In chapter 8, the Corinthians were using their freedom to eat meat sacrificed to idols to damage their brothers in Christ. We could imagine the “know-it-all” Corinthians saying, “You’re calling on us to stop eating idol meat? Well, what are you giving up?” Paul’s response is contained in this chapter. Paul sets himself up as a model to be followed in this area of “freedoms.” While the Corinthian “know-it-alls” wouldn’t even sacrifice their freedom to eat meat, Paul sacrificed his right to collect a paycheck. Paul is modeling the very thing that he wants to see in these people (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1). If Paul could sacrifice his freedoms in major areas, then why couldn’t the Corinthians do this in minor ones?
In this section, notice the barrage of rhetorical questions that Paul uses. In Greek, each of these demands a negative answer “because they start with the Greek participle ou [“not”].”[] In other words, Paul is asking questions that are obvious to his readers.
(9:1) “Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?”
Fee states that Paul’s “apostleship itself [had] been called into question.”[] This is certainly true once we get to 2 Corinthians. Given the fact that these two letters were written so closely together, this could be the case here as well. However, it seems that Paul is making an argument from the sure to the unsure. That is, he is assuming that they affirm his apostleship, and he’s building his argument based on that assumed premise.
(9:2) “If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.”
We know that some were doubting Paul’s apostleship in 2 Corinthians. Perhaps a small group was beginning to make this claim, and Paul is alluding to this here. However, if the Corinthians denied Paul’s apostleship, then they would need to deny their own spiritual standing as well.[] Blomberg writes, “For the Corinthians to question his apostolicity calls into question their own spiritual existence!”[]
The “seal” (sphragis) was a way of showing a person’s identification with a letter (i.e. a wax seal on a scroll). It’s the same term Paul uses for being “sealed” with the Holy Spirit. Paul’s ministry showed his standing. Fee writes, “Their very existence authenticates his apostleship.”[]
(9:3) “My defense to those who examine me is this:”
The Corinthians were judging Paul’s motives and examining him (1 Cor. 4:3-5). Here he points out objective criteria for their judgment (rather than the judging of subjective motives), and he defends his ministry and character. If he didn’t do this, it might compromise his message. Therefore, Paul defends himself before the church.
(9:4-5) “Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”
Paul not only had the right to eat and drink (see chapter 8), but he also had the right to a wife, which he didn’t take (see chapter 7). Incidentally, this verse implies that all of the other apostles were married (“even as the rest of the apostles”). Specifically, we know that Peter was married (Mk. 1:30; Mt. 8:14).
(9:6) “Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?”
Paul is lumping himself (and Barnabas) in with the rest of the apostles. It must’ve been widely accepted that the apostles were allowed to accept pay for their work, and this even included paying for their wives to join them in their work. Again, we might think that Paul is arguing for a paycheck here. He isn’t. He’s arguing for his right to be paid. He argues persuasively for his right to be paid, but then he shows that he willingly gave that up.
If Paul didn’t make a good case for this, then the Corinthians could’ve said, “Paul wasn’t paid, but that’s because he didn’t deserve the money.” Instead, Paul argues, “I did deserve the money, but I refused it.” In a world where “money talks,” this would’ve spoken powerfully to his audience. After all, what kind of a man refuses to accept money? Only a man who values something (or Someone) more than money. Incidentally, this subject comes up again in Paul’s second letter (2 Cor. 11:7-9; 12:13).
(9:7) “Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?”
Paul makes a rapid-fire series of secular arguments: soldiers deserve pay, vineyard owners deserve fruit, and farmers deserve milk. If all of these secular careers deserve pay, then why wouldn’t a spiritual career?
(9:8) “I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things?”
Paul has just made an argument from everyday experience or common sense. He goes on to argue that this is also supported by Scripture.
(9:9) “For it is written in the Law of Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.’ God is not concerned about oxen, is He?”
(9:10) “Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.”
Paul’s point is that even the oxen were allowed to share in the food that they were threshing. In other words, a farmer wouldn’t work his oxen to death by starving them. He would allow them to eat—even encourage it.
(9:11) “If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?”
Again, Paul is making an argument from “the lesser to the greater.” Truly, spiritual things are more valuable than material things (Rom. 15:27). Would it be too much to ask for them to support him financially?
(9:12a) “If others share the right over you, do we not more?”
The “others” had exercised this right, and the Corinthians didn’t blink an eye at this.
(9:12b) “Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.”
Paul shows his hand here briefly. It’s as if he can’t handle it, and needs to tell them that he’s refusing this right. From all of this, we can infer that Paul had been accused of being in ministry for the money, so he refused to take any giving from this church. This comes up more abundantly in his second letter, where he refers to the “many” false teachers “peddling the word of God” (2 Cor. 2:17; cf. 1 Thess. 2:5-10).
