The Hermeneutic Puzzle

After having one mind melting experience after the next I decided to blog one of these experiences so that I might one day reflect on it and think, “Truly, I knew nothing the day I wrote that.”  “Hermeneutics is the science and methodology of adding teeth to exegesis” (Moghadam, 2012).  I say this because I truly enjoy exegetical study where I am able to allow the text to be the text and simply read the Bible, not attempting to add or remove from it… this is a true joy of mine.  It has come to my attention however, that while this is an excellent way to allow oneself to be enriched and even molded by the Spirit of God it does not allow for the Berean “of more noble character” development.  There is much to be considered when attempting to use proper hermeneutics in your bible study.  There are many factors to consider like culture, where the book was written, who wrote the book and what does that imply, to whom the book was being written to and what does this imply, etc…

I am going to give a small scale demonstration here on a passage that I believe (OPINION) has been grossly mishandled.  If you would like to follow along I would suggest reading 1 Corinthians 9:1-18 first and naturally the book in its entirety after that.  For the point of this example I will not talk about the emotions that Paul may or may not have felt but will stay right on track with my possible future thesis that leadership should be a sacrifice and not a promotion.  You will notice that I do not have the room to complete the full hermeneutic circle here but am attempting to give a small scaled example of the importance of original message.

“This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink” (3-4)? 

Focus here on vs. 4 as we will integrate it into context in a moment.  The right to food and drink?  Where does this come from and why would he and Barnabas have this right?  Let’s hold off on answering this directly for a moment as we continue to build context.  “Or is it only I and Barnabas who lack the right to not work for a living” (6)?  Work for a living?  What does this mean in the context of their situation?  Let’s hold off one more time as we put puzzle pieces together.

“Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink the milk? Do I say this merely on human authority? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing” (7-8)? 

This passage has been used and will continue to be used as solid justification for those that serve the church to receive from the church.  My question is to receive what?  A living?  The plot thickens just a bit. 

“For it is written in the Law of Moses: ‘Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ” (9-12).  

The real question here is what material harvest is available to a minister?  This passage by itself with just a read of the text allows the imagination to run wild as I’m sure many of you (or at least the two dudes I let read this stuff) are thinking.  The thought may have crossed you mind, that’s the end of your little story as the Scriptures clearly lay out God’s plan for those who serve him in a ministry capacity.  This next section is a beautiful demonstration of hermeneutics coming alive!

“Don’t you know that those who serve in the temple get their food from the temple, and that those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel” (13-14). 

Where is Paul getting this from?  This is of course an Old Testament reference which is absolutely viable as we know that Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.  So with this defense in hand let’s review.  Who served at the temple in order to get their food from the temple?  Who served at the altar in order to share in its offerings?  If you said the Levites and Priests then you are correct!  May I ask you where did the Levite live?  How was a Levite’s needs taken care of, that is to say, what was his payment?  Was it not food and drink?  It would make sense according to vs. 4.  What was offered in the temples and on the altar if not food and drink?  The next words after this statement are eye opening, IN THE SAME WAY, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.  In the same way obviously stands out to me especially considering it is followed up with the name Jesus but it is the last part of the statement that truly preaches.  By the way as the new high priest where did Jesus lay his head at night?  What did Jesus provide his disciples with when he sent them on a mission… look it up for yourself.  Getting back on track, “should receive their living from the Gospel.”  What does it mean to receive a living?  This is where language has failed us as we have twisted the original meaning of this saying.  It is to earn enough to live on, literally.  The saying was used in the US as early as the late 1600’s and was almost always in reference to preachers.  “Earn enough to support oneself, as in Can he make a living as a freelance trumpeter? This term was first recorded in 1632” (Dictionary.com).

“But I have not used any of these rights. And I am not writing this in the hope that you will do such things for me, for I would rather die than allow anyone to deprive me of this boast” (15).

Paul did not use his right to food and drink, but why?  Rather die?  Why does Paul consider this his boast?

“For when I preach the gospel, I cannot boast, since I am compelled to preach. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! If I preach voluntarily, I have a reward; if not voluntarily, I am simply discharging the trust committed to me. What then is my reward? Just this: that in preaching the gospel I may offer it free of charge, and so not make full use of my rights as a preacher of the gospel” (16-18).

Paul says that if he preaches voluntarily he then has a reward… there is a clear distinction being made here.  What is the reward then?  To offer it free of charge!  Why would he say this, who is not offering the Word free of charge at this point?

“Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God” (2 Corinthians 2:17).

The same author Paul, who is widely accepted as the New Testament church’s greatest leader has set a bar that few will even attempt to shoot for and why would they?  Have we turned service to the Gospel into a profession?  This seems like an impossibility to thrive as a church in this day and age but the Bible is clear (I believe) and there is one more reminder to encourage us with.

“‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven’” (Matthew 5:17-20)

I have a ton more to say as I’m sure you do as well… feel free and even compelled to disagree.