HAVE WE NO RIGHTS?

 When we think of the Corinthian disciples we think about dysfunctional disciples. In our study of the problems that prevailed among the Corinthians, we must understand that the letters of both 1 & 2 Corinthians were written to all the disciples in all of Achaia (See 1 Co 16:15; 2 Co 1:1; 9:2; 11:10). However, it seems that there were some power struggles among the disciples, specifically in the city of Corinth. These struggles led to the same dysfunction that was happening among those to whom John wrote in 3 John. The problem among the disciples to whom John wrote was about Diotrephes who loved to be first, and thus in his narcissistic behavior, he disrupted the evangelists who came through the area, for he refused to receive and support the evangelistic function of the body of Christ (See 3 Jn). In Corinth the problem was a group of puffed up leaders masquerading themselves as children of light (2 Co 11:12-15). In their arrogant attitudes, they challenged the authority of the inspired instructions of Paul. They refused to take note that what Paul wrote was the commandment of the Lord (1 Co 14:37). They were seeking to dismiss the influence of Paul by challenging the authority of his inspired words (See 1 Co 2:6-16). All this disruption led to a financial dysfunction of the church of God in Corinth. And because of this financial dysfunction of the Corinthians disciples, we have the letters of 1 & 2 Corinthians that reveal a great detail of information concerning the financial function that should be characteristic of the body of Christ, especially in the area of supporting evangelists.

 A.  The right to eat.

In the context of correcting the Corinthians’ dysfunction concerning the support of evangelists in 1 Corinthians 9:3-14, Paul began by asking if he had a right to eat and drink. He presents his argument in this context on behalf of the support of those who go faith in travels to preach the gospel. It is an argument that is based on John’s deductive conclusions of 3 John 7 that we should financially support those who are going about preaching the gospel to unbelievers.

John’s deductive argument is that the evangelists went forth to preach the name of Jesus. But in their preaching, they did not take up contributions from the unbelievers to whom they preached. Since they had a right to eat and drink, then the believers, not unbelievers, should support them because it is the work of the church to preach the gospel. Paul argues that this is particularly true if he and Barnabas were married and their wives traveled with them as the other apostles. He wrote, “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, even as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Co 9:5).

Paul and Barnabas worked with their own hands in order to support themselves. Paul supported himself while in Corinth, through the believers from Macedonia also sent support to him (2 Co 11:7-9). However, he had a right to be supported by the Corinthian disciples while he labored for a year and a half in the city (See At 18:11). But the Corinthians did not support him, even when he was in need. It appears that in his need, they did not so much as offer to help him. Such was a manifestation of their spiritual immaturity, and their financial dysfunction as members of the universal body of Christ.

 B.  Laborers are worthy.

 Paul then asked the Corinthians if it were not right for a soldier, farmer and shepherd to receive pay for their labors. “Who as a soldier serves at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of the fruit? Or who feeds a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock” (1 Co 9:7). Who would serve to protect the people if he were not paid? Who would farm if he were not allowed to eat of his own produce? And who would be a shepherd if he could not drink of the milk? These are logical questions that Paul asked the Corinthians, for he knew that they knew the answer.

Paul was speaking from the point of view of spiritual dignity. Unbelievers would reason that support is rightfully given to soldiers, farmers and shepherds. But in their behavior toward him, the Corinthians were not doing that which the unbelievers would naturally do for the laborer who was worthy of his wages. In giving these principles of payment, Paul wanted to remind the Corinthians that these same principles were based on what God commanded in the Old Testament. “For it is written in the law of Moses, ‘You will not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’” (1 Co 9:9; see Dt 25:4). It seems that the Corinthians considered the rights of an ox to be fed more important than feeding the preacher. If God is concerned for oxen, at least those who claim to be His people should be concerned for His evangelists.

 C.  Partake of one’s hope.

Paul reminded the Corinthians that Deuteronomy 25:4 was also written for our sakes. “Or does He say this altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, not doubt, this is written so that he who plows should plow in hope, and that he who threshes in hope, should be partaker of his hope” (1 Co 9:10).

