Bible Commentaries
1 Corinthians 4

Verses 1-7

XV

THE PREACHER AND FACTIONS

1 Corinthians 2:1-4:7.

We shall proceed to repeat part of the ground of the last chapter. We were discussing the third division of the outline, ecclesiastical disorders. The first is factions. There were divisions. Paul, in replying to the evil of divisions in churches about persons, made an argument that the world has never equaled, and which will be important for all time upon the subject of factions.

His first argument against factions is that Christ Is not divided. Second, the preacher was not crucified for them. They were making divisions about preachers, yet nobody was crucified but Christ. Third, nobody was baptized in the name of a preacher. Fourth, one of the grounds of division was that some preachers were more oratorical than others in their speaking, and used eloquence and philosophies of the schools. In replying to that he stated the wise or oratorical preacher does not save men. They are saved by the cross. Therefore, it is perfectly foolish to have a division about persons on the ground that one is more oratorical than another. Fifth, that worldly wisdom never did discover God, and never could have devised a plan of salvation. God gave the wisdom of the world all the opportunity that it wanted from the beginning of time to the coming of Christ. There had been many wise men, particularly among the Greeks and Romans, but what did their wisdom amount to? It had never discovered the nature of God, devised a system of morals or a plan of salvation. History presents the awful anomaly that the wisest cities in the world, such as Athens, Ephesus, and Corinth, were morally rotten, spiritually putrid. Their wisdom did not save them from obscenity or debauchery. The sixth argument is that as a matter of fact few of the wise and the great men were saved. Somehow their wisdom and their greatness prevented their stooping down and becoming little children in receiving the gospel of Jesus Christ. He proves this by appealing to their own case. "You know, brethren, from your own experience that not many wise, great, or noble are called." The seventh argument against division, where it was predicated on superior worldly wisdom on the part of any of the persona about whom the division was centered, is that Christ himself is the wisdom of the Christian, the righteousness, sanctification, and redemption of the Christian. How beautifully he works in the thought of the Trinity, "Who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption." While Christ is the wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption of his people, the application is different. He is not our sanctification in the sense that he is our righteousness. Our righteousness is imputed to us, and we receive it by a single act of faith. Our sanctification is applied to us differently by the Holy Spirit, and becomes at last a personal righteousness.

His eighth argument is that the gospel which saves men is not discerned according to carnal wisdom, but is spiritually discerned. Whether a man be wise or ignorant does not enter into the question. We might take a Negro that could not read a letter in a book, and put seven wise men of Greece against him, and the Negro might spiritually discern the gospel of eternal life preached to him as a poor, ignorant, lost soul quicker than the seven wise men of Greece.

I have often used as an illustration of that, the case of Gen. Speight, whose children live in Waco now. He was a great man in many respects. He was the best organizer and trainer of a regiment I ever knew, and his intellect was quick as lightning, and yet he could not see how to be converted until his old Negro servant took him off in the gin house and showed him how to come to Christ.

That applies in Paul’s argument. One of the grounds of division, was that they were instituting comparisons between Paul and Apollos. Apollos was a wise man, expert in Alexandrian philosophy. Paul wants to know what that counts in a case of this kind. The natural man receives not the things of God. They are foolishness to him.

His ninth argument is that factions hinder spiritual progress. They were yet babes in Christ when they ought to have been teachers. I don’t know anything that can more quickly destroy the spiritual progress of the church than divisions. Let a church be divided into two parties, one following Deacon A and the other Deacon B; one clamoring for this preacher and the other for that; let the line be drawn sharply, then all spirituality dies. There cannot be power ’in the church while that continues.

The tenth argument consists of some questions: "What then is Apollos? and what is Paul?" At a last analysis they are only the instruments or ministers by whom they believed; God himself gave the increase.

He advances in the eleventh argument: "You are divided about preachers. You are not the preacher’s field or his building. You are God’s field; you are God’s building. Then if you are God’s building you don’t belong to this preacher or to that preacher."

