The Strong Man's Prerogative: Gospel Rights Surrendered Text: 1 Corinthians 9:1-14
Introduction: The Liberty of the Servant
We live in an age that is obsessed with rights. Our entire culture is a cacophony of shrill demands for this right and that right. People demand the right to be insulated from opinions they dislike, the right to redefine reality to suit their personal desires, and the right to be subsidized in their rebellion. But this is a thin and brittle understanding of liberty. It is the liberty of a spoiled child, which is no liberty at all, but rather a form of slavery to self. The modern world screams for its rights, while the Christian man, in the strength of Christ, has the glorious freedom to lay his rights down.
The Apostle Paul, in this section of his letter to the Corinthians, is addressing a very practical problem. The church was divided over the issue of eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols. Some, whom we might call the "stronger brothers," knew that an idol is nothing and that the meat was just meat. They claimed their "right" and their "liberty" in Christ to eat it. Others, the "weaker brothers," had consciences that were still entangled with their pagan past, and seeing a Christian eat such meat could shipwreck their faith. Paul has just finished telling the strong that their liberty must not become a stumbling block to the weak. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
Now, to drive the point home with maximum force, Paul uses himself as the ultimate example. He is about to lay out an ironclad, multi-layered, biblically saturated case for his own rights as an apostle. He will prove, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that he had every right to be financially supported by the Corinthian church. And then, having established that right as firmly as a pillar in the temple of God, he will tell them that he voluntarily set it all aside for a higher principle: the advancement of the gospel. This is not the action of a weak man, but of a truly strong one. The weak man is a slave to his rights; the strong man is the master of them. He can take them up or lay them down as love and wisdom dictate. Paul is teaching the Corinthians, and us, that true Christian liberty is not the freedom to please yourself, but the freedom to forget yourself for the sake of others and for the glory of God.
The Text
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? 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. My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have authority to eat and drink? 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? Or do only Barnabas and I not have authority to refrain from working? 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? Am I speaking these things according to human judgment? 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 IT IS THRESHING.” Is God merely concerned about oxen? 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. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? 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. 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? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.
(1 Corinthians 9:1-14 LSB)
The Apostolic Credentials (vv. 1-2)
Paul begins with a series of rapid-fire, rhetorical questions to establish his standing. There were factions in Corinth, and some were clearly questioning his authority.
"Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? 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." (1 Corinthians 9:1-2)
First, "Am I not free?" This is the foundational question. Paul is a free man in Christ, and as such, he has certain liberties. But his freedom is not an autonomous, secular freedom. It is a freedom under God, for God. Second, "Am I not an apostle?" This was the basis of his authority to teach and command them. An apostle was a unique office, a delegate sent with the full authority of the one who sent him. The primary qualification was to be a direct, eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. Paul meets this test: "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" He is referring to the Damascus Road encounter, where the risen and glorified Christ commissioned him directly. This was not a second-hand report or a spiritual impression; it was a Christophany.
But then he gives them a proof that is much closer to home. "Are you not my work in the Lord?" He points directly at the Corinthian believers themselves. Their conversion, their church, their very existence as Christians was the direct result of his apostolic labor. They are Exhibit A. If anyone else in the world wanted to question his credentials, the Corinthians had no standing to do so. To them, he says, "you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord." A seal in the ancient world authenticated a document. The Corinthian church, for all its messy problems, was God's authenticating stamp on Paul's ministry. For them to question his apostleship was like a child questioning the reality of his own father.
The Rights of the Office (vv. 3-7)
Having established his authority, Paul now outlines the rights that go along with that office. He is making his case, his "defense," to those who would put him on trial.
"My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have authority to eat and drink? 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? Or do only Barnabas and I not have authority to refrain from working?" (1 Corinthians 9:3-6)
The word for authority here is exousia. It means a right, a privilege, a legitimate power. The first right is basic sustenance: "to eat and drink." This means the right to be supported by the people to whom he ministers. The second right is the support of his family: "to take along a believing wife." The other apostles, including Peter (Cephas) and the Lord's own brothers, traveled with their wives, and the churches they served supported them both. This is a clear biblical warrant for a married ministry, and for the church to provide for the minister and his household. Paul is pointing out an inconsistency. The Corinthians were apparently supporting other teachers, but not him.
He then sharpens the point: "Or do only Barnabas and I not have authority to refrain from working?" Paul and Barnabas supported themselves through manual labor, tentmaking in Paul's case. This was not because they were a lower class of apostle. It was a choice. But the fact that they had to work with their hands was being used against them by some of the Corinthians, as though it proved they weren't "real" apostles. Paul turns this on its head. He had every right not to work, just like the others.
He then appeals to common sense and universal experience with three more questions.
"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?" (1 Corinthians 9:7)
These are arguments from natural equity. A soldier is paid by the one who sends him. A farmer has a right to eat from his own crops. A shepherd is sustained by the flock he tends. In every sphere of life, it is understood that the laborer is worthy of his hire. To deny this to the one who labors in the most important field of all, the gospel, is not just unfair; it is unnatural.
