Becoming All Things to All People

Philippians 2:3-7                 1 Corinthians 9:19–23                    Luke 5:29-32

Becoming All Things to All People

Two weeks ago we examined, in 1 Corinthians 8, Paul’s approach to the question of theological precision that had manifested itself in the church of God in Corinth as an attitude of moral superiority that harmed other brothers and sisters in their community. Those who were not quite as assured in their new identity in Jesus were being spiritually wounded by those who considered themselves mature. 

Now, if you remember, Paul’s solution to this dilemma was a self-sacrificial love that always seeks to build up others…a love that would even deny certain legitimate rights of believers if exercising that right would harm another believer…in their case eating meat that had been offered to idols.

Then in chapter 9:1-18, we saw that Paul speaks about things that at first seems like an interruption. Whereas in the former chapters, Paul is addressing issues in the church of God in Corinth, here he suddenly begins to speak about his own apostleship, financial support for ministers of the Gospel, and his own personal rights.

But in conclusion we saw that in these two passages, Paul is making a statement about two very different approaches to the Christian life. One which is self-centred and the other which is other-person-centred. We also noted that it is important to grasp that the self-centred person may be perfectly right…and consequently they justify their actions even though the upholding of their rights damages or destroys other believers.

But in stark contrast, Paul deliberately chooses to live an other-person-centred life by forfeiting his legitimate rights for the sake of others. 

Now, Paul moves on from a surrender of perceived rights for the sake of loving others to a spiritual flexibility for the sake of serving others. “Though I am free from all,” he says, “I have made myself a servant to all.”

And this statement captures the entire logic of Christian mission.

Paul is free. Yet he voluntarily embraces servanthood. The language here is deeply significant. Paul does not say he was forced into servitude. He deliberately chooses it. His slavery is voluntary, shaped by love for God and others and governed by the gospel of Jesus.

This stands in stark contrast to the Corinthian culture and dare I say modern evangelical culture.

Corinth prized individuality…they prized social advancement, public honour, rhetorical brilliance, and visible status. Those who were free sought recognition. Patrons sought influence. Philosophers sought to make pupils in their own image. Public life revolved around prestige and social positioning and therefore the urge to exercise freedom regardless of its effect on others was viewed as normal.

Yet Paul, though truly free, deliberately descends the social ladder.

Why? Well, his answer is simple. “To win as many as possible.” This language of “winning” is important. Paul does not speak as a leader gathering admirers or clients. He speaks as a servant seeking the salvation and restoration of others.

Thus he adapts himself to different socio-economic groups and different ethnic and cultural groups. “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.” Now of course, Paul does not mean that he abandoned his identity whenever convenient. Nor is he pretending to be something he is not. Rather, he willingly accommodates himself to the customs and sensitivities of those among whom he ministers.

This explains why Paul could participate in Jewish customs when among Jews. For example, he circumcised Timothy for pastoral reasons. Remember Timothy’s mother was Jewish and therefore if he was circumcised so as not to be a stumbling block to the Jews to whom he ministered. Paul shaved his head after fulfilling a vow and he participated in purification rites in Jerusalem. He attended synagogue gatherings and reasoned from the Jewish Scriptures…the Old Testament.

Why would Paul do this if he believed justification came through Jesus rather than the Law? Because Paul distinguished between observing the Law as cultural obligation and participating in Jewish customs for the sake of mission and fellowship.

Paul was no longer “under the Law” as the defining basis of covenant membership before God. His relationship with God was mediated through Jesus. Yet this freedom allowed him voluntarily to participate in Jewish life when love and mission required it.

This is why he continues: “To those under the law I became as one under the law, though not being myself under the law.”

Notice the careful balance in what he says. Paul neither rejects Jewish practice entirely nor allows it to define righteousness before God.

And then Paul turns to Gentiles: “To those outside the law I became as one outside the law.” Again, Paul immediately adds an important qualification: “Not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ.”

It is important to note at this point, that Paul is not morally lawless. He is not antinomian. His point is that his identity is no longer governed by the Mosaic covenant as an ethnic boundary marker. Instead, he lives under the lordship of Jesus…a lordship that embraces both Jew and Gentile alike.

