Commentary - 1 Corinthians 9:1-14

Bird's-eye view

In this chapter, Paul is continuing his argument from chapter 8 regarding Christian liberty. The issue there was meat sacrificed to idols, and the principle was that mature believers should be willing to set aside their legitimate rights for the sake of a weaker brother. Here, Paul uses himself as the prime exhibit of this very principle. He is a genuine apostle, with all the rights and privileges that come with that office. But for the sake of the gospel, and to remove any potential stumbling block for the Corinthians, he has deliberately set aside his right to financial support. He builds his case with a series of rhetorical questions, appeals to common sense, the Law of Moses, the practice of the Temple, and a direct command from the Lord Jesus. His point is not to solicit funds, but to demonstrate the nature of true, gospel-hearted freedom. It is a freedom that serves, a liberty that limits itself for the sake of love.

Paul's argument is a masterful blend of firm apostolic authority and tender pastoral concern. He is not defensive in a petty way, but he is certainly defending his apostleship against detractors in Corinth. And the ultimate defense of his authority is his willingness not to use it. This is the cruciform pattern of life, the way of the cross applied to ministerial support. He establishes his rights with unassailable arguments, only to declare that he has waived them all for a higher purpose: the unhindered advance of the gospel of Christ.

Outline

The Rights of an Apostle

Paul begins this section with a rapid-fire series of questions to establish his credentials and the rights that accompany them. His apostleship was a point of contention in Corinth, likely because he did not fit the mold of the eloquent, fee-charging Sophists who were popular at the time. His refusal to take payment was, ironically, being used against him as evidence that he wasn't a "real" apostle. Paul turns this on its head. He argues that his rights are undeniable, grounded in his direct commission from the risen Christ and the manifest fruit of his ministry among the Corinthians themselves. He has every right to be supported, just like the other apostles, the Lord's own brothers, and even Peter. But he chooses not to exercise this right, and this very choice is a powerful outworking of the gospel he preaches.

Commentary

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?

Paul opens with four questions, each expecting a resounding "yes." His freedom is a central theme, but it is a freedom in Christ, not a libertine autonomy. His apostleship is the basis of his authority. He meets the primary qualification: he has seen the risen Lord Jesus. This was not a mystical vision, but a post-resurrection appearance that commissioned him. And the final proof is the Corinthian church itself. They are the living, breathing evidence of his effective, God-blessed ministry. If they deny his apostleship, they deny their own existence as a church.

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.

He concedes, for the sake of argument, that others might question his credentials. But for the Corinthians to do so is absurd. He is their spiritual father. He founded their church. Their conversion is the "seal," the official stamp of authentication, on his apostolic ministry. A seal authenticates a document, and the Corinthian believers are the living authentication of Paul's commission from God. For them to question him is a kind of spiritual patricide.

3 My defense to those who examine me is this:

Paul now shifts to a more formal defense, using the language of the courtroom. He is being "examined" or cross-examined by critics in Corinth. What follows is his apologia, his reasoned defense. And his defense is not a cowering plea, but a robust assertion of his rights.

4 Do we not have authority to eat and drink?

The first right he claims is the most basic: the right to be supported, to have his food and drink provided by the people to whom he ministers. The word for "authority" here is exousia, which means right or privilege. This is not a demand, but a statement of what is due.

5 Do we not have authority to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

He expands the right. Not only does he have a right to personal support, but also to support for a family. He has the right to be married and to have his wife accompany him on his missionary journeys, with her expenses covered by the churches. He points to the common practice of the other apostles, including the Lord's own brothers (like James and Jude) and Cephas, which is Peter. This reference to Peter is particularly potent, given the factionalism in Corinth. Paul is saying, "I have the same rights as the man some of you claim to follow."

6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have authority to refrain from working?

Paul narrows the focus to himself and his early ministry partner, Barnabas. It appears they were unique among the apostolic company in that they supported themselves through manual labor (tentmaking, in Paul's case). The question is sarcastic. Is there some special rule that applies only to them? Of course not. The implication is that if they have this right and choose not to use it, it is for a specific, strategic reason, not because they lack the right itself.