(9:13) “Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar?”
Paul could be referring to Pagan worship, OT worship,[] or perhaps both.[] In both the Jewish and Pagan worlds, priests were allowed to eat from the sacrifices, so it might not be important to debate over which type of priest he is referring to. Both types of priests ate the sacrifices. Certainly, we know that Jewish priests sustained themselves from their work (Lev. 7:6-10, 14, 28-36).
(9:14) “So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.”
Paul may be thinking of Jesus’ words that “the worker is worthy of his wages” (Lk. 10:7; Mt. 10:10). This verse shows that this principle can be generalized to all vocational servants (“those who proclaim the gospel,” not just Paul).
Paul has been building his argument for why he deserves to get paid for the last fourteen verses. As the reader, you’re expecting him to now say, “So, pay up!” Instead, he takes the complete opposition application. Fee rightly notes, “With every kind of available argument he contends that ‘If others have the right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?’ (v. 12a). Yet after all that, the conclusion in vv. 15-18 is not that they should therefore support him; it is the precise opposite—an explanation, indeed defense, of his policy of not accepting that for which he has just argued so strenuously.”[] Paul is modeling the very thing that he is calling on this church to do: give up their rights for the sake of others.
The book of Acts confirms this. Paul worked with his hands in Corinth (Acts 18:3). He received money from Macedonia to do full-time vocational work (Acts 18:4-5; cf. Phil. 4:15-16), and Paul would refuse to take money for the sake of modeling (2 Thess. 3:7-9).
(9:15) “But I have used none of these things. And I am not writing these things so that it will be done so in my case; for it would be better for me to die than have any man make my boast an empty one.”
I remember hearing D.A. Carson say that he’d rather die than commit adultery, and he’d rather die than dishonor the gospel. At the time, this seemed extreme, but it seems that he got this directly from Paul! Morris writes, “The text here is very difficult. Paul appears to break off his sentence and never complete it: ‘It would be better for me to die than—No-one will make this boast of mine an empty one!’ The break in construction marks Paul’s deep emotion, and his emotion shows the importance he ascribed to his practice.”[] Blomberg writes that this verse “forms an emotional outburst in the form of an anacoluthon (a grammatically incomplete sentence) in the Greek, literally, ‘For it would be better for me to die than—no one will empty me of my boast!’”[]
(9:16) “For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast of, for I am under compulsion; for woe is me if I do not preach the gospel.”
Paul didn’t view his ministry as something to boast about. Instead, he thought about it as a stewardship (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1-2). Fee argues that Paul’s “compulsion” to preach the gospel “most likely refers to his divine destiny,”[] rather than a psychological urge to preach. He writes, “To preach the gospel of Christ is not something he chose to do, which is quite the point of v. 17; it is something he must do.”[] Yet how does this fit with the reality that Paul wrote, “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel”? It seems like he does have a choice. He felt compelled to preach—much like the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 20:9).
(9:17) “For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me.”
Stewards don’t get rewarded. They possess the money, but don’t own it for themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1). As Jesus taught, “When you do all the things which are commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done’” (Lk. 17:10). Johnson writes, “Since he has been directly and personally commissioned by Christ to preach the gospel as an apostle, he views the discharge of this office as a duty to be fulfilled joyfully but not as something he has freely chosen on his own initiative. Therefore no special recognition is to be given to him beyond faithful service to this calling. But to forgo his right to be paid is not required of him to fulfill his apostolic calling. This gives him the opportunity to offer to Christ an extra measure of loving service that he believes will be recognized in the future by his Lord.”[]
“If I do this voluntarily (hekōn), I have a reward.” Peter uses the same root word (hekousiōs) to refer to shepherding the flock “voluntarily,” rather than “under compulsion” (1 Pet. 5:2).
(9:18) “What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may offer the gospel without charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.”
Is there anything that Paul could do that would get him a reward? Yes, he could sacrifice his rights! By refusing their money, Paul was going above and beyond what was required of him. People often say, “I’m not going to church… They’re just going to take my money.” Paul took this excuse away from these Corinthians by refusing their money. This was his basis for reward. Fee writes, “In offering the ‘free’ gospel ‘free of charge’ his own ministry becomes a living paradigm of the gospel itself.”[]
(9:19) “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I may win more.”
People would’ve killed for Paul’s Roman citizenship, which made him a “free” man. But Paul would rather be a slave with a large influence for Christ, rather than a free man with no influence.
(9:20) “To the Jews I became as a Jew, so that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law, as under the Law though not being myself under the Law, so that I might win those who are under the Law.”
When Paul would speak to Jews, he would keep the law for their sake, so he wouldn’t stumble them unnecessarily. Paul did this when he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3; cf. maybe Acts 21:26?). The gospel is stumbling enough (1 Cor. 1:23). Remember, Paul already wrote, “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19).