The twelfth argument is that the only foundation in this building is Jesus Christ: "Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." The thirteenth argument is that all the incongruous material the preacher puts on that foundation will be destroyed in the great judgment day – tried by fire. He refers to the material received for church membership. Paul laid a divine foundation for the church at Corinth. Other men proposed to build on that foundation. Suppose a man puts into the temple of God "wood, hay, stubble." Some people thatch the roof of the house with hay or stubble. Every addition to that church, when the Master comes to examine his building, that has not been made of living stone, lasting spiritual material, will be cut out and will go up in fire and smoke. So we will say that one reason for the division was that a preacher held a meeting and received a thousand members and 975 came in without conviction or repentance – a dry-eyed, easy, little faith, little sinner, little savior – and it did not amount to anything. The preacher, if a Christian, will be saved, but every bit of the unworthy material he put in the church will be lost, and because the work is lost he will suffer loss of reward for his labors.

His fourteenth argument is that factions destroy the church, which is the temple of God, which temple they were: "Him that destroyeth the temple of God will God destroy." I never knew it to fail where a man through his fault destroyed a church of Christ that that man was destroyed world without end. Even if he was a Christian he was destroyed. Not as to eternal life, but certainly as to his usefulness in this world. His fifteenth argument is – what a text! I heard Dr. Hatcher, of Richmond, preach a sermon on it. The church does not belong to the preachers; the preachers belong to the church: "All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come, all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s."

The sixteenth argument is that these preachers about which they were dividing this church must be counted simply as stewards of the grace of God, the deposit of the gospel which has been given to them. They were not to be looked on as the builders, the authors, and the savior of the church. What they were to do in their case was to ask the one question, "Has this steward been faithful?" The seventeenth argument is that they were dividing this church on their human judgment of men, and their human judgment didn’t count at all. The King James version of 1 Corinthians 4:3 is, "But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment; yea, I judge not mine own self. For I know nothing by myself." How many sermons I have heard on that when the thought is not that at all! This is the meaning of the true text of the Greek: “For though I know nothing against myself, yet I am not hereby justified," i.e., human judgment doesn’t count. In other words, I may seem to myself perfect, but I may have a thousand faults. The judge is God, and when God lets the light shine, he brings out some spot I don’t see in the dim light of my wisdom. You remember David’s prayer, "Cleanse thou me from secret faults," i.e., not faults that I am keeping hid from my wife and my friends, but faults secret to me. "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?"

The eighteenth and last argument is this: Preachers deserve no credit for difference in gifts, and yet they were making their different gifts the ground of their division: "For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" One of the greatest blessings in this world today is the difference of gifts that God gives to the church and his preachers. Two of the most important chapters in the Bible are devoted to a discussion of that question (Rom. 12; 1 Cor. 12). God has never yet called a man to preach who cannot do some things better than anybody else in the world. He never gives two men exactly the same gifts. I am conscious that I can do some things better than other people. I am sure that God has given me the gift of interpretation of his Word. But others can do some things better than I can. I would hate it very much if I were the best sample in the kingdom all along the line. It would be a very sad thing for the world if some of God’s preachers could not beat me in some things. They had made this difference in gifts the ground of their factions. Now, call each man up and say, "Paul, where did you get your gifts?" He answers, "God gave them to me." "Did you earn them?" "No, they are free grace." "Apollos, where did you get your gifts?" "God gave them to me." "You did not purchase them from God?" "No, they came through free grace."

One of the greatest preachers I ever heard stood up in the pulpit and pointed to a homely old Baptist preacher in the crowd and said, "Brethren, I would give all I am worth in the world to be able to preach like that man." The most of the crowd would have said, "You beat him." He could beat him, but not in all things. That man could preach a sermon by the way he got up in the pulpit and opened the Bible. The humility and tenderness of soul with which he looked into the faces of the sinners was marvelous. That fact alone ought to keep down the jealousy of one preacher against another preacher. There is such s, thing as improving one’s gifts, and for that a man does deserve credit. A man may have a gift, and by disuse of that gift it will go into bankruptcy; one may be lazy and won’t study, and for that he is to be blamed. I care not how dull a man is naturally, if God has called that man, he had a reason for calling him. He has some work for him to do that Michael and Gabriel could not do. That man is responsible for just what gifts he has, and he ought to try to improve those gifts, and not try to imitate somebody whose gifts are different from his.

I am glad our Lord did not, in this matter, imitate a candiemaker who brings a great tub full of tallow and pours it into one mould. All candles come out of candle-moulds exactly alike. I am glad the Lord’s preacher-material is not like a tub of tallow, and that it is not all run into one mould. We want diversity of gifts and division of labor. Some have the gift of exhortation; others, exposition, pastoral power, tactfulness in visiting the sick and the strangers. Some have the evangelistic gift, and some one thing and some another. Thus we have the eighteen arguments which Paul gives against the first of these ecclesiastical disorders – factions.

