BIG IDEA:
SPIRITUAL MINISTERS (ESPECIALLY APOSTLES) DESERVE TO BE ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BUT ALSO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO REFRAIN FROM DEMANDING SUCH RIGHTS
INTRODUCTION:
Some people imagine that Christian ministers should serve at their own expense. This passage clearly gives a number of reasons why the flock needs to take very seriously its responsibility to financially support its ministers in proportion to their labor and effectiveness. The general rule is simple: “the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.” But how can we explain the Apostle Paul’s tent-making practice in this light? Some people always want to demand that their rights be respected and fulfilled. This passage gives some principles regarding higher objectives which might guide someone to refrain from insisting upon exercising all of their rights. In this pastoral example, Paul demonstrates how believers can refrain from the exercise of their Christian liberties in cases such as the context of the previous chapter = meat offered to idols. Sometimes the exercise of a right can actually be a wrong.
Richard Hays: Paul was simply a freelance missionary. The Corinthians would most naturally have compared him to the rhetoricians and philosophers familiar within their world. Ronald F. Hock (50–65) has explained that within this cultural setting there was an ongoing debate about the appropriate means of economic support for a philosopher. Four basic models were advocated, each with its distinctive drawbacks.
- The philosopher could charge fees for his teaching, as the Sophists did; they were often accused of greed and manipulating their pupils.
- Alternatively, the philosopher could be supported by a wealthy patron, as the “resident intellectual” in the patron’s household, often with the task of educating the family’s children; such a role entailed an obvious loss of independence, for the philosopher would be tied to the purse strings of the patron.
- A third option, notoriously practiced by the Cynics, was to beg on the streets; for obvious reasons this was widely perceived as eccentric and demeaning.
- The final option was for the philosopher to work at a trade in order to support himself; this had the disadvantages of low social status and of consuming time and energy for mundane matters. At least, however, working for a living preserved the philosopher’s independence from control by other people.
Paul decided early in his apostolic career to follow the fourth of these models, working with his own hands to earn his living (cf. 1 Thess. 2:5–10; 2 Thess. 3:7–9) — supplemented by occasional unsought gifts from some of his churches, particularly the church in Philippi (cf. Phil. 4:10–20; 2 Cor. 11:9b). This was a relatively unusual choice (the first two options were by far the most common), and the Corinthian correspondence shows that it proved controversial. . .
The argument has two phases. In verses 1–14 he argues that he is a real apostle and therefore has every right to receive financial support from the Corinthians. Then in verses 15–23 he explains that he has renounced these legitimate rights “for the sake of the gospel” by offering the gospel free of charge and identifying with lower-status members of the community. Thus, by choosing “not to make full use of my rights [exousia] in the gospel” (v. 18), Paul confirms rather than denies his apostolic mission.
Craig Blomberg: Paul turns now to a second illustration of the principle that Christian freedom should be tempered by voluntary relinquishing one’s rights. But the illustration is scarcely arbitrary; it reflects one of the primary ways the Corinthians are challenging Paul. They have come to doubt his apostolic authority (vv. 2–3), precisely because he is not charging them for his ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7). . .
The powerful patrons in the Corinthian church doubtless would have preferred to have Paul accept their money but give them deference and political support in return. When he refused and continued to rely on tentmaking instead (cf. Acts 18:1–4), they charged that his unwillingness to go along with their patronage demonstrated that he did not have the same authority as other itinerant apostles or preachers.
Paul Gardner: Paul has argued that the elitists are so flaunting their “knowledge,” especially regarding their right to eat meat sacrificed to idols, that the “weak” who once worshipped idols were being led back into idolatry. Chapter 8 ended with Paul insisting that he willingly would give up eating meat altogether to avoid leading anyone to destruction. For Paul, the Lord and the gospel will always take priority in life. It is this that provides the link into chapter 9, in which Paul exemplifies from his own life how he prioritizes the gospel. As an apostle he has certain rights that he can exercise, but he has been prepared to give these up “for the sake of the gospel” (9:23). Structurally the link between this chapter and the previous is therefore to be found in 8:13. Here Paul moves from the rights of the elitists and the danger that their behavior may lead the weak person to destruction to talking about himself and his actions, which are designed to avoid leading brothers and sisters into such stumbling. The Corinthians were likely leading the weak astray through the exercise of what they saw as a “right” to eat food that had been sacrificed to idols in an idol temple.
