You can read the text here.
Paul continues to offer his own example as one where, for the sake of others, he has laid down his rights. He is an apostle after all. No one in the community would have higher status than he did. Certainly he (and his coworkers) had rights to financial support and also the personal support of a wife while he traveled just like Peter and the other apostles. Nothing could be more natural than for him to share in some financial benefit for his labors. Paul makes this point using a number of obvious analogies from normal life and Scripture. Others took advantage of this, should not Paul and his coworkers?
Paul does not make use of his rights because it would be a hindrance to the proclamation of the gospel. It would prevent some from coming to salvation. He is willing to endure anything for the sake of the advancement of the gospel, something the strong are not willing to do. The source of this commitment is rooted in Paul's transformed heart. He wants above all to be free, free to preach as God has compelled him to preach. This is both his obligation and his reward. If he accepts payment then he is under obligation to someone (presumably the strong) which will inevitably shape his preaching. In the process he demonstrates his Christlikeness.
The advancement of the gospel is Paul's primary concern.[1] Paul's entire mode of discourse varies depending on the group he is trying to reach. He argues from different bases depending on which group he is addressing.[2] He doesn't have to share their worldview to be able to connect with them and bring them to follow Jesus. He will do whatever it takes to ensure that others come to salvation in Jesus. That's where his arguments lead contrasted to the arguments of the strong which were leading some away from Jesus.
Paul caps the discussion while also transitioning to the next section by using athletic contests as an example. Great self-control is needed in the way one trains in order to win an athletic contest. Paul too is trying to win a reward for being as faithful as possible to his commission. He will argue in any mode, he will give up financial support and the companionship of a wife. Anything to bring people into the kingdom of God. Anything less would be unfaithfulness to God in the commission he had received.
--------------------------------------
[1] Ciampa and Rosner do an excellent job of reinforcing this point throughout.
[2] This is the position of Mark Nanos, which seems to create far fewer problems than the traditional view advocated in the commentaries. I'll provide fuller discussion of this interpretation in a follow-up post.
Paul continues to offer his own example as one where, for the sake of others, he has laid down his rights. He is an apostle after all. No one in the community would have higher status than he did. Certainly he (and his coworkers) had rights to financial support and also the personal support of a wife while he traveled just like Peter and the other apostles. Nothing could be more natural than for him to share in some financial benefit for his labors. Paul makes this point using a number of obvious analogies from normal life and Scripture. Others took advantage of this, should not Paul and his coworkers?
Paul does not make use of his rights because it would be a hindrance to the proclamation of the gospel. It would prevent some from coming to salvation. He is willing to endure anything for the sake of the advancement of the gospel, something the strong are not willing to do. The source of this commitment is rooted in Paul's transformed heart. He wants above all to be free, free to preach as God has compelled him to preach. This is both his obligation and his reward. If he accepts payment then he is under obligation to someone (presumably the strong) which will inevitably shape his preaching. In the process he demonstrates his Christlikeness.
The advancement of the gospel is Paul's primary concern.[1] Paul's entire mode of discourse varies depending on the group he is trying to reach. He argues from different bases depending on which group he is addressing.[2] He doesn't have to share their worldview to be able to connect with them and bring them to follow Jesus. He will do whatever it takes to ensure that others come to salvation in Jesus. That's where his arguments lead contrasted to the arguments of the strong which were leading some away from Jesus.
Paul caps the discussion while also transitioning to the next section by using athletic contests as an example. Great self-control is needed in the way one trains in order to win an athletic contest. Paul too is trying to win a reward for being as faithful as possible to his commission. He will argue in any mode, he will give up financial support and the companionship of a wife. Anything to bring people into the kingdom of God. Anything less would be unfaithfulness to God in the commission he had received.
--------------------------------------
[1] Ciampa and Rosner do an excellent job of reinforcing this point throughout.
[2] This is the position of Mark Nanos, which seems to create far fewer problems than the traditional view advocated in the commentaries. I'll provide fuller discussion of this interpretation in a follow-up post.
Comments
Post a Comment