4. Paul’s self-control (9:24–27)
C. The example of Paul (9:1–27)
1. Paul’s rights (9:1–14)
At first sight this appears to be a different subject altogether and not a few have thought that it is an insertion from another letter, or that it is a parenthesis in which Paul temporarily leaves his subject. But there is no need of such hypotheses. Paul has been dealing with the strong who asserted their rights even when that harmed others. He has told them that this is wrong. He now proceeds to show that he himself has consistently applied this principle. He practises what he preaches. From what he says it is plain that some of his critics held that Paul’s acceptance of restrictions on his liberty showed that he was no apostle. They had not learnt that ‘Freedom is not licence to do what I want, but liberation to do what I ought’ (Green, p. 94). Paul argues strongly for two things: (a) he really is an apostle in the fullest sense; (b) neither he nor any other believer should assert Christian liberty to the detriment of others.
1. Paul begins with four questions, each expecting the answer ‘Yes’. The order of the first two, referring to the liberty of the Christian then the rights of the apostle, suggests that he has done more than he has been urging the Corinthians to do. He has forgone not only the general rights that all Christians have, but his special rights as an apostle as well. Paul rarely uses the name Jesus without ‘Christ’. We must assume that here he wishes to place some emphasis on the human nature of the Lord. That he has seen Jesus brings out one of his qualifications as an apostle. Apostles were authoritative witnesses to the facts of the gospel, more especially to the resurrection (Acts 1:21f.; 2:32; 3:15; 4:33, etc.; notice the words of Ananias to Paul, ‘the God of our fathers has chosen you … to see the Righteous One’, Acts 22:14; cf. 26:16). As Paul was not one of the original apostolic band, some may have questioned his right to bear such witness. But on the Damascus road he was granted a special privilege—he saw the Lord (15:8). This qualified him to bear witness to the resurrection. He puts some emphasis on this (not, ouchi, is more emphatic than the negatives in the other questions). That the Corinthians are Paul’s work in the Lord arises from the fact that it is not the servant but the Lord who ‘makes things grow’ (cf. 3:5–7). Cf. Calvin, ‘we must always speak of the efficacy of the ministry in such a manner that the entire praise of the work may be reserved for God alone.’ Paul has not only seen the risen Jesus, but the Lord has enabled him to do apostolic work.
2. Others might call Paul’s apostleship in question, but the Corinthian church ought to be the last to do this; ‘If it denies his standing, then it abrogates its own’ (Conzelmann on v. 1). No-one else had the same relationship to them as did he. They were a living proof of the effectiveness of his work. A seal was important in an age when many could not read. The impress of a seal in clay, wax, or the like, was a mark of ownership. All could see the mark and know what it meant. It came to be a means of authentication. The Corinthians had been won for Christ by Paul, and they were thus the sign that he was an apostle (‘the certificate of my apostleship’, Goodspeed). Their very existence as Christians proved his point.
3. In the Greek these words can be taken either with what precedes or with what follows. Despite the fact that most recent translations agree with NIV in taking them with what follows, the words go better with the preceding. What follows does not in fact prove Paul’s apostleship (for that see vv. 1–2); it brings out the consequences when that apostleship is accepted. Defence translates apologia, the term for a legal defence against a charge, while sit in judgment is another legal word (see on 2:14). There is emphasis on both my and me.
4. The right (exousia) was used of the Corinthians in 8:9 (where see note). As the previous chapter was concerned with the eating of certain foods, it may be that Paul is reminding his friends that he himself has full rights in such matters. But in this context most agree that we should understand food and drink to be ‘at the church’s expense’; it is the right to maintenance that is mainly in mind. Paul’s refusal to exercise this right is not a confession of ineligibility. The use of the plural may be epistolary (=‘I’; it is often difficult to be certain whether we in Paul’s letters extends to others than the apostle). However, the transition from the singular in the earlier verses leads many to think that Paul is associating others (specifically Barnabas) with him here.
5. It is not the right of apostles to marry that this verse asserts. Nobody would have queried this in the apostolic age. It affirms rather the right to take a believing wife along on apostolic journeys, that is to say, a married apostle is entitled to take his wife with him at the church’s expense. That the other apostles do this indicates that most were married (as we might have expected). Paul singles out Cephas (Peter) as a specially important case (cf. Mark 1:30). The most natural interpretation of the Lord’s brothers is that they were the children of Joseph and Mary. The views that they were the children of Joseph by a former marriage, or cousins of Jesus, do not rest on evidence, but are conjectures apparently based on the assumption that it would not have been seemly for Mary to have had children other than Jesus. But the repeated use of brothers without qualification is against such views.
6. Only is singular, which makes it seem as though Barnabas was added as an afterthought. Paul speaks of Barnabas and himself as two apostles (for Barnabas as an apostle, cf. Acts 14:4, 14) who did not refrain from earning their own living while preaching. This seems to imply that it was the custom of others to do so.
7. From three diverse human activities Paul shows his right to be maintained. The soldier, the man who plants a vineyard, and the shepherd all draw their sustenance from their occupation, and the inference is that Christian apostles are entitled to do the same. Notice the differing status: the soldier was commonly paid wages, the man who plants a vineyard may here be the owner (he eats ‘the grapes’, not of them as NIV), while the shepherd more often than not was a slave. Yet all were fed from their occupation.