The second ecclesiastical disorder was a revolt against apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 1:8-21; 1 Corinthians 9:1-27). In order to unify this discussion, I have taken everything in the letter that bears upon the revolt against apostolic authority. But who questioned Paul’s apostolic authority? Visiting Jewish professors of religion, coming from Jerusalem and having that Judaizing spirit, which would make the Christian religion nothing but a sect of Judaism, came up to Corinth. In the second letter we have this same topic for discussion. These visiting brethren brought letters of recommendation from people in Judea, as we learn in the second letter, and they questioned Paul’s apostolic authority. On what grounds did they question his apostolic authority?

1. Because he was not one of the original twelve apostles, and had not seen the Lord in his lifetime.

2. He did not exercise the apostolic powers when his authority was questioned. Ananias and Sapphira tried to fool Peter and they were struck dead by exertion of apostolic power. But Paul did not use the power of an apostle to strike men dead in Corinth that differed with him.

3. He had not claimed apostolic support for himself, therefore it was evident that he did not count himself as deserving it. The twelve apostles, particularly Cephas and the brothers of our Lord, being married men, as apostles, for devoting themselves to the apostolic office, demanded support for themselves and their families.

4. His suffering proclaimed that he was not an apostle. If he were God’s apostle, he would not get into so much trouble, for the Lord would take care of him.

5. His was not the true gospel. The true gospel was given to those who accompanied the Lord Jesus Christ, beginning with the baptism of John down to the time he was taken to heaven. Paul was not even a Christian when that took place.

6. His folly. He did a great many foolish things in the way of expediency.

7. His bodily infirmities and weaknesses. He was a little sore-eyed Jew, bald-headed, with no grace of oratory and no rhetorical form of speech.

8. He was against Moses and the Mosaic law.

9. He was a preacher to the Gentiles. These are the nine distinct grounds upon which these living, visiting brethren, who had done nothing for that church, came over there to work up a case. Whenever I read about it I always feel indignant against that scaly crowd. This is a part of Paul’s great controversy to which Stalker devotes a chapter in his Life of Paul. The letters which are alive with the items of this controversy are 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans. Later it comes up in another form in Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians, and the same matter in yet a different form later in Hebrews. We will see how Paul replies to this question of his apostleship in the next chapter.

QUESTIONS

1. Restate the first six arguments against factions.

2. What is the seventh argument against division predicated on superior worldly wisdom, and how does Paul here bring in the thought of the Trinity?

3. How is Christ our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption?

4. What is the eighth argument, relating to the gospel, and what illustrations given?

5. What is the ninth argument, relating to spiritual progress?

6. What is the tenth argument, relating to the instruments of their faith?

7. What is the eleventh argument, relating to God’s field, or building?

8. What is the twelfth argument, relating to the foundation?

9. What is the thirteenth argument, relating to incongruous material?

10. What is the fourteenth argument, relating to the temple of God?

11. What is the fifteenth argument, relating to church ownership, and what sermon noted on this as a text?

12. What is the sixteenth argument, referring to the deposit of the gospel?

13. What is the seventeenth argument, referring to human, judgment, and how is this text often misapplied?

14. What is the eighteenth argument, referring to gifts, and what special blessing in the diversity of gifts?

15. What is the second ecclesiastical disorder at Corinth, and who caused it?

16. On what grounds did they question Paul’s apostolic authority?

17. In what letters of Paul do we have this great controversy?

Verses 8-21

XVI

THE REVOLT AGAINST PAUL’S APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

1 Corinthians 4:8-21; 1 Corinthians 9:1-27.

In the last chapter this question was asked, "Who questioned Paul’s authority?" And our answer was, "Visiting brethren from Jerusalem," and we discussed the various grounds upon which they based their questionings. Paul’s reply is found in 1 Corinthians 4:8-21; 1 Corinthians 9:1-27; and three or four verses in 1 Corinthians 15. We take two sections somewhat distant apart and put them together in order to put everything together that bears upon the discussion.

The first charge was that he was not one of the original twelve. He admits the allegation, but denies the deduction. Jesus Christ had as much right to appoint an apostle after his resurrection as he had while in the flesh. It will be remembered that in Acts I, through the Spirit, Matthias, not one of the original twelve, was numbered with the twelve, received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and became in every way a qualified apostle of Jesus Christ. Paul was as truly appointed an apostle by the will of God as Peter was. There never was any more definite or important a transaction than his meeting the Lord on the way to Damascus at which time he was not only converted, but was specially called into the apostolic office. Over and over again in his letters and in his life are evidences that the Lord not only originally called him, but appeared to him many times in confirmation of that call. So he well says in commencing this letter, "Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God."