7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not consume the fruit of it? Or who shepherds a flock and does not consume the milk of the flock?

Paul now appeals to common sense with three analogies from everyday life. A soldier is paid by the one who sends him. A farmer has a right to eat from the vineyard he cultivates. A shepherd is sustained by the flock he tends. These are self-evident principles of labor and compensation. The spiritual work of an apostle is no different. The laborer is worthy of his hire, a principle Jesus Himself taught.

8 Am I speaking these things according to human judgment? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE IT IS THRESHING.” Is God merely concerned about oxen?

Lest anyone dismiss his arguments as mere human reasoning, Paul grounds his case in the Word of God, specifically the Law of Moses. He quotes Deuteronomy 25:4. An ox treading the grain was not to be muzzled, allowing it to eat as it worked. Paul then asks a crucial interpretive question. Is this law simply about animal welfare? Is God's primary concern here the dietary habits of livestock? The implied answer is no.

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 applies the principle of the law to the Christian minister. The law was written "for our sake." This is a classic example of a fortiori argument, from the lesser to the greater. If God cares that an ox is fed while it works, how much more does He care that His servants who labor in the gospel are supported? The principle is that those who work should have a share in the fruit of their work. The plowman and the thresher work in hope of the harvest. So too, the gospel minister works in hope of seeing fruit, both spiritual and, as is right, material.

11 If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?

Here is the principle applied directly to the Corinthians. Paul and his team sowed "spiritual things", the gospel, the Word of God, eternal life. In return, is it a "great thing" if they were to reap "material things", food, lodging, financial support? The spiritual is of infinitely greater value than the material. To receive the former and begrudge the latter is a gross inequity.

12 If others share this authority over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this authority, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.

The Corinthians were apparently supporting other teachers, some of whom were likely the very ones undermining Paul. If these others had a claim on their support, how much greater was Paul's claim, as their founding apostle? But then comes the pivot. "Nevertheless." Despite having this unquestionable, multi-faceted right, Paul says, "we did not use this authority." Why? So as not to "cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ." In a culture where philosophers and orators charged high fees, Paul wanted to remove any suggestion that he was in it for the money. He wanted the gospel to be, and to be seen as, a free gift. He would rather endure hardship than have the message be clouded by financial considerations.

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?

He adds another argument, this time from the sacred economy of Israel. It was common knowledge, both for Jews and Gentiles familiar with religious practice, that priests lived off the sacrifices and offerings brought to the temple. The Levitical priests were supported by the tithes and portions of the sacrifices. This was God's ordained system.

14 So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

Finally, Paul brings in the highest authority: a direct command from the Lord Jesus Himself. He is likely referring to Jesus' instructions to His disciples in passages like Matthew 10:10 ("the worker is worthy of his food") and Luke 10:7 ("the laborer deserves his wages"). The principle established in the Old Covenant for the priests is now applied by Christ to the preachers of the New Covenant. This is not just a good idea or a practical arrangement; it is a divine directive. Those who preach the gospel have a right, ordained by the Lord, to be supported by the gospel.

Application

The principles here are timeless. First, the ministry of the Word is real work and deserves real compensation. Churches have a duty, established by common sense, Old Testament law, and the direct command of Christ, to provide for their pastors and ministers. To neglect this is to muzzle the ox, and worse, to disobey the Lord.

Second, and this is Paul's main point, rights are held in stewardship. Christian liberty is not a license to demand everything we are owed. It is the freedom to lay down our rights for the sake of the gospel and for the love of others. Paul's example is a standing rebuke to any form of ministry that is driven by financial gain or personal entitlement. He shows us that the authority of the cross is demonstrated not by demanding our due, but by willingly setting it aside for a greater good.

Every believer, not just the minister, should ask this question: "What right am I willing to set aside for the sake of the gospel? What personal freedom can I limit so that my weaker brother is not hindered, and so that the message of Christ is not obstructed?" This is the cruciform life, the way of love, and the true exercise of our freedom in Christ.