Now, this gave Paul remarkable missionary flexibility. Among Gentiles he could eat foods not prepared according to Jewish custom. He could participate in table fellowship across ethnic boundaries. He could adapt his communication to Greek audiences, quoting Greek poets and using forms of Greek rhetoric familiar to them. But in every context the gospel itself remained unchanged.

This is an important lesson for the Church. Faithfulness to Jesus does not require rigid cultural uniformity. The gospel may be communicated through different cultural forms provided…and this is important…provided the truth itself is not compromised.

Then Paul says something especially important in the context of chapters 8–9: “To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.”

The weak here are more than likely the vulnerable believers Paul discussed earlier in chapter 8…those with fragile consciences, fragile self-awareness, or unstable spiritual confidence.

And please notice that Paul does not despise them, ridicule them, nor reproach them. Whereas the Corinthians viewed the weak as obstacles to enlightened freedom, Paul sees them as precious people to be won, protected, strengthened, and preserved as they were people for whom Jesus died. This reveals the pastoral heart of Christian maturity.

The strong should not bully the weak. The mature should not mock the vulnerable. The knowledgeable should not humiliate the insecure. Rather, true maturity willingly and humbly limits itself for the good of others.

Paul therefore summarizes: “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.”

This statement has sometimes been misunderstood. Paul is not saying that truth is relative. He is not advocating compromise. He is not adjusting the gospel to please audiences. Rather, he is removing unnecessary obstacles to the gospel.

Paul refuses to allow his personal preferences, his freedoms, customs, or his rights to become barriers that prevent others from hearing the Gospel…or indeed that prevent others from holding non-essential views that may differ from his own. This requires immense humility. It requires the death of pride. It requires the surrender of entitlement. It requires patience with people who are weaker, slower, less informed, or culturally different. It requires an ability to hold inessential or peripheral theological positions loosely. 

And at the centre of it all stands love.

Modern Christianity often asks: What are my rights? What freedoms may I exercise? What preferences should others accommodate to suit me?

But Paul asks an entirely different question: “How may I patiently and tenderly help others come to Jesus so that they might grow to stand firm in him?”

This is missionary spirituality. This is cruciform spirituality. This is Christlike spirituality.

And then, finally, Paul concludes this section with a remarkable statement: “I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.”

The gospel is not merely Paul’s message. It is the atmosphere in which he lives. It is the very air that he breathes. The gospel governs his decisions, his freedoms, his relationships, his ministry, and even his identity. Like Jesus, Paul knew that he was not called to minister to people who believed they were morally perfect and therefore had no need for God's help or forgiveness. Like Jesus, he knew he was called to minister to people who were broken, weak, and spiritually bankrupt. 

And so, like Jesus, he too took on the form of a servant, becoming all things to all people, so that he might win the more for the Kingdom.

And this presents us with a challenge. 

Alongside the biblical lists of behaviours and lifestyles that disqualify people from entrance to the kingdom of God, in the Creeds, the Early Church gave us a list of theological essentials…truths on which we can never compromise. 

So, the question we must ask ourselves is are we willing and are we able…are we humble enough and are we spiritually mature enough to fellowship with another brother or sister in Jesus who is living according to clear biblical principles and who firmly believes every statement of faith outlined in the Creeds and yet who holds to a different theological point of view regarding nonessentials to our faith? 

Are we spiritually mature enough to become all things to all people so that by all means we might save some?

Shall we pray?

© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2026

Certainty

Though passioned prayers may storm the gates of heaven

for those who linger long in sinking shade

though shattered lives may yearn for resurrection

yet see all hope for mercy fail and fade

though those who sit and wait at vacant tables 

with empty arms that ache through passing years

through many anxious nights remain unable

to dream while grief returns to harvest tears

I know because of him who grants me value

that even if there is no convalescence  

faith moves away from certainty of rescue 

to certainty of his persistent presence

for all that in this life seems so ambiguous

his lasting love will always be continuous

© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2026

The Hardest Part – A Sonnet

The hardest part is not that you are gone 

but how to breathe when half my shadow stays

where you abide – my grief is more than songs

of absence – it is all the vanished ways

of how I found myself within your light

and how we grew together through the days

where words unspoken in our darkest nights

became what braided two uncertain ways

into one – yes what’s gone cannot return

nor can the self that bloomed beneath your gaze –

yet what is lost remains to be discerned

in what is left of you in me that stays

and moves and grows beyond the searing pain

to bloom anew until we meet again

© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2026

The Right Use of Rights

Psalm 15                       1 Corinthians 9:1–18                Matthew 5:43-48