Then they charged that he had not seen Jesus in the flesh. He admits the fact, but he says it is altogether unimportant whether he had seen Jesus in the flesh or not. He had seen him after he rose from the dead, and that was the point upon which the apostleship rested. That he had seen the risen Lord constituted his qualification to be a witness as an apostle. They charged that he had not exercised his apostolic authority in vindicating himself by punitive judgments on those that questioned him. Peter had Ananias and Sapphira struck dead for telling a lie. It is said that Paul talked big enough, but did not act. To that Paul replies that on account of mercy he had refrained from vindicating, by punitive right, his power, but that he had a right and could exercise it, and when he got among them he would do it unless they repented of the wrongs that they had done.

They charged that he had not exacted apostolic support for himself and wife. They argued that he, in his own conscience, did not feel entitled to it. His reply to that is superb, and is completely unanswerable. He commences with 1 Corinthians 9:1, which is the chapter of the Bible on the scriptural grounds for ministerial support, by saying, "Am I not free?" This matter of support is a right, not a duty. "May I not waive the right ’if I choose?" There are some things we can waive if we choose to do so.

A certain man whom I knew, an exceedingly eccentric man, was, as a widower, paying his addresses to a widow. The lady said when he asked her to marry him, "I have some objections to marrying you." He said, "I have a great many objections to marrying you, but I waive them."

Next, Paul gives the reasons why he waived the right. They were missionary reasons. If he had come there and made his first speech on their paying him a salary, nobody would have listened to him. It was not after the plan of God’s gospel that a missionary, reaching territory that had never been occupied, should lay great stress on the people’s paying him to preach to them. The next is, that his desires were for them, not for their money: "I coveted you for Christ, and not anything that you had." Third, as a matter of fact it was not true, since in part he bad been supported while among them, through a contribution of the church. Next, that he labored with his own hands, not because an apostle had to do that, but because it was a necessity for an important lesson to them in that community. Tens of thousands of Corinthians were loafers. Paul wanted to be able to say, "You remember – you people who won’t work – that when I was among you I worked by night and preached to you by day. These hands ministered unto my support in order that you might understand that he who won’t work should not eat." There is no sentimentality about Paul on the beggar question. They charged that he had exacted no pay for his preaching. He replied that that did not make him inferior, but made them inferior: "For what is there wherein ye were made inferior to the rest of the churches, except it be that ye were brought to Christ and established and built up by my ministry, and ye did not pay me a cent?" Then he said, "Forgive me this wrong. It was wrong for me to waive my right to a support that you should not be instructed to minister to those who minister to you." Then he goes on to prove his right.

To the end of time, 1 Corinthians 9, will be the chapter in the New Testament on the subject of ministerial support. I once took as a text this scripture: "My defense to them that examine me is this." They put him upon examination. He bases his answer, first, upon analogy from human conduct in other things, and cites three things: First, the soldier: "Who goeth forth to warfare at his own charges?" They objected to a preacher being supported for his ministry. On all sides these people could see soldiers. "Do they pay for their rations, their uniforms, their weapons, their hospital in which they stay, and the medicine which they take?" It would be impossible to have an army permanently without setting aside from some source adequate support for them. So applying that analogy to the preacher, why may he not have a right to a support? Paul might have gone further: Officers in the army are not merely provided for the field, but are educated at national expense, like Army cadets at West Point, or Naval cadets at Annapolis.

My wife’s brother, Willie Harrison, is in the Navy. I remember well when he was just a boy he entered Annapolis as a cadet. He knew no more about a ship than he did about a balloon. He is now lieutenant on one of the great battleships, and has charge of a most responsible position in its navigation. I went to see him a few years ago and went all over the yards at Annapolis, Washington, and Baltimore. It became perfectly evident to me that no untrained man could be a naval officer. His training must commence very early. As protected those enormous guns, I realized that one slight mishap in the process of making defensive armor that take and the whole ship would blow up, and that the keenest, highest education was necessary in order to know how to handle those ships in time of war.