(9:21) “To those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ, so that I might win those who are without law.”
Paul still held to Christian ethics (“under the law of Christ”), but he would compromise on unimportant matters in order to reach Gentiles. The “law of Christ” is the law of love (Jn. 15:12; Gal. 6:2).
(9:22) “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some.”
The goal of all of this contextualization is to reach more people for Christ. The “weak” doesn’t refer to fellow believers (though this term does occur in 1 Corinthians 8). The immediate context refers to leading people to Christ, and in the greater context of this letter as a whole, the “weak” refer to people coming to faith in Christ (1 Cor. 1:27).
(9:23) “I do all things for the sake of the gospel, so that I may become a fellow partaker of it.”
Paul’s guiding principle in these matters was how much the gospel would impact people.
“Fellow partaker” (synkoinōnos) means “participants” or “partners.” This could mean that Paul shares the blessings (NIV, ESV, NLT), or he becomes a fellow coworker with the gospel (NASB, NET).
How does the gospel message change “all things” in your service for Christ? (v.23)
How would we know if we were erring on two extremes in regards to contextualization? Either compromising truth or being detached from culture?
How would you respond to Christians who want to remove themselves from secular culture?
Cultural isolationism doesn’t ultimately protect people. Think about it this way: What is the best way to keep your kid from drowning? Keeping them from all bodies of water for their entire lives? Or teaching them how to swim? This is the difference between isolation and inoculation.
Cultural isolationism affects our ability to communicate Christ to lost people. We need to be flexible in these cultural categories, because truly we don’t belong to any of these categories and because we want to win people in all of these categories. One of the big factors of coming to Christ is this: It’s not the question of whether I can believe what Christians believe, but whether I can be like one of these Christian people. Christianity might be reasonable to a non-Christian, but they might never follow Christ, if they are repulsed by the Christian lifestyle.
Cultural isolationism creates barriers for people seeking God. There is nothing intriguing to non-Christians about fundamentalism. Do we want strict cultural boundaries that make it as hard as possible to sin? Or reasonable boundaries that make it as easy as possible for people to come to Christ?
Cultural isolationism leads to hypocrisy. The church is often different where it should be the same and the same where it should be different.
Cultural isolationism is unhealthy for believers. When we get off mission, things get weird. Hypocrisy. Theological rabbit trails. Moreover, this is a huge waste of time! There is one problem with trying to keep sin out of the church… the church is filled with sinners!
Opening questions to consider: Why have I been trying to follow God for years, but I haven’t seen serious change in my life? How come I lack direction in what God is trying to do in my life? Why do I see others growing, while I feel stuck?
(9:24) “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.”
“Do you not know?” Paul is assuming that they are aware of the practice of athletic competition in Corinth. Morris writes, “Athletic contests were common in the Greek world, and the Isthmian Games, second only to the Olympic Games, were held every two years at Corinth.”[]
“Those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize?” If we misread the metaphor, we could come to wrong conclusions. To begin, we need to realize that this is a metaphor (Paul isn’t literally commanding Christians to run). What does the metaphor mean? In athletic games, we compete against each other. In Paul’s metaphor, we compete against ourselves. Paul’s imperative (“run in such a way that you may win”) focuses on the attitude of the individual believer. Fee understands this passage to mean, “Run as that one runs who wins the prize.”[]
“Run in a race” (stadiō) in the Greek is literally “run in a stadium.”[] The imagery is that of a public competition.
“Run in such a way that you may win.” Win what? Salvation? Not at all. Athletes weren’t executed if they came in last place; rather, they forfeited rewards. Paul compares eternal rewards to the athletic contests in Corinth. This is the central imperative for this section.
(9:25) “Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.”
“Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things.” Why do athletes show self-restraint? Why do they train so much, train so long, and endure so much suffering? Why do they not eat that extra doughnut or hit the snooze button early in the morning. Athletes restrict themselves in these ways because they have their eyes on the prize. They are motivated by reward—not punishment.
“Competes” (agōnizomai) is the root from which we get our English word “agonize.”
“They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.” Athletes in ancient Corinth would compete for their “perishable wreath.” Morris writes, “In the Isthmian Games it was a pine wreath at first, later celery was used, and towards the end of the first century, pine again."[] Paul is saying, “Non-Christians agonize and compete for a celery hat… Don’t you know that you are competing for something far, far greater?” Again, Morris comments, “The strenuous self-denial of the athlete as he sought a fleeting reward is a rebuke to half-hearted, flabby Christian service. The athlete denies himself many lawful pleasures and the Christian must similarly avoid not only definite sin, but anything that hinders spiritual progress.”[]
This reward isn’t just for Paul, but for “everyone” (cf. 2 Tim 4:8; Jas 1:12; 1 Pet 5:4; Rev 2:10). God will give spiritual rewards to all Christians (1 Cor. 4:5).
