threshes. A preacher asks for something different from what he sowed. Commentators note that verse 11 answers that objection.
It is worth noticing that verse 11 also guards against anyone who would object that the comparison fails. The labourer just described is paid in the very thing he works with, while the spiritual labourer might need help in the things of this life. The apostle meets this senseless or selfish objection by showing that a return is owed all the more, since what is of the Spirit far exceeds what is of the flesh.
The sentence weighs two things against each other, and readers often put the weight on the wrong side.
Many look at the second thing — giving to servants of our Lord Jesus Christ — as the "great thing." That is a mistake! The giving of spiritual things is what is truly great, and the other is only a right and ordinary return. The labourer must be supported. It is not good when those who benefit from his service neglect the one who sows spiritual things. Spiritual poverty may follow.
Verse 11 does not stand alone. Writers point to three separate arguments that all back the same right.
The rights of the servant remained, as pictured in the service connected with the temple and its altar. Above all, the apostle asserts that these rights follow what the Lord has ordained: "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel". Nature (verse 7), Scripture (verses 9, 10), and the direct command of the Lord (verses 13, 14) all agree. Each upholds the right of the one who ministers spiritual things to receive the material things of the saints.
The Scripture argument comes from the law about not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain. That rule about farm animals was written for people.
God is not thinking only of the oxen. It is written for our sakes. If the one who ploughs and the one who threshes benefit from their labours, so do the servants of the Lord. If they have sown "spiritual things", they have a full right to receive "material things" in return.
Paul states the right, then does without it himself. Writers set out what is normal, and where the virtue lies.
It is ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." That is plainly the normal thing. Some who labour in this way may have means of their own and not need such help. Others may need it, yet be great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. But note the difference. There is no virtue in refusing help when you already have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
Commentators also give his reason for not taking their support.
He judged that in their case the interests of the gospel of Christ would best be served by his suffering "all things", rather than by taking their "material things". In his service the apostle was not governed by the thought of gain, but by the interests of Christ and His gospel.
If support is a right, it could be mistaken for employment. Writers draw a sharp line here.
Here too God used the willing hands of His people. But no one understood that they "hired" him, or that he was their labourer. What they gave, they gave to God, and it was his privilege to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference. You cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" in this sense to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.
The loss in neglecting this falls on the givers, not only on the worker.
An assembly would be to blame if they knew an evangelist was labouring and did not help him. They would be losing one of their privileges.
- Sown. The spiritual seed comes first. The whole argument rests on what Paul gave before he asked for anything.
- Greater. What is of the Spirit far exceeds what is of the flesh, so the return asked for is small, not large.
- Ordinary. Giving material help back is the right and ordinary response — the truly great thing was the sowing.
- Confirmed. Nature, the law of Moses, and the Lord's own command all agree: the one who sows spiritual things may reap material things.
- Offered. What is given is offered to God, not paid to a hired man — and the assembly that withholds it loses a privilege of its own.
If others partake of this right over you, should not rather *we*? But we have not used this right, but we bear all things, that we may put no hindrance in the way of the glad tidings of the Christ.
Paul has just argued from the soldier, the farmer and the shepherd that a worker has the right to live from his work. Then, the moment he wins the point, he lays that right down and refuses to use it — and this verse tells us why.
Paul raises the subject of money for a reason. He is answering people who questioned his motives.
False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed that he preached and worked from selfish motives. They said that he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks of his ministry.
Paul points to what the Corinthians already did for other teachers. His own claim was stronger — and his refusal to press it proved nothing against him.
If others made use of this right to take their material things, how much more could the Apostle? He had served them so faithfully. If he held back from taking their material things, that was no proof that he was not an apostle. It did not mean that he had no right to receive from them. Rather, it showed his judgment. In their case, the interests of the gospel of Christ would be best served if he suffered "all things" instead of taking their "material things." In his service the Apostle was not driven by the thought of gain. He was driven by the interests of Christ and His gospel.
The obstacle Paul feared was not in the message but in what people could say about the messenger. So he removed the material for the accusation before anyone could make it.
They are his witness too, that the right he so justly asserted he had never used. He had chosen another and a wiser way. Knowing the enemy's devices well, he would carefully cut off any occasion. He would let nothing appear in his ministry that the enemies of truth could use to do damage... No one should be able to hint, with any show of reason, that God's chosen ambassador of reconciliation to the world used his commission to make money. And no one should be able to claim that a man who openly gloried in the cross of Jesus Christ his Lord traded in the gospel of free grace.