Then he cites the case of the vine-dresser: "Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not the fruit thereof?" One cannot drag a man to a piece of ground, make him clear it, cultivate and gather the grapes, and not pay him anything. He asks: "Who feedeth the flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock." Will a Texas cowboy take charge of a herd of cattle, watch by day and night, nearly kill himself avoiding a stampede, be burned in the sun, and do all for nothing? Hasn’t he a right to a piece of beef, to milk and butter? Or if it be sheep, to a piece of mutton, or to woolen clothes? That argument is perfectly unanswerable.

Second, he appeals to the law of Moses. The Jews were questioning his right. He refers to their law, "Say I these things as a man? It is written in the law of Moses. Does the Mosaic law forbid a man to muzzle his ox that is threshing the grain?" In those days they threshed the grain by oxen treading on it continuously. That was their primitive way of threshing. "Now would you begrudge an ox his food if he stooped to get a bite of grain? The Mosaic law forbids you to muzzle the ox that treads out the grain. If it be a sin to muzzle an ox, is it not a greater sin to muzzle a man that brings the message of eternal life to the people? He brings not the bread of earth, but the bread of heaven. Certainly it applies more to men than to oxen." He says, "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? The preacher finds you in darkness under the power of Satan, lost; and in tears and love he pleads with you and you are led to Christ and find eternal life. The spiritual things to which he leads you are worth more than all the world. Is it then unreasonable that he should reap your carnal things?" In other words, a man who by the grace of God and through the ministry of a faithful preacher has been led to eternal life and made a partaker of the inheritance of the saints, who would grudge help in a carnal way to the one who had been the means of his salvation, would certainly throw a question over his salvation.

Notice his next argument, viz.: their own conduct: "If there be those who are partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?" In other words, "The preachers you have had, you have paid for their services. You concede the right to Peter and others, and if this support is for them, why not Paul? Ask yourselves which one of these led you to salvation. Paul is the one that found you and led you out of darkness into light." Then he passes to his next argument, still on the law of Moses, the Levites, and the priests: "Do you know that they who minister about the holy things of life, of the things in the Temple, and they which wait at the altar are partakers of the altar? The tribe of Levi, which had no territory given to them, had become the Lord’s servants to do the Lord’s work and minister to the Lord’s sanctuary, and the Lord provides for their support."

He thus makes the application of these five distinct arguments: "Even so did the Lord ordain that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel." It certainly is an important declaration. As a government maintains its soldiers, and when they get old and feeble, it provides hospitals and infirmaries, and when officers are retired they receive half pay, so "God hath ordained that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel."

When Christ sent out his apostles he commanded them to take no means of support, saying, "The laborer is worthy of his meat and his hire." In other words, "I would be a very poor employer if I sent you out to confine your attention strictly to my work, and make you hustle to get your living from other things." Wherever there is no adequate provision for ministerial support, and the preacher must do things for his living, run a farm or practice medicine, we may rest assured that he cannot give his undivided attention to the ministry, and that churches that receive that kind of ministry do not receive the full work of the ministry. The calamity in that case is on the church. Oftentimes it is downright covetousness that is the cause of it. Churches think we can get Brother So-and-so for fifty dollars a year, and we can just have preaching once a month. Can a church prosper on once a month’s preaching?

I have always taken this position: If any preacher, truly called of God to preach, will implicitly trust, not the churches, but the Lord Jesus Christ to take care of him, and will consecrate his entire time to the work of the ministry, verily he shall be clothed and fed, or else the heavens will fall, and God’s word will not be so.

I made that statement once and some of the brethren questioned it. I still stand on it.

If I were a young man again, I would do just as I did then, burn all the bridges behind and push out on the promises of God, that perhaps not in my way, not in the church’s way, but in some way the Lord Jesus Christ would take care of my wife and children.

I would say in my heart, "I am God’s man; I am to go out as his minister, to do his work, to do no other business; and sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I will trust the Lord and stick to my work." I have tried trusting Jesus and he has never failed; I have had men to lie to me straight-out; I have had 1,000 promises to fail, coming from men, but never has any promise of God failed that he has ever made.

An illustration on this point occurred at an early day in Waco. We had a very skeptical man there, Mr. Berry, whom Dr. Burleson invited to attend an association. He had no buggy, and so Dr. Burleson said, "You may ride with me." When he saw Dr. Burleson’s shabby old buggy and rattletrap harness and lean, raw-boned horse, he said, "Dr. Burleson, you have faith that you will get there in that buggy, but I have not; I am going to get a buggy from the livery stable." But Dr. Burleson beat him there just the same. I have known preachers to get there in ramshackle buggies and pieced-out harness, tied with shoe-strings. Once I saw a collar on a horse tied with a necktie, and the preacher had to preach without one, but "he got there just the same."