Daniel Akin: There Is a Right to Compensation for the Minister of the Gospel (9:1-14).
- It is the right of God’s apostles (9:1-6).
- It is the right of a soldier (9:7).
- It is the right of a vinedresser (9:7).
- It is the right of a shepherd (9:7).
- It is the right of an ox (9:8-9).
- It is the right of a plowman (9:10).
- It is the right of a thresher (9:10).
- It is the right of God’s servants (9:11-12).
- It is the right of priests (9:13).
- It is the right of those who minister the Word (9:14).
Gordon Fee: One may properly experience a strange ambivalence toward this text. On the one hand, it serves as one of the key passages that make it clear that those who give themselves to the “work of the ministry” are deserving of material support. The whole reason for the argument is to assert that his giving up of these rights does not mean that he is not entitled to them. In a day like ours such rights usually mean a salary and “benefits.” On the other hand, the reason Paul feels compelled to make this kind of defense is that he has given up these rights. Contemporary Protestant ministers seldom feel compelled so to argue! The key to everything must be for us what it was for Paul — “no hindrance to the gospel.” For every valid ministry in the church of Jesus Christ this must be the bottom line. All too often, one fears, the objective of this text is lost in concerns over “rights” that reflect bald professionalism rather than a concern for the gospel itself.
I. (:1-6) THE FRUIT OF SPIRITUAL MINISTRY IMPLIES THE RIGHT TO FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN SPIRITUAL MINISTRY
A. (:1-2) The Credentials of Authentic Christian Ministry (Especially of Apostles)
- Voluntary Service
“Am I not free?”
John MacArthur: In their letter to Paul (see 7:1) the Corinthians must have made much of their liberty in Christ – a liberty they had been taught largely by Paul himself. Now he states his own freedom and his own rights. “I have no less freedom than you do,” he implies. “And I cherish my freedom no less than you do. But I cherish some other things even more.”
Paul Gardner: Given the number of rhetorical questions in this chapter, it is important to understand how these function in Paul’s discussion. Some commentators, while acknowledging that these four questions are indeed a rhetorical device, proceed to treat the questions as real questions and so suggest that Paul is here having to defend the fact that he is an apostle. On this view, “Am I not an apostle?” is therefore a real question, as are all four. The Corinthian reader, it is suggested, was expected to answer “yes.” However, the functional difference between real and rhetorical questions is that real questions are used to elicit information or specific response while rhetorical questions are used “to convey or call attention to information.” The questions in themselves, then, provide no evidence that Paul was seeking to defend his apostleship against some who were either criticizing or denying it. Rather, they are a useful device to make a strong assertion of the premise for the following argument. Paul is an apostle, and apostles have certain rights that in his case and for the sake of the gospel he has chosen to forgo.
David Garland: Several arguments weigh in against the view that in this section Paul is circling the wagons around his apostolic authority.
First, the notion of his apostleship appears only in 9:1–2, in which he establishes his right to earn material support. These remarks are too brief for a substantive defense. The rest of his argument appeals to the everyday examples of the soldier, farmer, and shepherd (9:7), the plowman and thresher (9:10), and the priest (9:13). These illustrations simply point to “the universal norm that every person ought to profit from his labour” (Savage 1996: 94). The authority of the law (9:8–10a; Deut. 25:4), the precedent of others who already have received benefactions from the Corinthians (9:12a), and the command of Jesus (9:14) further buttress the right of an apostle who labors in the gospel to earn his living from the gospel. These arguments do not furnish any support for Paul’s apostolic standing. He simply reminds them of what everybody already knows. He is not establishing (again) for the supposedly dubious Corinthians that he is a legitimate apostle but instead makes the point that apostles have the right to be supported. . .