The evangelist lives in hope of partaking of the fruits of his labors. He does not take contributions from the unbelievers. Therefore, the church must support him. This is especially true if the evangelist is functioning locally as a teacher. In 1 Corinthians 9:10 Paul teaches that the teacher of the body must expect to be paid by the body. And thus, disciples who do not pay their teachers are as dysfunctional in the area of finances as the Corinthians.

Paul rebuked the stingy Corinthians. “If we sowed to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your material things?” (1 Co 9:11). No disciple has a right to plead poverty when he or she has been taught spiritual things by a teacher. If one has no money, but a garden of fruit, then the material fruit must be paid to the one who teaches spiritual things. The widow who gave her last two coins knew this principle. Any group of disciples who do not do likewise are sinning against the mandate of God that he “who is taught the word share [support] in all good things with the one who teaches” (Gl 6:6). This is what is right and according to the word of God. So we ask the question again: When was the last time you paid your Bible teacher?

We must not be too harsh on the Corinthians. After all, they were at least financially supporting those who were working against Paul (1 Co 9:12). Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 9:12 is that if they supported the arrogant and puffed up teachers among them who spoke against him, then he had more right to their support because he fathered them in Christ (1 Co 4:15).

While in Corinth Paul did not use his right to be supported because he did not want to be accused of preaching for money (1 Co 9:12). But he reminded the Corinthians of the right of the priest under the Old Testament law to be supported by the people. The people offered the sacrifices, but the sacrifices were shared with the priests (1 Co 9:13). This was the law even before the Old Testament was written. For example, Abraham paid a tenth (tithe) to the priest Melchizedek (Hb 7:1,2). Such was Abraham’s duty. And in case the Corinthians, or anyone else throughout history did not get the point, Paul wrote, “Even so the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should live from the gospel” (1 Co 9:14). For the disciple who seeks to follow Jesus, this is all that is needed to be said. If one does not support the one who is preaching the gospel, then he is disobedient to the commandment of the Lord. He sins against God. We must be as clear as Paul on this point. If one would be a faithful and functioning member of the church, it is his or her responsibility to make sure that both evangelists who go about preaching the gospel are paid, and those teachers who labor locally are also paid.

Since Paul’s mandate of 1 Corinthians 9:14 is very direct, we must understand the context of the statement. Preaching is the work of proclaiming the good news (the gospel) to unbelievers, not believers. In fact, when the word “preach” is used in the New Testament, reference is to the gospel being proclaimed to unbelievers. Christians preach to unbelievers, but they teach among themselves to believers. Now consider what John said in 3 John 7, that the evangelists did not take up a collection from unbelievers when they went forth to preach the gospel. John’s argument was that the believers must therefore provide the evangelists with the right to eat and drink while they preach to unbelievers. Therefore, Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 9:14 is that it is the mandate of the believers to support the evangelists who go forth to preach to the unbelievers. The context of Paul’s 1 Corinthian 9:14 statement is that the Corinthians should have been doing what the Philippians and Thessalonians did when he went to Corinth. The Corinthians should have given Paul the right to live from his preaching the gospel when he left Corinth to preach to unbelievers in other areas. 1 Corinthians 9:14, therefore, is a mandate to support the preachers who are going forth to preach to unbelievers. This is not the passage to use when discussing support of local teachers who are teaching believers. That passage is Galatians 6:6.

____________________________________________

Be sure to download free books from

www.africainternational.org

TAKING OWNERSHIP OF THE GOSPEL

 Speaking of taking ownership, consider some of the leading (rich) sisters of Thessalonica. We remember standing in a prayer circle with a group of men. All of us were praying. When it came time for one brother to pray, he prayed, “God, forgive us men of arguing over who is in control. Thank you for our women, for all they say is, ‘What’s next.’”

Sometimes we need to follow the example of the women.   Lydia was in Philippi (At 16:11-15) and there were leading women in Thessalonica (At 17:4). Both the church in Philippi and Thessalonica were financially functional when it came to supporting evangelism. We wonder if the Christian sisters in both areas did not have some influence over what the disciples as a whole should be doing?