When Jesus gave the commission he said, "These things shall follow: If a serpent bite you, or you drink deadly poison, it will not hurt you." They applied that to Paul and said, "We infer from your extraordinary afflictions – the Roman lictors, the stripes and scourges of the Jews, and the thorn in your flesh, and that bad eyesight, that if you were an apostle of the Lord he would take care of you." His reply to that is certainly great. It is in 1 Corinthians 4:9: "I think God hath set us, the apostles, last of all, as men doomed to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world (kosmos), both to angels and men. . . . Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked." In other words, "You bring up that charge against me and I accent the facts, but it is worse than you know. You are rich from our labors; you are kings through our labors. We are weak and poor and suffering." Just as Jesus, the Captain of our salvation, was made perfect through suffering, these apostolic leaders were to share his suffering and fill up what remained, and to bear all things.

A demonstration was needed upon this subject, and therefore he says, "I glory in it." The word "spectacle" was taken from the custom of the amphitheater where from 50,000-200,000 people were gathered – as many as could be gathered in the great Roman amphitheater – and down below a gladiator was to fight a Numidian lion or a Bengal tiger. High upon the platform was the emperor and his suite, and all around in this semicircle thousands of the people were gathered, and that man was the spectacle. He fights the wild beast, and as his blood gushes out of his wounds he salutes the emperor and says, "Caesar, I salute thee," and so Paul, about to make his exodus, ready to have his blood poured out as a libation, salutes the Emperor and says, "I have fought the good fight – I have kept the faith; henceforth there ’is laid up for me the crown of righteousness."

Again he says, not to some Roman, Corinthian, or Athenian amphitheater, but to the kosmos – to the universe of angels and men, that all the galleries of heaven are filled with the onlooking angels, and all the population of the earth have their eyes fixed upon these apostles, and they are in the arena appointed unto death. This is proof of their apostleship, as Jesus told him when he called him.

If a man is going to turn his back on the ministry on account of the suffering, the sooner the ministry is rid of him the better. If he is only going to be a sunshine, fair-weather, daylight man, who, because the darkness comes, the march is long, or the battle is terrible, or the cold severe, or the watching is trying, or the wounds are painful – if he is going to turn away from the ministry of Jesus Christ on that account – let him go.

His reply to their charges that he could not be an apostle because he was not exempt from suffering is one of the finest arguments in literature. Jesus Christ could not be Saviour according to that argument, for it was by his suffering he became Saviour.

NOTE. – The other charges given in James 2:1-26 are answered in 2 Corinthians 10:13.

QUESTIONS

1. What the second ecclesiastical disorder, who raised the question, and what the scriptures containing his masterful reply?

2. What Paul’s reply to the charge that he was not one of the original twelve, and had not seen Jesus in the flesh?

3. What his reply to the charge that he bad not exercised his apostolic authority in punitive judgments?

4. What his reply to the charge that he did not exact support for himself and wife?

5. What the condition at Corinth that made it necessary for him to waive this right?

6. What reflection on them does Paul show in his second letter that they had allowed him to waive his right in the matter of support?

7. What good text on ministerial support cited?

8. What three instances of human conduct does he cite in defense of ministerial support?

9. What his argument from the law of Moses relating to the ox?

10, What his argument from the benefit they received?

11. What his argument from their own conduct?

12. What his argument based on the support of the priests and Levites?

13. What the general application of the five preceding distinctive arguments?

14. What the teaching of Christ on this same line?

15. What the result generally of a poorly paid ministry?

16. What the author’s position with regard to the preacher and his support?

17. What Paul’s reply to the charge that he had extraordinary afflictions?

18. What the origin and application of the word "spectacle" as used here?

19 What Paul’s reply to the charge that his was not the true gospel?

20. What Paul’s reply to the charge that he did a great many foolish things?

21. What Paul’s reply to the charge that he had bodily infirmities and weaknesses?

22. What his reply to the charge that he was against the law of Moses?

23. What his reply to the charge that he was a preacher to the Gentiles?

NOTE: For answer to questions 19-23, study carefully the scriptures cited, and for continuation of the discussion of this subject see last chapter in this book.