1 Corinthians 9:1-14

Butler's Comments

SECTION 1

Recitation of Rights (1 Corinthians 9:1-14)

9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7Who 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?

8 Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law say the same? 9For it is written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10Does 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. 11If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12If 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. 13Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

1 Corinthians 9:1-7 The Logic: What is freedom? Is a Christian really free? The answer to those questions depends on the meaning of the word freedom! Freedom is a state of character, not circumstances. Freedom belongs to persons and has a personal objective. Freedom is not an objective in itself. Man is not just freehe is free for some purpose. Freedom should have as its objective the production of the highest form of personality possible. Freedom should have as its purpose the production of charactergood character. The freedom (or license) that allows self-indulgence and anarchy produces bad character because man's potential has a higher goal than self-indulgence. Freedom (the opposite of bondage and enslavement) by its very nature should exist for the purpose of removing all hindrances and restraints that would keep a person from reaching the highest potential for good of which he is capable.

This is precisely what Christian freedom is all about. God, through Christ, has set the Christian free from all hindrances and restraints that would keep him from reaching the highest possibility for which he was redeemed. God, through Christ, makes everything and everyone available for the Christian's development (1 Corinthians 3:21-23). It is not our surroundings or our circumstances that keep us from our highest God-ordained possibilities. Attitudes are what enslave us and hinder us. The attitudes which hinder are: (a) guilt; (b) insecurity; (c) rebellion against our Creator and his creation; (d) rejecting the truth about what is real and enduring; (e) fear of death; (f) selfishness. If these may be conquered we will be free and reaching God's potential for us no matter what our circumstances (even persecution and prison). The real issue is not physical liberation but spiritual liberation. Any man, anywhere, whether politically, socially or literally imprisoned or not, may be spiritually free if he trusts God's Word concerning man's true purpose and possibility.

In other words, our true freedom depends on whether we believe God's word about what he made us for and how he says we may attain it. God made us to produce in us and for us character of the highest goodness. He made us to be conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29). Truth makes man free (John 8:31-32). All truth, God's truth, wherever it is, in the Bible, in creation, in other men, we are to find it, believe it and act according to it.. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another. (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). The apostle Paul was a man free in Christ, reaching for the highest good Christ intended him to have. He explains how he used his freedom to reach that goal. He has said, in chapter eight, that he was not asking the Christians at Corinth to do anything that he was not doing.

Paul claimed every right allowed him by God's word. He refused to let any man, by making human rules where God never made any, take away any right by which he might reach the goal Christ intended in him. One part of Christ's goal for Paul was his world-wide apostle-ship. In a series of rhetorical questions, Paul sets forth the logic of his freedom and its use. His first assertion of the logic of his rights is in his question, Am I not an apostle? He not only had the rights of a Christian but also the special rights of one particularly commissioned by the Lord to take the gospel to the whole world (an apostle). He is not thinking here of his authority as an apostle, but of his right to financial support as one sent (an apostle). His second appeal to logic is in his question, Are you not my workmanship in the Lord? He claimed the right to support on the basis of their obligation to him as the one who brought them to Christ (see Romans 15:26-27; Galatians 6:6). The Greek word sphragis is translated seal and means, to authenticate, to validate. Their conversion to Christ certainly confirmed Paul's apostleship and his right to expect them to support him.

The Greek participle anakrinousin is present indicative, not subjunctive, and indicates some of the Christians were examining or making judgments about his right, not only to expect financial support for himself as he preached the gospel, but also the right to expect support for a family. Paul apparently received financial support from the church at Antioch when he was first sent out by that church (Acts 13:1-3); he received some support from the church at Philippi (Philippians 4:14-18). But from the beginning of his second missionary journey he chose to support himself by working at his trade as a tentmaker (Acts 15:40; Acts 18:1-4; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:8).