That Paul intends in this section to offer himself as a model of one who voluntarily relinquishes his rights is confirmed by the athletic metaphor that spotlights his own conduct (9:24–27) and the concluding admonition to imitate him as he imitates Christ (11:1). His personal example as an apostle who unselfishly sacrifices for others in his missionary service is particularly appropriate for those Corinthians who have demonstrated a tendency to seek personal gain. The implication is that those with knowledge should follow his example by abdicating their so-called right to eat idol food (8:9) in order to avoid any possibility of causing others without their endowment of knowledge from falling back into idolatry.
- Gifted Calling
“Am I not an apostle?”
“Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?”
Qualification for apostleship = Acts 1:21-22
- Spiritual Fruit
“Are you not my work in the Lord?”
“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.”
John MacArthur: In ancient times seals were used on containers of merchandise, on letters, and on other things to indicate the authenticity of what was inside and to prevent the contents from being substituted or altered. The seal was the official representation of the authority of the one who sent the merchandise or letter. What was under the seal was guaranteed to be genuine. The Corinthian church was a living seal of Paul’s apostleship, the proof of his genuineness.
Paul Gardner: The final question in this series refers to the fact that he was the founder of the church in Corinth. This is reinforced by the assertion of v. 2 in which Paul makes it clear that he does not expect the Corinthians to take issue with his apostleship. Even if others might not see him as an apostle, the Corinthians surely will since their existence sets the seal on it. After all, they are the result of Paul’s work of gospel proclamation. The word “seal” (σφραγίς) attests to something that is legally valid. It is a word that is used metaphorically of circumcision and Abraham’s “righteousness by faith” in Romans 4:11 and there legally attests to his membership in the covenant people. In 2 Timothy 2:19 it is used as an attestation of membership in God’s people. Here Paul indicates that the existence of the Corinthian church attests to his apostleship. However, the seal is provided by the fact that all his work has been “in the Lord” (ἐν κυρίῳ). In fact, the conversion of the Corinthians has been the work of the Lord and has been brought about according to his will (1 Cor 1:4–8).
B. (:3-6) Delineation of Rights of All Christian Workers (Especially Apostles)
“My defense to those who examine me is this:”
Some people might look at a gospel minister who is supporting himself via secular work and argue that his ministry is not approved by God since he is not supported full-time in the ministry. Paul’s apostleship was under attack in Corinth. Others were exalting themselves as somehow more worthy of recognition and of a following than the Apostle Paul.
Paul Gardner: Paul’s main concern is that they should see that just as the exercise of an apostle’s “rights” do not authenticate apostleship (he is an apostle whether he exercises his “rights” or not), so the exercise of certain other rights that the elitists claim to have do not authenticate those who are God’s.
- (:4) The Right to Basic Material Support
“Do we not have a right to eat and drink?”
- (:5) The Right to Christian Marriage
“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?”
- (:6) The Right to be Freed Up from Secular Labor to Devote Time to Ministry
“Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?”
David Garland: The reference to Barnabas reveals three things:
(1) that he was known to the Corinthians, perhaps only by reputation (cf. Col. 4:10);
(2) that he adopted the same modus operandi as Paul in refusing to accept financial support from the persons with whom he was ministering; and
(3) that Paul and Barnabas presumably have patched up the strained relationship implied in Gal. 2:13 and Acts 15:36–41.
II. (:7) THE COMMON PATTERN OF WAGES APPROPRIATE FOR LABOR IMPLIES THE RIGHT TO FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN SPIRITUAL MINISTRY – 3 FAMILIAR ANALOGIES FROM COMMON OCCUPATIONS:
Craig Blomberg: In verses 7–12a, Paul begins accumulating a series of reasons why in fact he does have the right to request payment for his services. These continue into verses 13–14 as well. All told, there are five lines of argument: “common practice, scriptural precept, intrinsic justice, Jewish custom and Christ’s command.” Verse 7 presents three analogies from the common practice of human experience in the areas of warfare, farming, and shepherding. Few in Paul’s day would have disputed the logic of these examples.