 A.  Ability to do and send:

When Paul, Timothy and Silas went to Thessalonica for the first time, they went straight to the religious center in town, which was the synagogue of the Jews (At 17:1). What was unique about this synagogue was that there was a great number of Gentile converts (proselytes) who met in the synagogue. From these “a great multitude of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women” were obedient to the gospel (At 17:4).   We would assume that these “leading women” were possibly quite wealthy. At least for some reason, many years later Demas was possibly attracted to their wealth when Paul wrote of him while he himself was in a Roman prison, “… for Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world, and has departed to Thessalonica …” (2 Tm 4:10).

If the leading women in Acts 17 were indeed wealthy women, then they did not give themselves into poverty. By the time 2 Thessalonians was written, the Holy Spirit had to write a letter through Paul that these women not be begged into poverty by some among the Thessalonian disciples who had quit their work. 2 Thessalonians was written less than a year after these leading (wealthy) women became disciples. Then also consider the fact that when Paul wrote of the behavior of Demas, we might assume that the leading women were still wealthy.   At the time, Demas forsook Paul and went to Thessalonica. 2 Timothy 4:10, where Paul spoke of Demas’ behavior, was written several years after the conversion of the leading women in Thessalonica in Acts 17. The point is that the New Testament teaches nowhere that the wealthy should contribute themselves into poverty.   Doing such is simply not good stewardship on the part of the wealthy. Neither is it beneficial for the evangelism of the church. Paul wrote the “disfellowship” context of 2 Thessalonians 3 to protect the wealthy. Those who are gifted in making money are encouraged to give, but they are not encouraged to give themselves into poverty. We have always asked churches that are in developing world environments if a wealthy person could be a part of their fellowship. If the wealthy could not be a part of a fellowship of disciples, then the disciples have a problem, not the wealthy who are giving. If the local disciples beg the wealthy members into poverty, then from where will the funds come to preach the gospel to the world? The poor must acknowledge the fact that there are some in the body who are gifted with the ability to make money. We must not envy this gift, but give glory to God. This is a grace in which some can truly praise God. “But as you abound in everything, in faith and utterance and knowledge and in all diligence, and in your love for us, see that you abound in this grace also” (2 Co 8:7). This is the grace of giving. And we encourage one another to abound in the grace of giving.

 B.  Desire to be a doer and sender:

Now consider the Thessalonians. Since the majority of those who were converted in Thessalonica were Gentiles, and very devout, we would assume that their desire would be to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. The result of what the Thessalonians did in the months that followed is a testimony to their devout convictions, as well as their desire to take ownership of the mission of the body of Christ. As the Philippians, they were financially functional as active parts of the one body.

After Paul left Thessalonica, he traveled on to Achaia. What is interesting to note is what he found in the region of Achaia when he arrived. It was about six months after he had left Thessalonica that he wrote back to the new converts the following testimony of the fact that the Thessalonian Christians had taken ownership of the gospel they had obeyed:

And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction with joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you were examples to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. For the word of the Lord has sounded forth from you, not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith toward God has spread abroad, so that we do not need to speak anything. For they themselves report about us, what manner of entry we had to you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God …” (1 Th 1:6-9).

Notice carefully the Holy Spirit’s witness to the evangelistic function of the Thessalonian disciples. They became imitators of the evangelistic zeal of Paul, Timothy and Silas who came to them working with their own hands to support themselves, and receiving once and gain from the functioning disciples in Philippi (Ph 4:16). The example of the Philippians even influenced the Thessalonians. In fact, when contributions came from the Philippians, the Thessalonians may have felt somewhat embarrassed. If they were to take ownership of the preaching of the gospel in their own region, then they had to financially come to the party.   And such they did in an overwhelming manner.

As the Philippians, the Thessalonian disciples became “examples to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia” (1 Th 1:7). It was a phenomenal contagion of evangelistic enthusiasm. Philippi inspired Thessalonica and Thessalonica inspired the whole provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. The enthusiasm for evangelism spread like holy wild fire from one obedient heart to another.