The Right Use of Rights

Last week we examined Paul’s approach to the question of theological precision that had manifested itself in the church of God in Corinth as an attitude of moral superiority that harmed other brothers and sisters in their community. Those who were not quite as assured in their new identity in Jesus were being spiritually wounded by those who considered themselves mature. Paul’s solution to this dilemma was a self-sacrificial love that always seeks to build up others…a love that would even deny certain legitimate rights of believers if exercising that right would harm another believer…in their case eating meat that had been offered to idols.

 Now after the service I was asked a very important question and that is, in the light of Paul’s teaching regarding the giving up of certain rights for the sake of others, how does one maintain theological accuracy when, in our own opinion, those around us are not as correct as we think they ought to be. Well, my answer to this is that we ought to look to Jesus…the one we are meant to imitate…the one we are meant to be like when it comes to how we interact with others.

Now, I’m sure I don’t need to remind you that Jesus is altogether right…he is altogether holy…he is altogether perfect. And yet, when we read the Gospels, we see that somehow, he manages to be quite comfortable in the presence of people the religious community of his day shunned. As we all know, Jesus obeyed every biblical law and yet he was vehemently opposed to the Scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees…and it is not because Jesus was opposed to upholding theological accuracy! In Matthew 23, Jesus said, “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

Now, what did he mean by that? Well, basically he was saying that to their credit, the Pharisees were encouraging people to keep the Law, which was a very good thing, because as Paul said, the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. In other words, Jesus commended the teaching and keeping of the law as contained in the Scriptures. 

But what Jesus spoke against was the way they applied the Law. They used the Law (or we could say “theology”) as a weapon and as a barrier. Jesus said that they shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. Whereas Jesus’ gentle approach loved people into the kingdom, the Pharisees’ harsh approach drove them away. 

The approach of the Scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, and even some of the disciples like James and John, was to judge, call down fire from heaven, confront, interrogate, excommunicate, or stone offenders. Jesus’ response to this type of religiosity was to point out their hypocrisy…let him who is without sin, cast the first stone, he said to the accusers of the woman caught in adultery…and to James and John Jesus said, “You do not know what kind of spirit you are of, for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.”

How many people have not been driven away from the Church because of something said or done by someone who considered themselves morally superior? I’m right, you’re wrong, so either you conform to my theological position or leave. That is exactly what Paul was addressing in 1 Corinthians 8. The destruction of others caused by self-inflated theological egotists.

And I repeat…there is nothing wrong with theological accuracy…don’t misunderstand what I am saying…as I said, Jesus was altogether right, altogether holy, and altogether perfect in every way and we should seek to be perfect as he was perfect and as our heavenly Father is perfect. And yet Jesus never used theology as a weapon to destroy but as a tool to lovingly and patiently draw people into change. And we ought to be like him.

A good exercise for all of us would be to diligently search the Gospels to see how Jesus behaved towards those dismissed by others. We need to ask ourselves who were the people in the Gospel accounts that Jesus most often confronted and took to task and why? And then we need to ask the Holy Spirit to show us whom we most clearly resemble. 

The Gospel of love is essentially simple…but it is the self-sacrificial, other-person-centred application of that love that we tend to complicate, because it is difficult and it is costly.

Now, back to chapter 9. At first glance, this chapter feels like an interruption. Whereas in the former chapters, Paul is addressing issues in the church of God in Corinth, here he suddenly begins speaking about his own apostleship, financial support for ministers of the Gospel, and his own personal rights.

But chapter 9 is not a digression. It is Paul’s living illustration of the principle he has just established in chapter 8.