A. Soldiers who Risk Their Lives Deserve Support
“Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense?”
B. Farmers Who Produce Crops Deserve Support
“Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it?”
C. Shepherds Who Tend Herds Deserve Support
“Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?”
III. (:8-10) THE OLD TESTAMENT FARMING ANALOGY IMPLIES THE RIGHT TO FINANCIAL SUPPORT IN SPIRITUAL MINISTRY
A. (:8A) Not a Matter of Subjective, Personal Opinion
“I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I?”
B. (:8B-9A) Supported by God’s Law = Authoritative OT Quotation
“Or does not the Law also say these things? For it is written in the Law of
Moses, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing.’”
David Guzik: In Deuteronomy 25:4, God commanded You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain. This law simply commanded the humane treatment of a working animal. In those days, grain would be broken away from his husk by having an ox walk on it repeatedly (usually around a circle). It would be cruel for force the ox to walk on all the grain, yet to muzzle him so he couldn’t eat of it.
C. (:9B-10A) Application to all Spiritual Ministers of the Gospel
“God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
Or is He speaking altogether for our sake?
Yes, for our sake it was written,”
C. (:10B) Fundamental Principle: The Laborer Should Share the Fruits
“because the plowman ought to plow in hope,
and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.”
Paul Gardner: The place of vv. 9–10 is now clear in Paul’s discussion of his “right” as an apostle to material support. The law supports Paul and all that he has argued with the rhetorical questions of v. 7. He is entitled to such support. The law speaks to Paul’s generation and to gospel preachers. Moving on from the ox to the people who produce the crop that eventually must be threshed, Paul adds that these also clearly wait for a share of the threshed grain. He has now most carefully set up the next part of his argument, namely, that he has sown and so he too can rightly expect to share in what is reaped.
IV. (:11-14) VOLUNTARILY FOREGOING THE RIGHT TO FINANCIAL SUPPORT DOES NOT UNDERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THAT RIGHT
David Prior: Argument from Intrinsic Justice –
Paul’s next argument in effect asks the Corinthians how much store they place by the gospel: what does it mean to you to have been brought from darkness to light? What do all these ‘spiritual blessings’ mean to you? Is there any gratitude in your heart for ‘the grace of God that has been given you in Christ Jesus’ (1:4)? One of the most instinctive habits in believers is the gift of hospitality and generosity: if we have been on the receiving end of spiritual blessing, we want to demonstrate our thankfulness to God in tangible ways.
A. (:11-12A) Rationale for Reaping Financial Support
- Material Support is a Small Compensation for Spiritual Ministry
“If we sowed spiritual things in you,
is it too much if we reap material things from you?”
- Argument from the Lesser to the Greater
“If others share the right over you, do we not more?”
B. (:12B) Reason for Refraining from Demanding Such Support
“Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will
cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.”
There are special circumstances where the wiser course of action is to refrain.
Adam Clarke: Though we had this right, we have not availed ourselves of it, but have worked with our hands to bear our own charges, lest any of you should think that we preached the Gospel merely to procure a temporal support, and so be prejudiced against us, and thus prevent our success in the salvation of your souls.
Richard Hays: In the latter part of verse 12, Paul at last tips his hand about the point to which he has been building up throughout the chapter: despite all the above arguments establishing his right to receive support, he has made no use of this exousia. Why? Because he does not want to “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel.” The echo here of the “stumbling block” image of 8:9, 13 is unmistakable. For reasons not yet explained, Paul believes that accepting financial support from the Corinthians would create barriers for his work of proclamation; since that is his preeminent concern, he takes no money.