 C.  The result of doers and senders:

The testimony of the Thessalonians’ zeal was in the fact that “the word of the Lord has sounded forth from” them (1 Th 1:8). Such is the identity of a functioning organic body. The Philippians sounded forth the word from Philippi by sending support once and again to the evangelists Paul, Timothy and Silas in Thessalonica. The Thessalonian disciples sounded forth the word in Achaia, specifically Corinth. But the Corinthians? They were financially and evangelistically dysfunctional. They became a dead-end in the function of the body to sound forth the word of the Lord. And now we know why most of the Holy Spirit’s teaching concerning the support of evangelists is found in the letters of 1 & 2 Corinthians. As members of the universal organic body, they were dysfunctional in supporting evangelism.

 “We do not need to speak anything” (1 Th 1:8). This is the testimony of a functional body of disciples. This is the Spirit’s testimony of the organic body at work, both in the local area where body members reside, as well as in areas beyond where they live. When local Christians take ownership of the gospel where they live, there need be no more evangelists coming by to do the job of preaching the gospel. If an evangelist cannot make this statement to those where he has preached, it is possible that he planted the wrong seed, or he failed in his work to disciple those he first taught. He may have failed Jesus when Jesus instructed, “… teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:20).   Or he may have failed the Spirit when the Spirit said through Paul, “And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tm 2:2).

However, the problem is usually with the soil in which the evangelist plants the seed of the word of God. Remember the dysfunction of the Corinthians on this matter?   Paul chastised the Corinthians.   It was the Corinthian soil, not the Seed, that was the problem.

For no other foundation can man lay than what is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will be manifested, for the day will declare it because it will be revealed by fire. And the fire will test each man’s work to determine what quality it is. If anyone’s work endures that he has built, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss. But he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire (1 Co 3:11-15).

Paul’s efforts with the “Corinthian soil” was about to be burned if they did not repent of their immature ways. If they did not turn from their dysfunctional ways, he would suffer loss because he was their father in the faith (1 Co 4:15).   But he would carry on and receive his reward for his labors as an evangelist. The Corinthians, if they did not repent, would become smouldering ashes.

The Corinthian situation was certainly a different story from the Thessalonians and Philippians, as well as those in Antioch, Ephesus and Jerusalem.

When Paul wrote the 1 Thessalonian letter, he stated, “They themselves report about us” (1 Th 1:9). Who is the “they”? It was not the Christians in Achaia. There were no Christians there when Paul arrived.   By the time Paul reached Achaia, word-of-mouth, the “bush telegraph,” had already communicated the phenomenal conversion and dedication of the Thessalonians. The whole region was talking about the conversion of the Gentiles and leading women in Thessalonica. The point is that we should ask ourselves the question, “Was our conversion so radical that the whole province is talking about it”?   Admittedly, the Thessalonians had the fire and conviction of new converts. We must not let that fire of conviction be extinguished from our lives.   The only way to keep it burning in our hearts is to continually be in the presence of the newly converted.   But if we stop preaching the gospel to the lost in our local areas, we will have no newly converted in our presence to keep our fire going. When we stop preaching and converting the lost, we have set a course for our fire to be extinguished. Is this what Jesus meant when He spoke to the church in Ephesus many years after they were new converts, a time when they had lost their first love (Rv 2:4).

THE JOY OF FINANCIAL FUNCTIONALITY

 Most all of the members of the early body of Christ functioned organically from the time when they were still dripping wet from the waters of baptism. Even on the birthday of the ekklesia (church), “all who believed were together and had all things in common” (At 2:44). The members of the body were not only connected to the Lord in a covenant relationship through obedience to the gospel, they were also connected to one another in service to the physical needs that prevailed at the time, especially to the support of those who went forth to preach the gospel they had obeyed.