(9:26) “Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air.”
“Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim.” Fee writes, “This can only mean ‘as one who has no fixed goal.’”[] Paul was goal-oriented. He had his mind fixed on eternity, and this is what motivated him.
“I box in such a way, as not beating the air.” This imagery could refer to “either shadow-sparring or missing his opponent.”[] We favor the latter view. After all, shadow-boxing would be good training for a boxer. Paul must be thinking of the embarrassment of a fighter who swings his fist, only to swipe into the open air rather than connecting with his opponent.
(9:27) “But I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.”
“Discipline” (hypōpiazō) literally means “to blacken an eye, give a black eye, strike in the face” (BDAG). This isn’t referring to asceticism and hurting his body for spiritual reward (Col. 2:21-23). Rather, this refers to controlling his body. The term “discipline” (hypōpiazō) is elsewhere used metaphorically—not literally (cf. Lk. 18:5). Fee writes, “Such ‘bruising of the body’ probably refers to hardships to which he voluntarily subjected himself in preaching to the Corinthians, which included working with his own hands, and which in turn meant suffering the privations expressed in 4:11-13. In this way he ‘disciplined’ himself ‘for the sake of the gospel,’ so that he, along with them, might share in the promises of the gospel.”[]
Does this refer to a loss of salvation? One commentator thinks that this refers to Paul potentially losing his salvation: “His conversion, his baptism, his call to apostleship, his service in the Gospel, do not guarantee his eternal salvation.”[] We disagree with this interpretation. For one, the metaphor of the athletic games speaks against this. If an athlete lost the race, he lost reward—not his life! Second, the term “disqualified” (adokimos) doesn’t refer to “death” or “punishment,” but rather to that “which has not stood the test.”[] Third, Paul already wrote about the bema seat reward, which would be fresh in his mind (1 Cor. 3:15). This refers to a loss of rewards—not a loss of salvation.
“Make it my slave.” This is similar to verse 19, where Paul writes, “I have made myself a slave to all.”
“So that, after I have preached [kēryx] to others, I myself will not be disqualified.” Mare writes, “The ancient kēryx was the herald in the Greek games who announced the rules of the contest, but the Christian herald—i.e., preacher—not only announces the rules but “plays” in the game as well.”[] By contrast, Fee thinks Paul is speaking of literal preaching here, because this is his normal term for preaching.[]
God is goal oriented. God is goal oriented (Jn. 5:17; Eph. 1:10). Jesus had personal goals for his ministry (Lk. 13:32; Jn. 17:4).
God designed humans to be goal-oriented. Before the Fall, God had Adam doing meaningful work (Gen. 2:15ff), and God will continue to have us doing meaningful work in heaven (Lk. 19:17).
Paul pursued plans and goals in his life. Paul had all sorts of plans for his ministry (Rom. 15:19b-25, 32; 1 Cor. 16:5-9). He perpetually strove for more spiritual growth and impact for Christ: “I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14). He viewed his ministry as something that he should “fulfill” (2 Tim. 4:7-8), which is impossible to do unless there are goals in mind.
Refusal to create and pursue goals is a sin. Jesus taught, “The servant with the one bag of silver came and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a harsh man, harvesting crops you didn’t plant and gathering crops you didn’t cultivate. I was afraid I would lose your money, so I hid it in the earth. Look, here is your money back.’ But the master replied, ‘You wicked and lazy servant! If you knew I harvested crops I didn’t plant and gathered crops I didn’t cultivate, why didn’t you deposit my money in the bank? At least I could have gotten some interest on it” (Mt. 25:24-27 NLT). What can we learn from this servant and his failure to create and pursue goals with his Master’s resources?
He viewed God as a “harsh man.” That is, he didn’t believe in using his resources for the Master because he didn’t love the Master.
He was afraid of failure (“I was afraid…”).
The Master (God) was pretty angry that he didn’t even try.
Refusal to work hard is a sin. Solomon has much to say about the person whom he dubs “the sluggard.”
(Prov. 6:6-11) Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! 7 It has no commander, no overseer or ruler, 8 yet it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest. 9 How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? 10 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest— 11 and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.
The hardworking man doesn’t need someone to be on his case. He’s self-initiative (v.7). He thinks ahead (v.8). The sluggard exaggerates how much rest he needs (v.10).
(Prov. 10:4) Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.
(Prov. 10:15) The wealth of the rich is their fortified city, but poverty is the ruin of the poor.
(Prov. 10:26) As vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes, so is a sluggard to those who send him.