The Corinthians claimed the right to eat food offered to idols. Paul responds by describing rights he himself possesses but willingly refuses to exercise. And he begins with a series of rhetorical questions:

“Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”

The answers are all obvious. Yes, Paul is free. Yes, he did see Jesus on the road to Damascus. Yes, Paul is an apostle. In fact, the Corinthian church itself proves his apostolic ministry.

So what is his point in asking these questions? Well, the bottom line is simply this.  Paul truly possesses certain rights and therefore he is not surrendering imaginary privileges. His application is not theoretical nor is it abstract. This is crucial because Christian surrender is meaningful only when genuine rights are voluntarily laid aside.

So, in this light, having established his position as a authentic apostle, Paul then develops the argument that ministers of the gospel have a legitimate right to material support. He first appeals to ordinary life: Soldiers, he says, do not finance their own campaigns. Pretty obvious, right? Next, he points out that farmers eat grapes from their vineyards just as shepherds drink milk from their flocks.

These examples from day-to-day life, reflect a broader pattern of moral reasoning common throughout both Jewish and Greco-Roman thought. Labour rightly deserves a living wage.

But Paul then strengthens the point from Scripture itself by quoting from Deuteronomy 25: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.”

Now, at first this might seem like an odd prooftext, but Paul is not taking Scripture out of context. The surrounding laws in Deuteronomy 25 consistently emphasize humane and just treatment of labourers, vulnerable persons, and dependents. The principle is one of fair and just treatment for all – consequently one who labours should share in the fruit of that labour.

And Paul therefore applies the principle to gospel ministry. Those who provide spiritual things may rightly receive material support.

He further appeals to the Old Testament priesthood. Now remember, the Priests and Levites lived from the offerings of Israel (principally the tithe, but also other offerings and sacrifices) because they had no tribal inheritance of land. So, their dependence upon the worshipping community was built into Israel’s covenant structure. 

That is why, when Israel ceased to tithe, the spiritual system collapsed because the teachers and upholders of the law were distracted from serving as they had to sustain themselves. Now, I know Paul is often cited as an example of bi-vocational ministry, working as a tentmaker while also serving as an evangelist and pastor, but we also know that when Silas and Timothy brought to Corinth sufficient support from the church in Philippi, Paul was able to devote himself exclusively to preaching because he no longer had to support himself. (Acts 18:5) We must always endeavour to interpret Scripture with Scripture.

So, the foundational principal is established: Just as in the Old Testament, those who provide spiritual things may rightly receive material support.

And then finally Paul appeals to Jesus Himself: “The Lord commanded,” he says, “that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.” Now, this is not a direct quote from the Gospels but it almost certainly echoes Jesus’ instructions to the apostles and the seventy-two during their missionary journeys: “The labourer deserves his wages.” (cf. Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7).

So, in these few verses, Paul establishes beyond doubt that gospel workers possess a genuine right to support. Yet after establishing this right with overwhelming force, Paul delivers the shocking conclusion: “Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right.” And this is the heart of Paul’s argument.

He is not denying the legitimacy of support for ministers. He is demonstrating the supremacy of the gospel over personal entitlement.

You see, Paul feared that financial dependence upon the Corinthians might compromise the integrity of his ministry or reinforce the Corinthian systems of patronage and status. Remember, in Corinth, wealthy patrons often exercised influence through financial support and benefactors expected loyalty, honour, and public recognition in return for their gifts. But Paul refuses to allow the gospel to become entangled in these systems of social obligation.

He would rather labour with his own hands than permit anyone to think the gospel could be purchased, manipulated, or controlled.

And this reveals something essential about Christian leadership. Paul does not lead through self-assertion. He leads through self-sacrifice.

The false spirituality of Corinth says: “I have rights and therefore I will use them.” Whereas Paul’s spirituality says: “I have rights and therefore I am free to surrender them.” And here we encounter a profound paradox.

Only truly free people can willingly relinquish power and control.

People enslaved to status, recognition, comfort, or entitlement cannot surrender these things because they derive their identity from them. On the other hand, Paul’s freedom in Christ liberates him from the need to promote himself.