The beginning of the ekklesia in Acts 2 sets the model for everyone who would later obey the gospel. As a result, the organic function of the early obedient went forth out of Jerusalem to all the world, even to us today. Growth of the church happened because others followed the example of those first disciples. Growth happened in Antioch (At 13:1-3). Growth happened in Ephesus (At 19:8-10). It happened in Thessalonica (1 Th 1:6-10). And it happened in Philippi (Ph 4:15,16). It was simply understood that when one freely received the gospel, he was to make sure that it was freely preached somewhere else. One of the greatest examples of this was the sacrificial giving of a few Christians in the city of Philippi.

A few years after their conversion, Paul wrote to the Philippians, “Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only” (Ph 4:15). The Philippians’ partnership with Paul in preaching the gospel to other places through Paul began when they were new Christians. In fact, they were only a “few days” old as Christians when they began their support of the evangelists who went on to Thessalonica, for Paul, Silas and Timothy stayed only a few days in Philippi (See At 16:12). These were not “taker Christians,” “for even in Thessalonica,” Paul wrote, “you sent once and again for my needs” (Ph 4:16). When Paul went on from Thessalonica in Macedonia, the Philippians, who were in Macedonia, even continued their financial partnership with him in preaching the gospel in Achaia. He later wrote to shame the Corinthians, “And when I was present with you and in need, I was not a burden to anyone, for what I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied” (2 Co 11:9).

The fascinating function of the Philippians, as well as the Thessalonians, who both resided in the province of Macedonia, is that they contributed to reach out with the gospel to other areas from the very beginning of their walk in Christ.

As the Philippians, the Thessalonians went to work, both locally and regionally, by sending support to Paul while he was in Achaia (More later). But what is strikingly awesome about the behavior of the Philippians was that from their very beginning as new Christians, they “sent once and again” unto Paul’s needs while he was in Thessalonica, and then in Achaia. We wonder why they did this? Was it something that Paul taught them? Or, was Paul one who preached for money? From what Paul did in both Thessalonica and Achaia, the answer to these questions was that he worked with his own hands in order not to beg off the brethren (See 2 Co 11:9; 2 Th 3:8). Both the Philippians and Thessalonians witnessed his sacrificial behavior, and thus, they were moved to help support him in order that the gospel go beyond the borders of their province.

Now as we study through these examples of supporting evangelists, we must not forget one very important point. The evangelists were going forth. They were not “stay-at-home” preachers who misappropriated the work of an evangelist. They were on the move preaching to the lost in other areas, not preaching to the saved at home. This does not mean that the local brethren should not support their teachers. This is not the discussion of this chapter. The point here is that those who obey the gospel must make sure that the gospel is preached to the lost in every nation of the world.

So the next question would be, Was what the Philippians believed and accepted inherent in the gospel that Paul preached? This would be our conclusion. God is a giver. He gave His only begotten Son (Jn 3:16). Therefore, anyone who would truly accept the message of God’s love, seeks how he or she can get this message out to others. Godly people want to give as God gave good news to them (1 Jn 4:19). This is the beauty of the gospel. When one obeys this message of love, he must give, even when one is in poverty circumstances as the Philippians. Listen to the Holy Spirit’s testimony of the disciples in Macedonia where Philippi was located:

Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the grace of God that has been given to the churches of Macedonia, that in a great trial of affliction, the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty, abounded in the riches of their liberality. For I testify that according to their ability, yes, and beyond their ability they gave of their own accord, begging us with much urgency that we would receive the gift and the fellowship of the ministering to the saints” (2 Co 8:1-4).

The only begging that should ever come from a disciple of Christ is his begging that someone take his contribution. Why have we reversed this to an outstretched hand that is always looking for a gift? If one becomes a disciple of Jesus, then his begging from others must stop. If it does not, then the person never really believed the message of the free gift of grace that moves believers to be givers. Godly people do not beg for themselves. They only beg that the needy receive their contributions of love. Now we can understand why Paul wrote that the Thessalonians must withdraw their fellowship from any person who would seek to beg off the church. He wrote to the disciples who had some beggars among them, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly and not after the tradition that he received from us” (2 Th 3:6).