The Confirmation of the Law (vv. 8-12a)
But Paul does not rest his case on natural reason alone. He grounds it squarely in the Word of God, the Law of Moses.
"Am I speaking these things according to human judgment? 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 IT IS THRESHING.'" (1 Corinthians 9:8-9)
He appeals to Deuteronomy 25:4. An ox that was treading the grain on the threshing floor was not to be muzzled. It was to be allowed to eat as it worked. This was a humane provision in the law, but Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, tells us there is a deeper principle at work. "Is God merely concerned about oxen? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake?" The answer is obvious. If God cares for the beasts of the field, how much more does He care for His servants who labor in His harvest? This is a classic example of a fortiori reasoning, from the lesser to the greater.
The principle was written "for our sake." The plowman and the thresher work in hope of sharing in the harvest. This is the engine of all faithful labor. And this principle applies directly to the ministry. "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?" Paul is contrasting the value of the goods exchanged. He and his team had planted the seed of the eternal Word, which resulted in salvation, a spiritual harvest of infinite worth. In return, was it a "great thing" to expect a material harvest, mere food and money? The question answers itself. It is a small thing to give in return for such a great gift.
He concludes this section with a pointed jab: "If others share this authority over you, do we not more?" Other teachers were coming to Corinth and receiving support. But Paul was their father in the faith. His claim was primary. His right was preeminent.
The Surrendered Right and the Lord's Directive (vv. 12b-14)
And now, having built this unassailable case for his rights, he delivers the stunning conclusion. This is the pivot of the entire argument.
"Nevertheless, we did not use this authority, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ." (1 Corinthians 9:12b)
He had the right. It was established by custom, by reason, and by the Law of God. But he chose not to use it. Why? For a strategic reason. "So that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ." In a culture saturated with greedy philosophers and charlatan religious teachers who were in it for the money, Paul wanted the gospel to be offered without any financial strings attached. He wanted to remove any possible accusation that he was preaching for personal gain. He would rather "endure all things," including the hardship of manual labor, than to put a single, unnecessary obstacle in the path of the gospel.
This is the heart of Christian liberty. The right is real, but the exercise of the right is optional, and it must be governed by love for God and neighbor. Paul's freedom was so robust that he was free not to use his freedom.
He gives one final argument, from the temple practice and from the very words of Jesus Himself.
"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? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel." (1 Corinthians 9:13-14)
The Old Covenant priests lived off the sacrifices and tithes brought to the temple. This was God's ordained system. Paul then says, "So also," in the same way, the Lord Jesus Himself "directed" that New Covenant ministers should be supported. He is likely referring to passages like Luke 10:7, where Jesus tells the seventy-two, "the laborer is worthy of his wages."
So, to review, Paul's right to support is established by his apostolic office, by natural justice, by the Mosaic Law, by the temple practice, and by the direct command of the Lord Jesus Christ. You cannot build a stronger case than that. And yet, this is the very right he lays down for the sake of the Corinthians and the gospel. He is not surrendering the right itself; he is surrendering the exercise of it in a particular situation for a greater good. He is not saying that ministers should not be paid. In fact, he is establishing the principle that they absolutely should be. But he is saying that there are times when, for the sake of the mission, a man must be willing to set aside what is rightfully his.
Conclusion: The Gospel Above All
What is the lesson for us? It is manifold. First, it establishes the biblical principle that pastors and ministers of the gospel are to be financially supported by the church. This is not a matter of charity; it is a matter of right and justice, ordained by God. A church that is stingy with its pastor is disobeying a clear scriptural command.
But the deeper lesson is for the "strong" Christian. Our liberty in Christ is a glorious thing, but it is not a license for self-indulgence. It is a tool for service. We have rights, but we do not have the right to damage a brother for whom Christ died. We have freedom, but we are called to use that freedom to become the servants of all.
Paul's logic here is a direct reflection of the logic of the gospel itself. What did Jesus do? Philippians 2 tells us that though He was in the form of God, He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, a right to be clung to. Instead, He emptied Himself. He laid aside the privileges of His glory, took the form of a servant, and humbled Himself to the point of death on a cross. He had every right to the worship of angels, but He surrendered it for our sake. He laid down His rights so that He might cause no hindrance to our salvation.
This is the pattern. The gospel is the ultimate example of surrendering one's rights for the sake of love. Paul is simply applying that gospel pattern to the question of meat, money, and ministry. And we are called to apply it to our lives. In our marriages, in our churches, in our communities, are we standing on our rights, demanding our way? Or are we, in the strength that Christ provides, looking for opportunities to lay down our rights for the good of others and the advancement of the gospel? The weak man clutches his rights to his chest. The strong man, the man who is truly free in Christ, holds them with an open hand, ready to release them at a moment's notice, all for the sake of the gospel.