While the apostle used the Greek word eleutheros, translated free, in 1 Corinthians 9:1, he used the word exousian, translated right, in 1 Corinthians 9:4-6, (see comments, 1 Corinthians 8:9 on word liberty). Paul lists Barnabas as one also set aside by the Lord and the church for a full-time ministry and as such, one who has the right to expect Christians to support him, and a family. Since Barnabas (see Acts 4:36; Acts 9:26-27; Acts 11:22-30; Acts 13:2; Acts 15:39) was not an apostle in the same sense as Paul, this is evidently a statement of the rights of all full-time Christian evangelists to be supported financially by other Christians. Paul's statement of the rights of an apostle, and an evangelist, to have a wife deals a death-blow to the Roman Catholic canon-law that popes and priests must not have wives. Paul substantiates the Gospel records that the apostle Peter was married and his wife journeyed with him in his evangelistic work. Our text clearly states that the brothers of the Lord (James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, Matthew 13:55) also had wives who accompanied them in their work. Mary, mother of Jesus was not a perpetual virgin.

Paul's third appeal to logic is in 1 Corinthians 9:7. He uses three analogies from the common life of that time to prove his point. In 2 Timothy 2:1-7 Paul has similar analogies to encourage Timothy to train a company of faithful, full-time evangelists, like himself, who will be devoting all their time to teaching others. They must not get entangled in civilian pursuits. Now, in this letter to the Corinthians, he declares that a soldier of Christ who has not entangled himself in civilian pursuits but has given full-time to the ministry of the Word has the right to expect to be supported financially by the army of the Lord, the church. Not only so, but the soldier's wife and family also.

1 Corinthians 9:8-12 a The Law: Paul anticipates that some of the Corinthians might object that his first defense of his rights is based on human thinking. So, he asks a rhetorical question, It is true, is it not, that as a human I am speaking these things? He expects them to answer, Yes! In so doing, he is able to give impact to his introduction of the Law of Mosesthe word of Godinto the defense of his rights. He follows with a second rhetorical question, The Law of Moses, does it not say the same thing? The expected answer is, Yes! But Paul immediately supplies the answer, For it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Paul's quotation comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. The Israelites threshed grain by having oxen pull a stone or a threshing sledge with iron wheels over the grain to separate the grain from the husks. The ox was permitted to eat of the grain as he threshed. This was demanded by God in his Law to keep men from being cruel to animals. God cares about the animals in his creation. It is God's will that animals be cared for by those whom they serve. This regulation in Deuteronomy is contained in a series of laws about economic and social justice. But it is not for oxen only that God is concerned. Paul does not mean to say that God is not concerned for oxenhe has already established that. Surely, if God legislates that oxen serving men are to be fed by men, then men serving others in spiritual things are to be fed by those they serve. Paul applies the same Old Testament law to the support of elders who labor in preaching and teaching the Word (1 Timothy 5:17-18).

The word entirely, in 1 Corinthians 9:10, is too strong for the context. Paul does not mean the law of Deuteronomy 25:4 was totally for man and not for oxen at all. The Greek word pantos might be translated here, by all means, doubtless, at least. The teaching of Jesus (Matthew 6:25-34) explains that while God cares for birds and lilies, he will much more care for men who love him. Paul answers his own rhetorical question of 1 Corinthians 9:10 by stating, It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope. of a share in the crop. The Greek word opheilei is translated should, but carries the idea of obligation or duty; it is sometimes translated ought, owe, or bound. The plowman is duty bound to plow in hope of sharing in the product of his labor.

The plowman's right becomes an analogy by which Paul asserts the right of a spiritual sower to be supported in material (Gr. sarkika, fleshly, physical) sustenance from the hands of those who have benefited from the spiritual sowing.