David Garland: How would receiving money have hampered the gospel? To whom would it have been a stumbling block? Potential converts may have shied away from converting to the gospel if they suspected that it came with strings attached: acceptance would cause them to incur financial obligations to support the one who brought them the gospel. Paul sought to avoid any impression that he was preaching only to acquire support. This policy of refusing assistance from converts caused him to endure privations. In 4:12, he lists growing weary from working with his hands as part of his hardships, and in 2 Cor. 11:9, he will remind the Corinthians that when he was with them and in need, he did not turn to them for help. This statement indicates that he was in need. His poverty caused the Corinthians some consternation. They did not interpret his voluntary privation as conforming to the pattern of Christ’s sacrifice — “Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich” (2 Cor. 8:9). Instead, they interpreted his penury as demeaning to himself and an embarrassment to them. Paul apparently considers the Corinthians’ disapproval of his choice of low social status as only a minor impediment in their relationship compared to the possible negative repercussions that accepting support would have on potential converts. His strategy of supporting himself freed him to serve all, not just his patrons. He voluntarily lowered himself from a higher status position as one supported by others to work with his hands. As a laborer, Paul could make his appeal also to the lower classes (D. Martin 1990: 124).
C. (:13-14) Reinforcement of the Right to Support and its Validity
- (:13) Reinforced by Appeal to Common Sense and Jewish Custom
“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?”
- (:14) Reinforced by Direct Command from the Head of the Church
“So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel
to get their living from the gospel.”
“The laborer is worthy of his hire” – Luke 10:7; Matt. 10:10
This should be the normal expectation and the normal practice.
Daniel Akin: Paul’s climactic argument appears here. He cites as his support Jesus himself. “In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should earn their living by the gospel” (v. 14). Paul probably has in mind the words of our Lord recorded in Luke 10:7: “For the worker is worthy of his wages.” Jesus commanded that God’s people take good care of God’s servants. However, he did not command his servants always to take what was offered. Ultimately God’s servants serve him above all. They serve the gospel above all. Whatever best furthers the gospel must guide the minister of the gospel above all other considerations.
Adewuya: In verse 14, he says that God has commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should be paid for it. He will insist on it for others, but not for himself. He’d rather support himself with his business as a tentmaker than ask the Corinthians for money and muddy the waters about his motivation. Paul’s life was utterly consumed and motivated by proclaiming the good news from God about Jesus. He could not but do it. An obligation to proclaim it has been put on him. He is required to do it. If he proclaims it out of his own free desire, then his reward for doing so is that he makes it free of charge (v. 17–18). On the one hand, Paul is like every other Christian; he will say in 11:1 to imitate him as he imitates Christ. If we cannot be like him, then what’s the point of imitating him? But on the other hand, Paul is utterly unique. For him, his conversion to Christianity and his commissioning to apostleship were one and the same event. But even in his unique role, and despite being an apostle, he will not make use of his rights, wanting to make it easier for people to believe, not harder.
David Gardner: Preachers of the gospel no longer can live to themselves, but must live for Christ (2 Cor. 5:15; cf. Phil. 1:21), which also entails doing all things for the sake of the gospel (9:23) and living for others (10:33). Paul is not simply offering himself as a model to illustrate his argument but presents himself as an apostolic standard for his churches (Hafemann 1986: 128). The one who enjoins a policy regarding idol food that would cost the Corinthians in both honor and material benefits has himself sacrificed significantly to advance the gospel. He is not blowing smoke when he says that he would not eat meat if it caused a fellow Christian to founder (8:13). He already has waived his right to eat anything supplied by the community. The lesson should be clear to the Corinthians. At great cost to himself, he renounces his legitimate and irrefutable right to eat and drink at the expense of the community, and he does so to avoid anything that may deter others from accepting the gospel. The Corinthians should follow their apostle’s example and renounce their presumed right to consume idol food, which Paul regards as illegitimate and injurious, in order to avoid causing a weak brother to stumble back into idolatry. Paul’s not “eating” (partaking) what the community could and should supply him as its apostle is going above and beyond the call of duty. The Corinthians’ not eating idol food is simply obeying their duty as Christians.
Mark Taylor: The implication of Jesus’ teaching for his disciples is complete dependence on God for provision. The whole tenor of Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 9 clarifies that he viewed financial provision as a right to forego for the sake of the gospel rather than an obligation of obedience to God. Paul’s obligation was to preach the gospel. On this matter he had no choice (9:16–17). He did have a choice, however, regarding whether or not to receive pay, and for the sake of the gospel he offered it free of charge.