Imagine swishing vinegar in your mouth, rather than Scope. It would burn and taste terrible. We’ve all had smoke curl up into our eyes, and it burns our eyes. This is how sluggards feel to their bosses.
(Prov. 12:24) Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in slave labor.
Those who perpetually work at minimum wage in our culture really can never get out of their poverty.
(Prov. 12:27) The lazy man does not roast his game, but the diligent man prizes his possessions.
In this time period, they would hunt for their food. They needed to roast their game before it spoiled. This lazy man would hunt, but wouldn’t roast it before it spoiled. The lazy person doesn’t finish what he starts. He spends all of this time hunting, but never gets the reward of his effort. If only he did a little bit more, he would’ve been able to enjoy it. The lazy person passes off responsibility, rather than finishing their job.
(Prov. 13:4) The sluggard craves and gets nothing, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied.
The sluggard has desires, but it never translates into action.
(Prov. 13:11) Dishonest money dwindles away, but he who gathers money little by little makes it grow.
The “get rich quick” schemer doesn’t really value what he has. So he slowly loses it. When lazy people come into money, they often spend it foolishly.
(Prov. 14:23) All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty.
The sluggard likes to talk about their problem, but they don’t like to do anything about it.
(Prov. 15:19) The way of the sluggard is blocked with thorns, but the path of the upright is a highway.
This strikes us as an issue with their attitude and perspective. The sluggard feels like their life is circumstantially poor. This might also be that the hard worker will take the longer route on the highway. The sluggard will take the shorter route that is filled with thorns.
(Prov. 19:15) Laziness brings on deep sleep, and the shiftless man goes hungry.
Laziness begets more laziness.
(Prov. 20:13) Do not love sleep or you will grow poor; stay awake and you will have food to spare.
(Prov. 21:17) He who loves pleasure will become poor; whoever loves wine and oil will never be rich.
The sluggard uses their money on frivolous things or even addictions.
(Prov. 21:25-26) The sluggard’s craving will be the death of him, because his hands refuse to work. 26 All day long he craves for more, but the righteous give without sparing.
(Prov. 24:30-34) I went past the field of the sluggard, past the vineyard of the man who lacks judgment; 31 thorns had come up everywhere, the ground was covered with weeds, and the stone wall was in ruins. 32 I applied my heart to what I observed and learned a lesson from what I saw: 33 A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest— 34 and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man.
This almost sounds like a man in a coffin! (v.33)
(Prov. 26:13-16) The sluggard says, “There is a lion in the road, a fierce lion roaming the streets!” 14 As a door turns on its hinges, so a sluggard turns on his bed. 15 The sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he is too lazy to bring it back to his mouth. 16 The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes than seven men who answer discreetly.
Is it that the lion is imaginary? He’s exaggerating his circumstances (v.13). He’s expecting the lion before he even gets out of bed! Picture the sound of a noisy hinge, as the door slowly opens (v.14). The sluggard moans the same way in their bed. They are so lazy that they can’t even feed themselves (v.15). He’s so deceived about his own wisdom (v.16). It seems like a cocktail of delusion, deception, and pride all at once.
Sluggards have a lot of rhetoric about love and grace in the Body of Christ: “Why aren’t people willing to give me a break? Why are people so strict? Where is the grace??” These people have a lot of rhetoric on love probably because they’re trying to take so much of it from others!
Setting and pursuing goals is EFFECTIVE. Dr. Dominque Morisano (of McGill University) found that setting intensive goals for college students over a four month period increased their academic performance by 30% on average.[] In the business world, Sven Asmus (et al.) write, “Even without financial incentives goal-setting improves worker performance by 12 to 15% compared to the situation where no goals were defined.”[]
Setting and pursuing goals is FREE. This is a functional strategy of life that costs no money, and little effort.
Spiritual goals. Humans are wired to pursue goals. However, this can work against us. Often, believers become so obsessed with a goal-driven life that they pursue autonomous goals from God, which is sinful (Jas. 4:13-17; Prov. 3:5-6).
Getting a career. Paul writes, “If anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). Paul isn’t being harsh toward non-believers. Instead, he’s rebuking believers! He also writes, “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thess. 3:10).
We need a career to provide for our own needs (Gal. 6:5) and to give to others (Gal. 6:2). We should also have a goal to get a career so that we can become financial givers, rather than being a burden on the Christian community (Eph. 4:28).
“I don’t care… Whatever…” This is basically a knee-jerk reaction to numb us from the pain of failure. The truth is that you do care—you care deeply. You’re just too afraid of failure. This attitude is especially common for men. They feel lots of shame if they try, but fail. However, what is really at stake if I fail? My life? Or just my ego? God can use failure, but he can’t use inaction and paralysis. What exactly is failure? Failure is never trying. After all, not trying is certain failure—not possible failure. Moreover, God can teach us invaluable lessons through failure.