Almost indignantly (1 Corinthians 9:12 a) Paul asks, If you authorize others the right of sharing your material goods, shouldn-'t you acknowledge that we (Christian evangelists) have even greater right? Who are the others? Some think they are the other apostles and other evangelists who had already been given the privilege of support by the churches (1 Corinthians 9:3-6). Some think others refers to the Judaizers (II Cor. Chapter s 3 and 4) who had taught them. In addition others may refer to teachers of Greek philosophy and letters. It was common practice for the peripatetic (walking-around) teachers of Greek culture and philosophy to be supported financially by the parents of their students. Whatever the case in Corinth, it is a fact of the modern world that while men and women willingly band together in cities or rural districts and pay taxes for gymnasiums, football stadiums, huge public school buildings, buses, teachers-' and administrators-' salaries for the secular education of their societies, some Christians often begrudge a minister of the gospel and his family a salary commensurate with the average of the membership of the church. Preachers and evangelists who are in the ministry primarily for the money are hirelings (John 10:7-18)! But that is not what Paul is discussing here. His phrase, ... do not we still more? signifies the right of a faithful evangelist or preacher of the gospel to expect even more (or, rather first) consideration in material support than Christians give in other areas of life.

1 Corinthians 9:12-14 The Lord: If Paul found it necessary to be financially supported, or to marry, to reach the goal God had for his life, then he declared himself free to do so. Not only was he free to do so, he insisted the brethren acknowledge his rights. If Paul had not insisted that others at least acknowledge his freedom or his rights, he would have allowed the truth to be perverted and, to that extent, have forfeited his freedom by compromising with falsehood.

Now Paul might surrender his use of these freedoms or rights of his own to take an even better action in order to produce the highest good. But he must not surrender his right to such freedom for that would be surrender to spiritual slavery. Our freedom in Christ must always be defended (Galatians 5:1 ff.) whether we exercise every aspect of it or not.

The very essence of freedom is choice. Freedom in its ultimate and highest sense can never be legislated or enforced. Christian freedom is the ultimate freedom. Christ fulfilled the law written in ordinances. Those who choose Christ are no longer limited by the law. Their goal of spiritual growth is not fettered by or limited by law. They may choose the highest spiritual goal of allbeing conformed to the image of God's Sonperfection. Paul always tried to choose what he thought, guided by God's revelation, was the highest spirituality in his own life and in the life of others.

So, here, he exercises his right to surrender what he considers a lesser right (to be financially supported by the Corinthian church) in favor of a more spiritually productive right (not to put any obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ). This was Paul's free choice for Corinth. But apparently it was not always his choice. In a different circumstance, and with a different body of believers, he chose to accept their financial support (see Philippians 4:15-18), for their spiritual growth.

It appears the Corinthian church later accused Paul of being a false apostle because he did not take financial support (see 2 Corinthians 12:13; 2 Corinthians 12:16-17) from them. While Paul could not know ahead of time how the Corinthians would react to forfeiting his right to financial support, it must have grieved him to later be despised for an act of love he intended for their spiritual advancement. But that goes with the territory of exercising Christian freedom!

In the first covenant (the Old Testament) the Lord commanded that the priests who devoted all their life to serving in the Temple were to be sustained by sharing (Gr. summerizontai, a dividing-up, an apportioning) of all the offerings given by their Hebrew brethren to the Lord. Reviving this ordinance of the Lord was one of the first and most significant acts of Hezekiah in his attempt to bring repentance to the nation (see 2 Chronicles 31:4-19).

The Lord Jesus Christ ordained the same practice for the New Testament church. The Greek word dietaxe, ordained or commanded, was used in other Greek literature to describe official appointments to position of authority. The Lord did not approach the matter of support for full-time Christian servants as a suggestion but as an official edict. He commanded it. The church has no choice in the matter. The individual servant of the Lord may choose to forego this right, but the church is ordered by the Lord himself to support the faithful evangelists it sets aside to full-time service in the Gospel. The laborer is worthy of his hire (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 5:17-18).

A few commentators have used the KJV translation, ... they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel to say the Lord meant those who preach the gospel should live according to what they preach. The context makes it clear this is not the meaning. The RSV translation gives the correct meaning, ... those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. The Greek words are even clearer; ... ek tou euangeliou zen. The Greek preposition ek means out of, or from; the Greek infinitive zen means to live. Those who proclaim the gospel are to live out of the gospel.