And this becomes even clearer when Paul describes his ministry as a stewardship. He says: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” You see, Paul does not view apostleship as a platform for self-expression. He views it as a divine commission.

The language of compulsion here reflects the world of stewardship and servanthood. Paul sees himself as one entrusted with a task committed to him by God and therefore, he has no choice but to fulfil his duty and his obligation. 

But lest we miss the point Paul is trying to make here by focussing on individual issues mentioned in these chapters…meat, and rights, and wages…we must see each one of these issues in the light of the whole thought. 

In these chapters, Paul is making a statement about two very different approaches to the Christian life. One which is self-centred and the other which is other-person-centred. And the important thing to grasp here is that the self-centred person may be perfectly right…allow me to repeat that: the self-centred person may be perfectly right, and consequently they justify their actions even though the upholding of their rights damages or destroys other believers.

But Paul deliberately chooses to live an other-person-centred life by forfeiting his legitimate rights for the sake of others. 

The question that quite naturally flows from this teaching of Paul is simply this: whom are we like?

Shall we pray?

© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2026

Faith and Works

Moments

Moments

Before the dawn had gathered all her gold

the symphony of birdsong had begun

to usher in the rising of the sun

while morning mist lay doubled in the folds

of sleeping fields…and all the world seemed spun

from silver strands of music. Soon enough

the sun would sparkle brightly through the blush

of cotton clouds, dissolving dew till none

lay twinkling on the blades of grass and leaves 

of weeds…revealing shades of grey and green

upon the pastures painted with what seemed

to gently sigh a promise of reprieve

from night that takes all colours to the moon…

for well we know that all in life is lent

for moments that will all too soon be spent

as dusk descends upon our afternoon.

Based on Psalm 90:12

© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2026

Spirituality, Stumbling, and Surrender

Psalm 135:15-21                    1 Corinthians 8:1–13                        Matthew 7:1-6

Spirituality, Stumbling, and Surrender

There is a time when spirituality becomes dangerous…in fact, I think that there are few things more dangerous in the Church than spirituality divorced from biblical love. 

Many of the Corinthians considered themselves mature, enlightened, and spiritually elevated. They possessed knowledge, rhetorical skill, social influence, many diverse spiritual gifts, and theological confidence. And yet Paul saw something deeply troubling beneath the surface of their spirituality: they had begun to use their freedom in ways that harmed the fragile believers among them.

The issue at stake in 1 Corinthians 8–9 is not merely whether Christians may eat meat offered to idols and how they should conduct themselves in repose to the freedom that is theirs in Jesus. No, beneath these practical question lies something far more searching: 

What governs the life of the Christian? Is it knowledge? Is it theological precision? Is it rights or freedom or status? Or is it love shaped by the self-giving pattern of Jesus?

Paul’s answer is both profound and unsettling. Christian maturity is not measured by what you know, but by how willing you are to surrender your perceived rights for the good of others.

The city of Corinth, like other cities in the Greco-Roman world, was saturated with temples, sacrificial meals, patronage systems, social climbing, and status competition. Meat sold in the marketplace often originated from pagan sacrifices. Banquets in temple dining halls were part of civic and commercial life. To refuse participation could carry social and economic consequences. You could forfeit the right to buy and sell in the marketplace. You could forfeit your employment. And if you were dependent on the patronage of one of the pagan religious systems, you could forfeit any form of practical aid reserved for devotees. Many believers in Corinth therefore argued that participation in these meals, and by extension the rituals involved, was harmless because idols were nothing.

In one sense, Paul agrees with them. An idol has no true existence. There is only one God. Yet Paul also recognizes that the issue is not merely theological accuracy but pastoral responsibility. Knowledge without love becomes destructive.

In chapters 8 and 9 Paul addresses three main points: 

1. The danger of knowledge without biblical love. (1 Corinthians 8:1–13)

2. The surrender of rights for the sake of others. (1 Corinthians 9:1–18)

3. The disciplined life required for faithful service. (1 Corinthians 9:19–23)

Together these chapters reveal a spirituality shaped not by self-assertion, but by self-sacrificial and cruciform love.