Under the self-performance mindset (i.e. legalism), goal-setting results in arrogance or discouragement. By contrast, under grace, God gives us the power to succeed with humility and fail without hopelessness.
“I did mediocre… but I didn’t try.” Well, good for you! Congratulations for not using your gifts, talents, and opportunities! But why does that make you feel good about yourself? Would you rather be a gifted person who never does anything with it, or an average-joe who works hard and achieves great things?
In his book NurtureShock, Po Bronson emphasizes the need to praise hard work and effort, rather than gifting. He writes,
“According to a survey conducted by Columbia University, 85 percent of American parents think it’s important to tell their kids that they’re smart.”[]
[Dr. Carol Dweck (and her team at Columbia University) ran a study on 400 5th graders…] “Dweck sent four female research assistants into New York fifth-grade classrooms. The researchers would take a single child out of the classroom for a nonverbal IQ test consisting of a series of puzzles—puzzles easy enough that all the children would do fairly well. Once the child finished the test, the researchers told each student his score, then gave him a single line of praise. Randomly divided into groups, some were praised for their intelligence. They were told, “You must be smart at this.” Other students were praised for their effort: “You must have worked really hard.” …Then the students were given a choice of test for the second round. One choice was a test that would be more difficult than the first, but the researchers told the kids that they’d learn a lot from attempting the puzzles. The other choice, Dweck’s team explained, was an easy test, just like the first. Of those praised for their effort, 90 percent chose the harder set of puzzles. Of those praised for their intelligence, a majority chose the easy test. The “smart” kids took the cop-out.”[]
“In a subsequent round, none of the fifth-graders had a choice. The test was difficult, designed for kids two years ahead of their grade level. Predictably, everyone failed. But again, the two groups of children, divided at random at the study’s start, responded differently. Those praised for their effort on the first test assumed they simply hadn’t focused hard enough on this test. “They got very involved, willing to try every solution to the puzzles,” Dweck recalled. “Many of them remarked, unprovoked, ‘This is my favorite test.’” Not so for those praised for their smarts. They assumed their failure was evidence that they weren’t really smart at all. “Just watching them, you could see the strain. They were sweating and miserable.” Having artificially induced a round of failure, Dweck’s researchers then gave all the fifth-graders a final round of tests that were engineered to be as easy as the first round. Those who had been praised for their effort significantly improved on their first score—by about 30 percent. Those who’d been told they were smart did worse than they had at the very beginning—by about 20 percent. Dweck had suspected that praise could backfire, but even she was surprised by the magnitude of the effect. “Emphasizing effort gives a child a variable that they can control,” she explains. “They come to see themselves as in control of their success. Emphasizing natural intelligence takes it out of the child’s control, and it provides no good recipe for responding to a failure.”[]
“Dweck discovered that those who think that innate intelligence is the key to success begin to discount the importance of effort. I am smart, the kids’ reasoning goes; I don’t need to put out effort. Expending effort becomes stigmatized—it’s public proof that you can’t cut it on your natural gifts. Repeating her experiments, Dweck found this effect of praise on performance held true for students of every socioeconomic class. It hit both boys and girls—the very brightest girls especially (they collapsed the most following failure).”[]
[Dr. Lisa Blackwell (Dweck’s protégé) works for Life Science Secondary Elementary School in East Harlem. Recently published work in the academic journal Child Development on a research project.] “Life Sciences is a health-science magnet school with high aspirations but 700 students whose main attributes are being predominantly minority and low achieving. Blackwell split her kids into two groups for an eight-session workshop. The control group was taught study skills, and the others got study skills and a special module on how intelligence is not innate. These students took turns reading aloud an essay on how the brain grows new neurons when challenged. They saw slides of the brain and acted out skits. “Even as I was teaching these ideas,” Blackwell noted, “I would hear the students joking, calling one another ‘dummy’ or ‘stupid.’ “After the module was concluded, Blackwell tracked her students’ grades to see if it had any effect. It didn’t take long. The teachers—who hadn’t known which students had been assigned to which workshop—could pick out the students who had been taught that intelligence can be developed. They improved their study habits and grades. In a single semester, Blackwell reversed the students’ longtime trend of decreasing math grades. The only difference between the control group and the test group were two lessons, a total of 50 minutes spent teaching not math but a single idea: that the brain is a muscle. Giving it a harder workout makes you smarter. That alone improved their math scores.”[]
