![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/637\/2025\/08\/1030px-Medallion_with_Saint_Paul_from_an_Icon_Frame_MET_sf17-190-673s1.jpg\"){kind=icon}
<\/a>Paul often was practical in his explanations for how he lived out his faith. He gave reasons for what he did, or for what he asked of the people, reasons which often proved to be pragmatic in approach. He indicated that he could have done things differently, and if he had, it would have been as acceptable as the choices he made. This is because he recognized that Christians must be flexible with their praxis<\/a>. They can be given a discipline to follow, and when they are, they must not confuse such a discipline for a dogma. Disciplines are contextual, given for the situation Christians find themselves in; if the situation changes, the discipline can and likely will change. \u00a0He didn\u2019t think Christianity should be boggled down by rules, but rather, he promoted Christian liberty<\/a> over and against all forms of legalism<\/a>. Disciplines are meant for our benefit. They should not be used by people in positions of authority to prove their authority. They are not meant to be seen as absolutes, followed without question or exception \u2013 to expect that is to strangle the spirit and what makes a Christian, Christian. This is why disciplines change over time, and often, become abrogated when no longer relevant, even as there must be room for spiritual directors and clergy to dispense<\/a> people from various disciplines (that is, for economia<\/a>) while they remain in effect. Thus, those who would confuse debate and discussion concerning some Christian discipline as being a rejection of authority or Christian dogma have misunderstood discipline and follow the legalism which Paul<\/a> warned against. It is not moral relativism, but rather, the opposite, which allows for such flexibility. Paul highlighted his own personal discipline and how he could have chosen to act differently, such as whether or not he could ask for financial help or if he could have a wife<\/a> who journeyed with him in his evangelical work, to show us that many different disciplines are possible without any of them being morally or dogmatically suspect:<\/p>\n This is my defense to those who would examine me.\u00a0 Do we not have the right to our food and drink?\u00a0 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?\u00a0 Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law say the same?\u00a0 For it is written in the law of Moses, \u201cYou shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.\u201d Is it for oxen that God is concerned?\u00a0 Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop\u00a0 (1 Cor. 9:3-10 RSV).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is interesting to see how Paul engaged and used the Torah, that is divine revelation, in this text. He showed us how we can and often should look beyond the simple text, what is often taken as the\u201dliteral\u201d reading, because such a reading would make the text irrelevant to us. Revelation is given to us for our own benefit; when we read Scripture, we must ask ourselves what it means for us, how it helps us, what, that is, does God want us to learn from it.\u00a0 This is what led him, and many others, to engage allegorical<\/a> readings of Scripture<\/a>. Paul first showed the verse was impractical based upon the simple reading, and then offered a way it could be interpreted which made it of value to him and his audience.<\/p>\n Therefore, when we read Scripture, we should ask ourselves, what practical application can we find in it that will help us in our lives. Here, we find Paul giving us one in regards the law which said we should not muzzle the ox<\/a> when it is hard at work. Paul suggested that this meant those doing work should have their needs met, which meant that he, working for God, and for his fellow Christians, could ask for and should receive support from his fellow Christians.\u00a0 He didn\u2019t want to be an extra burden to the community; he wanted to contribute as much as he could to his own sustenance, but he said he should not have to, that he could, if he wanted, justify relying upon what others could provide him because he was doing important work for the Christian community. It was something other apostles already received:<\/p>\n If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits?\u00a0 If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ\u201d(1 Cor. 9:11-12 RSV).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The way Paul presented his argument has a practical application for us today, and this is because the argument Paul made relies upon a universal truth. Laborers, especially those engaged in hard labor, such as farm workers, but also, anyone in the service industry, should be properly compensated for their work. They should expect a living wage. They should expect their dignity affirmed by their employers instead of having it undermined. Anyone<\/a> who would deny living wages<\/a> for workers undermine the spirit of the law of Moses, and with it, the spirit of the greater law which lies behind the law of Moses. Workers<\/a> who are denied their basic rights, basic protections, as well as proper pay<\/a>, have a reason to demand more, to even engage other workers (in unions<\/a>) to force society to make sure they receive what they are due. It is surprising to see how many Christians<\/a> do not understand this as they stand against basic workers\u2019 rights, and with it, living wages<\/a>; their stand ends up denying the\u00a0 principle which Paul affirms here.\u00a0 How do they expect the workers to continue when they are muzzled, that is, when they are barely surviving, if not actually, dying? Why do they support exploitation?<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n