Paul did not behave disorderly among the Thessalonians (2 Th 3:7). He, Timothy and Silas did not eat “any man’s bread without paying for it” (2 Th 3:8). Their “orderly walk” and example was that they “worked with labor and hardship night and day so that we might not be a burden to any of you” (2 Th 3:8). So if there are any among the brethren who are “not willing to work neither let him eat [beg]” (2 Th 3:10). Christians are not beggars off one another. They are partners together in Christ. If there are beggars among us, then Paul states that these beggars are walking disorderly. And because they are walking disorderly, two things must happen: First they must not be allowed to continue to beg off those who work, and second, if they persist in their begging, then they must be disfellowshipped from the family of God. The church is not a fellowship of beggars, neither is it a welfare society for those who can work when there is work to be done.

Christians who beg off other Christians are walking disorderly in reference to their function as members of the organic body of Christ. If one would be a member of the same church to which the Thessalonians were added, then he cannot be a beggar off his fellow brothers in Christ. If they continue such begging behavior, then they cannot be in fellowship with the organically functioning body of Christ.

The Philippians, as well as the Thessalonians, saw a different culture in the message of Jesus, and thus, they established a culture of giving. They could not compare themselves with other disciples in their region, for there were no other disciples in their region to which they could look for an example. The only example they had was reflected in the behavior of the sacrificial living of Paul, Timothy, Luke and Silas, which example was an emulation of the sacrificial behavior of Christ. “Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God. But He made Himself of no reputation …” (See Ph 2:5-8). As an example to the Thessalonians and Philippians, Paul, Timothy, Luke and Silas made themselves worked with their own hands (2 Th 3:9). And so, Paul could write to the financially dysfunctional Corinthians, “Be imitators of me even as I also am of Christ” (1 Co 11:1). The Philippians and Thessalonians had imitated the behavior of Paul. Now it was time for the Corinthians to enjoy the sacrificial life of Paul.

In the area of physical things, one does not come to Christ to see what he can get. If one does, he will not experience the pure joy of being a godly giver for Jesus. Simon came to Christ to see that he could get, but when Peter said he could not buy it for himself, he became bitter. (Read carefully At 8:18-23, specifically verse 23. Simon became bitter because he could not make a profit out of laying hands on people to receive the Holy Spirit.)

The Philippians saw what they could give, not what they could get. As a result, their standard of living came down because of their giving out of their deep poverty. And they did this with “the abundance of their joy and their keep poverty” (2 Co 8:2). We used to say, “Give until it hurts!” We were wrong. The truth is that we must experience the abundance of the joy of Jesus until we give. There should never be any “hurting” in giving. It should simply be as natural for the Christian as eating to preserve our natural body. This is why the Philippians could joyfully give out of their deep poverty. Therefore, the conclusion from our study of the example of the Philippians is that one does not really understand the message of the gospel of joy unless he comes away from the waters of baptism looking for something on which he can pour out his joy. Doing such is inherent in the message of the “good news” (gospel) that we have obeyed. Giving, therefore, should be an occasion of just pure joy, not “hurting.”

TAKING OWNERSHIP OF ONE’S LOAD

 The letter to the Galatians may have been the first letter of inspiration written to the early Christians. It was written to the disciples in the region of Galatia where Paul and Barnabas went on their first mission journey (At 13,14). If the letter was written early, then we assume that the teaching of the letter was directed to new Christians. They may have been less than five years old in the faith. This fact is important because it gives us an idea of what God expects of His children even from their early years in the faith. In the letter, Paul not only addresses the threat of legal religiosity, but also exhorts the disciples concerning responsibilities they must assume as God’s children.

In the first chapters of the letter, Paul addressed the doctrinal challenges that faced these new Christians. In chapter 5 he gave a final exhortation to stand free in Christ as opposed to being brought into the bondage of legal religiosity (Gl 5:1,2).