Paul argues hard for the worker's right, then never uses it himself. That is what gives his case for others its force.
He takes care, however, to show that he was wholly above selfish aims in pleading this way for the spiritual labourer and his right to support: "We have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ." He would plead for others and their right. He would press the duty of the saints who are served, on a right view of the work done. But he did not use the right for himself. Instead he bore every kind of trial, so as to put no hindrance in the way of the gospel.
What Paul bears, he bears out of love. And love, as one writer describes it, is not a soft feeling but a strength.
Love is willing to put up with everything except sin. And sin, when confessed, love takes care to cover... It does not break under the weight of any secret, and is not discouraged by neglect. It can cheerfully face obstacles, because it has a steady and self-governing aim. The apostle bore all things for the gospel's sake. There is in true love all the force of will, and this is what distinguishes it from mere sentiment. It is not a duty only, but a power.
The verse cuts two ways. Christians owe support to those who teach them. The teacher himself should be slow to claim it.
How much more, then, is this true of the servant of Christ? The servant of the Lord can never say, Why do you not minister to me? Rather, he will long to be like the Apostle Paul. Paul held to the principle "that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." Yet he adds, "But I have made no use of any of these rights." It will be his joy if he can, as far as possible, "present the gospel free of charge." He will be very afraid that he might hinder the gospel of Christ.
- Right. Paul's claim to support was real. It was stronger than the claim of the teachers the Corinthians already supported.
- Refused. He never collected it. He had the right; he judged that the gospel would gain more if he went without.
- Reason. He cut off every occasion, so no one could say the ambassador of free grace traded in it.
- Cost. "We endure anything" is love with a will behind it. Not sentiment, but a power that faces obstacles with a steady aim.
- Result. He claimed nothing for himself. That is why no one can argue against his plea for every other worker's support.
Do ye not know that they who labour [at] sacred things eat of the [offerings offered in the] temple; they that attend at the altar partake with the altar?
Paul has already argued from a soldier's pay, a farmer's crop, and an ox treading grain that a worker deserves support. Now he points to the one place his readers could not dispute: God's own sanctuary. The men who served there lived on what people brought. So why raise it, when Paul goes on to say he never used the right himself?
The verse names two groups. The law of Israel set out what each one received, and one writer traces it forward to the preacher:
Verse 13 refers to the Levites who served in connection with the temple, and the priests waiting at the altar. The Levites received the tithes of the people (Num. 18:21); and as well as sharing in this, the priests received part of the sacrifices that they offered (Lev. 6:26; 7:6, 14). In this way God provided for their support. In the same way God had ordained that those who preach the gospel should "get their living by the gospel."
Behind both arrangements stands the same Giver:
Jehovah Himself was the portion and inheritance of the priests among the sons of Israel, so He gave them a share in His offerings and sacrifices. In the same way, under the gospel, the Lord does not forget those who preach it. He appoints them to draw their living from it. There may be exceptions, as with the man who has written this rule for us.
His readers in Corinth were not Jews, yet Paul assumes they know how Israel's sanctuary worked. One writer explains why that assumption is fair:
He next makes a special reference to the Levitical system, to establish the analogy between the priestly service and reward under the former covenant, and the ministry of Christ under the new... Nor should it seem strange that Paul assumes these Gentile believers know Jewish ordinances. Apart from his own teaching among them, we may be sure they had listened to Apollos, a man so mighty in the Scriptures — and no one could do that without becoming familiar, at least in general, with the ordinances of the former sanctuary.
This verse is the last of several arguments, and they all reach the same conclusion:
Whether it was nature (verse 7), or Scripture (verses 9, 10), or the direct ordinance of the Lord (verses 13, 14), all agree on the same right. The one who ministers in spiritual things may receive material things from the saints.
The temple picture shapes how the saints give, not only that they give. Money handed over as a fee for service would break the analogy:
Although here also God used the willing hands of His people, it was not understood that they "hired" him, or that he was their labourer. What they gave, they gave to God, and his privilege was to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference; for you cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" in this sense to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.
That leaves the worker looking in one direction only:
It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain fixed sum. There is no such idea in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support... True, He expected the people to serve Him by caring for His servants. He told them what to give, and blessed them in giving; it was their high privilege as well as their duty to give.