Today, we are to examine the first point: The danger of knowledge without biblical love. Basically Paul speaks about a prideful, self-assertive knowledge that destroys as opposed to a humble self-sacrificial love that nourishes and nurtures. (1 Corinthians 8:1–13)

Paul begins with what seems to have become the slogan for some in Corinth: “We all possess knowledge.” The Corinthians were proud of their theological sophistication. They understood monotheism. They understood that idols were not real gods. They believed this liberated them to participate freely in anything and everything.

But Paul immediately qualifies their claim: “Knowledge,” he says, “puffs up, but love builds up.”

The contrast is striking. The Greek term Paul uses for being “puffed up” carries the image of something inflated with air: swollen, enlarged, impressive in appearance, yet lacking substance. By contrast, love “builds up.” The imagery shifts from inflation to construction. Knowledge alone inflates the ego of one; love strengthens the whole community.

Now, it is important to note that Paul is not attacking knowledge itself. Christianity is not anti-intellectual. Paul himself is one of the greatest theological minds in history. The problem is not knowledge but knowledge severed from love.

There is a kind of knowledge that becomes spiritually dangerous because it breeds a pride devoid of compassion. Instead of leading us to examine our own weaknesses, it fixates on the failures of others. It is the familiar spirit of judgment that Jesus exposed in the image of the splinter and the log…a pattern that remains all too common in the Church.

The Corinthians believed they were strong because they understood the nothingness of idols. Yet Paul insists that true maturity is not demonstrated merely by possessing correct theology, but by using truth in ways that strengthen others in Christ’s Body.

This becomes especially important when we understand the social setting at the time when Paul was writing this letter.

In the ancient world, temples were not merely religious spaces; they were centres of social and economic life. Banquets, guild meetings, celebrations, and business relationships often took place within temple precincts. Participation in these meals communicated social belonging and status.

For some believers, particularly newer converts from pagan backgrounds, these temple associations still carried deep spiritual significance. Their former lives of idolatry remained emotionally and psychologically close to them. They lacked the confidence and stability of those who considered themselves spiritually mature.

Paul therefore introduces a profoundly pastoral category: the weak or fragile or vulnerable believer.

These believers are not weak because they lack intelligence. Indeed, Paul does not despise them nor reprimand them. The language likely refers to those whose sense of self and spiritual stability remained fragile. Their consciences…or perhaps better, their self-awareness…were still shaped by their former participation in idolatry.

Thus when they observed mature believers exercising their so-called rights, in this case by eating in pagan temples, the vulnerable were not strengthened into freedom but drawn back toward their former bondage.

And Paul’s warning is severe: “By your knowledge this weak person is destroyed…the brother for whom Christ died.”

The word “destroyed” is extraordinarily strong. Paul does not mean mere discomfort or offense. He envisions spiritual ruin caused by the arrogant callousness of a fellow believer.

What makes this so tragic is the contrast Paul deliberately creates: Jesus gave his life to save this person. Yet some Corinthians were willing to wound them merely to preserve a social privilege.

This is the central irony of the passage. The Corinthians considered themselves spiritually mature while behaving in profoundly un-Christlike ways…something that actually portrays them as infantile in their faith. As those needing spiritual milk instead of solid spiritual food.

And here Paul introduces one of the most searching principles in all Christian ethics: Freedom is never absolute when love is at stake.

The modern world often defines freedom as the unrestricted exercise of personal rights. Paul defines freedom differently. Christian freedom is the liberty to surrender one’s rights for the good of another.

That is why Paul concludes: “If food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again.” Not because meat was meat, mind you, but because all meat at that time was connected to pagan rituals and temples. 

But I want you to notice the radicality of Paul’s statement. He doesn’t merely say he will be cautious or careful in what he eats or doesn’t eat. No, he says he will gladly relinquish an otherwise legitimate freedom if exercising it harms, hurts, or endangers another believer. In this sense his statement transcends the subject of food, of rights, and of freedom…because this is the spirituality of the cross.

The Christian life is not governed by the question: “What am I permitted to do?” but rather: “What most helps my brother or sister stand firm in Christ?”

Shall we pray?

© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2026