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.