Paul builds the case and then declines to collect on it:
He was wholly above selfish aims in pleading for the spiritual labourer and his title to support... He would plead for others and their title, and for the duty of the saints who receive that ministry, based on a right view of the work done. But he did not use the right for himself. Instead he bore all sorts of trial, so as to put no hindrance in the way of the gospel.
Giving up such a right does not always cost the same:
Some who labour in this way have means of their own and do not need such help. Others need it, yet are great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. Only there is just this difference: there is no virtue in refusing help when you already have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
- Altar — The priests and Levites lived on the tithes and sacrifices people brought to God. He Himself was their inheritance, so they ate at His table.
- Analogy — Paul reaches back to the sanctuary to settle the matter. What God arranged for the altar, He has arranged for those who preach.
- Agreement — Nature, the law, and the Lord's own word point to the same right. The case rests on three witnesses, not one.
- Offering — The gift goes to God, not to a hired man. The servant looks to his Master alone, and the saints give as a privilege, never as payment.
- Abstaining — Paul argues the right in full and then refuses it. Giving it up costs something only when the one giving it up has nothing else.
So also the Lord has ordained to those that announce the glad tidings to live of the glad tidings.
Paul has just piled up examples — the soldier, the farmer, the shepherd, the ox, the priests at the altar. Now he points to the highest authority of all, the Lord's own command, and then refuses to use it himself.
The command goes back to words of the Lord in the Gospels, and a later letter quotes them as settled.
The labourer is indeed worthy of his food, and of his hire. There are other necessities beyond food, and the Lord forgot none. This twofold statement makes it plain (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7, as cited in 1 Timothy 5:18). So the apostle declares that the Lord ordained the same for those who preach the gospel: they should live by the gospel, as the law had done before for those who ministered about holy things.
"In the same way" ties this verse to everything before it — even the rule about the threshing ox.
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By any human reckoning, no one can question that this is right. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out the grain, He did not have cattle in view. He meant His people, His servants in the word. The figure holds exactly. The one who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and the one who threshes ought to thresh in hope of sharing.
The phrase covers what a worker needs to keep going.
If a preacher gives up his trade for the Lord's sake, of course he may live by the gospel: others maintain and feed him, giving food, clothing, and what he needs. Or, if he has the energy, he may work like Paul all night. He can then support his household and stop selfish people, like some at Corinth, from saying, He is doing it for his pay. Not many have energy enough to do both things well. If you have a man preaching, supply him while he preaches.
So where does the worker look for that living?
It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain agreed sum. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support. Woe to him if he looks to the church, or to men in any way.
It also matters who does the giving.
These and other scriptures show who should support the servant of the Lord: those who have received the Word through him, and other Christians. From the unsaved they were to take nothing (see 3 John 5-8). Think how out of place it is to preach to a room full of unsaved people. The preacher tells them of God's gift and urges them to accept it. He assures them they can give nothing to God until they receive Christ — and then comes the collection.
Failing to support a worker is not a neutral choice. It costs those who hold back.
An assembly would be to blame if they knew an evangelist was labouring and did not assist him. They would be losing one of their privileges. The Philippians were very forward to do it, and so it was now with some. Such help would bring blessing not only on the one side but on the other. Locality makes no difference. An evangelist is a servant of Christ, not of the assembly.
Paul proved the right, then refused to use it.
The Apostle has carefully asserted the rights of the servant. In the rest of the chapter he shows how he had used his own rights in the assembly at Corinth. He had turned them into an occasion for sacrificing himself in the interests of Christ and His gospel. He gave up one privilege to enjoy a higher privilege.
Paul's choice is not the rule for everyone, and not everyone who declines help gives up something.
The Lord ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." This is the normal thing. Some who labour in this way may have means of their own and not need such help. Others may need it and still be great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. But there is just this difference: those who have enough gain no virtue by declining help. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
- Ordained — the right rests on a command of the Lord Himself, not on custom or need. The Gospels record it and 1 Timothy repeats it.
- Ordinary — nature, the law of God and the altar all agree: the one who works eats. Support of a gospel worker is the normal thing, not a special favour.
- Ordered — the Lord ordained maintenance, not a salary. The servant looks to his Master, receives from those he has taught, and takes nothing from the unconverted.
- Owed — believers who leave a worker unsupported are not saving money. They lose a privilege the Philippians were quick to seize.
- Offered up — Paul proved the right, then handed it back. He traded a privilege for the higher privilege of sacrificing himself. The virtue lay in having nothing and still refusing.