“From 1970 to 2000, there were over 15,000 scholarly articles written on self-esteem and its relationship to everything—from sex to career advancement. But the results were often contradictory or inconclusive. So in 2003 the Association for Psychological Science asked Dr. Roy Baumeister, then a leading proponent of self-esteem, to review this literature. His team concluded that self-esteem research was polluted with flawed science. Most of those 15,000 studies asked people to rate their self-esteem and then asked them to rate their own intelligence, career success, relationship skills, etc. These self-reports were extremely unreliable, since people with high self-esteem have an inflated perception of their abilities. Only 200 of the studies employed a scientifically-sound way to measure self-esteem and its outcomes. After reviewing those 200 studies, Baumeister concluded that having high self-esteem didn’t improve grades or career achievement. It didn’t even reduce alcohol usage. And it especially did not lower violence of any sort. (Highly aggressive, violent people happen to think very highly of themselves, debunking the theory that people are aggressive to make up for low self-esteem.) At the time, Baumeister was quoted as saying that his findings were “the biggest disappointment of my career.”[]
[Praise needs to be specific according to Bronson.[]] “By the age of twelve, children believe that earning praise from a teacher is not a sign you did well—it’s actually a sign you lack ability and the teacher thinks you need extra encouragement. They’ve picked up the pattern: kids who are falling behind get drowned in praise. Teens, Meyer found, discounted praise to such an extent that they believed it’s a teacher’s criticism—not praise at all—that really conveys a positive belief in a student’s aptitude.”[]
“Scholars from Reed College and Stanford reviewed over 150 praise studies. Their analysis determined that praised students become risk-averse and lack perceived autonomy. The scholars found consistent correlations between a liberal use of praise and students’ “shorter task persistence, more eye-checking with the teacher, and inflected speech such that answers have the intonation of questions.” When they get to college, heavily-praised students commonly drop out of classes rather than suffer a mediocre grade, and they have a hard time picking a major—they’re afraid to commit to something because they’re afraid of not succeeding.”[]
“Frequently-praised children get more competitive and more interested in tearing others down. Image-maintenance becomes their primary concern.”[]
“A young scholar at the University of Illinois, Dr. Florrie Ng, reproduced Dweck’s paradigm with fifth-graders both in Illinois and in Hong Kong. Ng added an interesting dimension to the experiment. Rather than having the kids take the short IQ tests at their school, the children’s mothers brought them to the scholars’ offices on campus (both in Urbana-Champaign and at the University of Hong Kong). While the moms sat in the waiting room, half the kids were randomly given the really hard test, where they could get only about half right—inducing a sense of failure. At that point, the kids were given a five-minute break before the second test, and the moms were allowed into the testing room to talk with their child. On the way in, the moms were told their child’s actual raw score and were told a lie—that this score represented a below-average result. Hidden cameras recorded the five-minute interaction between mother and child. The American mothers carefully avoided making negative comments. They remained fairly upbeat and positive with their child. The majority of the minutes were spent talking about something other than the testing at hand, such as what they might have for dinner. But the Chinese children were likely to hear, “You didn’t concentrate when doing it,” and “Let’s look over your test.” The majority of the break was spent discussing the test and its importance. After the break, the Chinese kids’ scores on the second test jumped 33 percent, more than twice the gain of the Americans. The trade-off here would seem to be that the Chinese mothers acted harsh or cruel—but that stereotype may not reflect modern parenting in Hong Kong. Nor was it quite what Ng saw on the videotapes. While their words were firm, the Chinese mothers actually smiled and hugged their children every bit as much as the American mothers (and were no more likely to frown or raise their voices).”[]
“I just need to zone out.” One month after Call of Duty: Black Ops was released, the game was played for a total of 68,000 years.[] Neurologist Frances E. Jensen writes, “Average young people, especially boys, will have played about ten thousand hours of video games by age twenty-one.”[] Zimbardo and Coulombe point out, “Even if games were originally designed to inspire players and make a better reality, they are now being used to replace reality, and many young men are losing themselves in increasingly sophisticated virtual worlds that are totally enchanting. As one decade-long gamer from our survey said, ‘I can’t emphasize enough the predictability and control that a virtual world offers. In a world growing ever more complex, the simplicity of the virtual life is a very welcome distraction.’”[] They add, “Watching television and porn requires no commitment and has a zero rate of rejection; it provides instant gratification that can alleviate the fear to some degree. As a side effect, however, it also reduces the motivation to get the skills needed to attract the girl, creating further distance between a man and his ultimate goal.”[]
Neurologist Frances E. Jensen comments about an psychological experiment: “An experiment began in the spring of 2010 when two hundred students in a basic media literacy course at the University of Maryland were asked by their professor to do something unusual: go without their digital tools and toys—all media, in fact—for twenty-four hours… They asked close to one thousand students in twelve countries, including the United States, to write about their experiences after their twenty-four-hour period of media abstinence was over, and when the students did, they poured out their angst.”[]
“I began going crazy.”
“I felt paralyzed—almost handicapped in my ability to live.”