It is in chapter 6 that the Holy Spirit, through the hand of Paul, reveals some very practical responsibilities of our function as members of the universal body of Christ. In 6:4 he admonished that each disciple must take ownership of his or her own work by not boasting in the work of others. The disciples should not behave as some in Corinth who took glory in the work of others (See 2 Co 10:13,16). On the contrary, “… each one will bear his own load” (6:5). Paul laid the foundation for what was coming. When it comes to taking ownership, “each one” must assume the responsibility of being a disciple. Every disciple must take ownership of that which one should assume as a productive member of the organic body of Christ. Christians cannot pass off on others their responsibilities. If one would be a Christian, and thus a disciple of Jesus, then he cannot assume that someone else will bear his load. Christians seek to give physical things freely as they were freely supplied with spiritual things (See 2 Co 8:14). A disciple of Jesus simply cannot ask someone else to bear the load that God expects him to bear.

In the context of Galatians 6, Paul led his readers to the responsibility of verse 6. “Let him who is taught the word share in all good things with the one who teaches.”

The word “share” is from the Greek word koinonia. The meaning is “joint partnership.” We hear of many unfortunate definitions throughout the world of the word “partnership.” To many, partnership means, “Give me the money and we will do the work of spending it.” This is one’s “cuffed-hand” culture speaking. But this is certainly not what Paul was saying in the context of Galatians 6:6. The ownership that is expressed in 6:5 must be continued into verse 6. “Each one” must join in partnership to support the teacher. The student must take ownership of his teaching by supporting his teacher. Whether his teaching comes through the person of the teacher, or through the book a teacher might write, the student has the responsibility of personally paying the teacher or buying the teacher’s book. Disciples who do neither are simply walking contrary to the instructions of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 6. They walk as dysfuncational members of the body, and thus in violation of fellowshipping those who are teachers of the word. One cannot expect to grow spiritually in study of the word of God if he seeks to acquire his knowledge of the word without taking ownership of his source of teaching.

In the use of the word koinonia in 6:6, money is involved. Obligation and responsibility are incurred. Each student has the responsibility to pay the teacher.   The student cannot sluff off on another his or her responsibility to pay his or her Bible teacher. Any disciple, therefore, who does not pay his teacher is behaving in a manner that is contrary to Paul’s instructions in Galatians 6:6. He is trying to come to his teacher empty handed. He sins while trying to grow spiritually by being taught the word of God without paying the teacher. It is a spiritual contradiction. And thus, we now understand why those of some societies who have freely received to many contributions find it difficult to grow to the spiritual levels of true discipleship in stewardship. The culture of their outstretched hand always hinders them from taking ownership of their responsibilities to be Christians who give.

Any student who would walk out of a Bible class, without feeling his responsibility to make sure that the teacher was supported for his labors in teaching, has certainly left the class to walk disorderly. Anyone who would seek a free spiritual book written by a teacher is working against the spiritual nourishment that he would receive from the book. We are dysfunctional disciples when we expect a free ride in reference to the sources of our being taught.

It would be good to offer some suggestions on this point since this fundamental teaching of the word of God leads us into many of the texts that we will discuss later. We remember in the early 1980s when we went as evangelists to the West Indies (Caribbean). We lived on the island of Antigua. In the first few months of going from shack to shack in teaching, we were pleasantly surprised by the giving of the people. These were truly “Third World” (developing world) residents. According to Western standards they were very poor, living in shacks across the island and eating from their own gardens. But in every house we entered and taught the word of God, after the class the people of the house, the students, would collect up some fruit in the house to give to us, for they had no money. We graciously accepted their “pay” for the class, and went on our way thinking, “These folks got the point. Someone in the past taught them well.” There were no cuff-handed people on the entire island.

Their history had taught them a great lesson of ownership. In the early 1950s, the general population, which was held in economic bondage by the land owners, went on strike. In doing so, the people had to struggle for themselves to survive. During those years of trying to feed their families, the people ate anything to stay alive. In all their struggles to survive, they learned a great lesson of life. They learned to take ownership of their own lives and their own destiny. And when some foreign teachers later came by, they would not take something (teaching) for nothing. The West Indies people could teach the post-colonial, post foreign-aid cultures a few things about financially taking ownership of oneself by paying their teachers. People look at the West Indian culture with respect because of who they are. But people will always look down on a cuffed-hand culture. The word “partnership” has a difficult time being understood correctly in such cultures.