“I felt dead.”
“Emptiness. Emptiness overwhelms me.”
“Unplugging . . . felt like turning off a life-support system.”
“I feel paralyzed.”
“I went into absolute panic mode.”
“It felt as though I was being tortured.”
“I was itching, like a crackhead, because I could not use my phone.”
“It was quite late and the only thing going through my mind was: (voice of psychopath) ‘I want Facebook.’ ‘I want Twitter.’ ‘I want YouTube.’ ‘I want TV.’”
Jensen concludes, “The compulsive need to be digitally connected happens on two levels, behaviorally and biochemically. Every ring, ping, beep, and burst of song from a smartphone results in an ‘Oh, wow’ moment in the brain. When the new text message or post is opened, the discovery is like a digital gift; it releases a pleasurable rush of dopamine in the brain. In fact, there is mounting evidence that Internet addiction has much in common with substance addiction.”[]
“I can’t change.” The Christian life is not a self-help project. God isn’t concerned about your ability, but your availability. If you present yourself to him, he will transform your life.
“More, more, more!” After seeing the satisfaction of setting and achieving goals, this can become addictive. Like a car that is constantly running at 6,000 RPM’s, believers can easily “overheat” and slip into becoming workaholics—being outwardly active but not inwardly rejuvenated. This fanaticism can lead to burnout. The strain of an “overheated ministry” can lead to catastrophic falls into sin, neglected relationships, and general unhappiness. Believers can be serving Christ all over the city, but not spending time in prayer for their people. This sort of drive isn’t actually loving, because it isn’t for others at all. This is all done for our own ego and pride.
SMART goals. This common method of goal-setting has been found to be effective:
Specific: Who, what, where, when?
Measurable: How would you know if the goal was met?
Achievable: Stretch yourself without discouraging yourself.
Realistic: Do you have the resources and skills to accomplish the goal?
Time-defined: What is the time limit for these goals? Short-term goals are better.
Develop a plan. What is your action plan for making this goal happen?
Monitor progress frequently. When would be some good times and benchmarks to check in on your progress?
Celebrate success. Achieving goals is exciting in and of itself. However, you should also set up a reward to celebrate your achievement of your goal.
Imagine if someone said this, “Having goals is legalistic. I don’t make goals because the Bible says we’re under grace!” Do you agree with this? How might you respond?
In what ways might a poor work ethic disqualify a Christian to those around them?
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 394.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 396.
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 131.
Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 142.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 396-397.
Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, vol. 7, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 146.
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 134.
David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians: Life in the Local Church, The Bible Speaks Today (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 155.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 412.
Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians: A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 157.
Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 244.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 392.
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 135.
Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians: The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 143.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 418.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 418
Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, vol. 7, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 146-147.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 421.
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 137.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 436.
Alan F. Johnson, 1 Corinthians, vol. 7, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Westmont, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 150.
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 138.
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 138.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 438.
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 138.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 439.
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), p.218).
Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 138.
W. Harold Mare, “1 Corinthians,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through Galatians, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 10 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 246.
Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 440.
Dominque Morisano (et al.) “Setting, Elaborating, and Reflecting on Personal Goals Improves Academic Performance” Journal of Applied Psychology 2010 March, 95(2):255-64.
Sven Asmus, “The Impact of Goal-setting on Worker Performance – Empirical Evidence from a Real-effort Production Experiment” Procedia CIRP. Volume 26, 2015, Pages 127-132.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 12.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 14.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 14-15.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 15.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 17-18.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 18-19.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 19.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 20.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 21.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 21.
Po Bronson, NurtureShock: New Thinking About Children (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2009), 22-23.
C. Albanesius “‘Call of Duty: Black Ops’ Gamers Log 600M Hours of Play Time.” PC Mag, 2014.
Frances E. Jensen and Amy Ellis Nutt, The Teenage Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Survival Guide to Raising Adolescents and Young Adults (New York: Harper Collins, 2015), 213.
Philip Zimbardo and Nikita Coulombe, Man, Interrupted: Why Young Men are Struggling & What We Can Do About It (Red Wheel Weiser, 2016), 20.
Philip Zimbardo and Nikita Coulombe, Man, Interrupted: Why Young Men are Struggling & What We Can Do About It (Red Wheel Weiser, 2016), 55.
Frances E. Jensen and Amy Ellis Nutt, The Teenage Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Survival Guide to Raising Adolescents and Young Adults (New York: Harper Collins, 2015), 207-210.
Frances E. Jensen and Amy Ellis Nutt, The Teenage Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Survival Guide to Raising Adolescents and Young Adults (New York: Harper Collins, 2015), 211-212.
James is an elder at Dwell Community Church, where he teaches classes in theology, apologetics, and weekly Bible studies.