8. The argumentative questions continue. The first is introduced by mē, indicating that a negative answer is expected. Paul rejects the thought that the principle he is enunciating and illustrating from various fields of human endeavour rests simply on human wisdom (it is not a human point of view). He can show it in the Law (his question expects the answer ‘Yes’). The Jews used Law strictly for the first five books of our Old Testament, but sometimes more loosely for the whole of sacred Scripture. But whichever the usage, the Law is always regarded as authoritative.
9. In ancient Israel an ox was used in threshing; the animal trampled the corn, thus shaking the grain loose from the husks. The mixture was tossed up in a breeze so that the wind blew the chaff away, while the heavier grain fell straight down. The Law provided that while the ox trod the grain he was not to be muzzled (Deut. 25:4), which meant that he could eat some of it. The question Is it about oxen that God is concerned? looks for the answer ‘No’. This does not mean that Paul held that God was indifferent to the needs of oxen (cf. Matt. 6:26; Luke 12:6–7), nor that the verse does not apply to them. We should bear in mind, though, that it occurs in a passage dealing with people, not animals, and may have been meant figuratively from the first. Be that as it may, the Rabbis could argue from this verse that what is true of oxen is all the more true of men (Talmud, BM 88b). Paul is doing something like that. He is asking where the primary application of the words lies, and denying that it is with oxen. There is a principle; the worker shares in the fruit of his work, a principle that applies to oxen. And to apostles.
10. Paul maintains that the words he has quoted apply first and foremost to the preacher of the gospel. We may gather the force of it from Knox’s translation, ‘Is it not clear that he says it for our sakes?’ So the Christian worker, be he ploughman or reaper (cf. 3:6), should do his work in hope. God provides for his needs from the fruits of his labour.
11. Paul becomes specific. The opening conditional clause implies that the condition has been fulfilled: ‘If, as is the case, we sowed …’ Paul’s sowing was his preaching at Corinth which had established the church there. He speaks of sowing, and he might have added that he did some reaping. But the precise function exercised is not important at this point. His concern is rather with the fact that anyone who labours to produce the harvest is entitled to a share in that harvest. Paul had laboured in spiritual things among them. He was fully entitled to receive from them a material harvest.
12. Others, it seems, had in fact exercised the right Paul speaks of. Perhaps Peter or Apollos or someone else had received gifts from the Corinthians. Paul did not. Some Corinthians evidently regarded this as proof that Paul was not a real apostle. They may have argued that Paul implicitly recognized his inferiority by not attempting to obtain the sustenance to which apostles were entitled. Paul counters that the founder of the church at Corinth has far more right to this sort of thing than anyone else (we is emphatic). Paul’s word for hinder is unusual (here only in the New Testament). It means ‘a cutting into’, and was used of breaking up a road to prevent the enemy’s advance. Paul had avoided doing anything that might prevent a clear road for the gospel advance.
13. Don’t you know (see on 3:16) indicates that they ought to have known. It was common knowledge that those whose work was in sacred things received their livelihood from it. More particularly, those who serve at (‘sit beside’; the word denotes habitual service) the altar receive their portion of what is offered on the altar (Lev. 7:6, 8–10, 14, 28–36, etc.).
14. In conformity with this, the Lord, none less, has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel. No command of the Lord has been preserved in precisely these terms. One may have been given, or Paul may be thinking of such words as ‘the worker deserves his wages’ (Luke 10:7; cf. Matt. 10:8, 10; 1 Tim. 5:18). Theissen thinks that by eschewing ‘charismatic poverty’ Paul could be charged with lack of trust in God’s grace, for a true apostle would go out with nothing, and rely on God to supply his daily needs (Theissen, p. 43). Paul counters that charismatic poverty is a privilege, not a requirement.
2. Paul’s refusal to exercise his rights (9:15–18)
Paul was in no doubt about his rights. But he had not always used them, and he proceeds to develop the point.
15. Paul’s I is emphatic. Whatever the practice of others, he has not exercised his rights. Nor is his purpose in writing in this strain to establish a basis for a change of practice. So fiercely does he hold this conviction that he says I would rather die than change it. The text here is very difficult. Paul appears to break off his sentence and never complete it: ‘It would be better for me to die than—No-one will make this boast of mine an empty one!’ The break in construction marks Paul’s deep emotion, and his emotion shows the importance he ascribed to his practice.
16. Preaching the gospel is no matter for boasting (there is woe for Paul if he does not preach it). He can claim no particular credit for this, for he is compelled to preach (cf. Jer. 20:9). Not all are called to a ministry like Paul’s, but none is exempt from the requirement of letting the grace of God be known. Paul thinks of some undefined disaster (woe) as coming to him if he does not preach. This is perhaps all the more effective in not being closely defined. These days we are not good at emphasizing duty, and we do not like the thought of punishment. Paul is clear about both.
17. There is more than one way of understanding this difficult verse. Paul may mean that if (as he does) he preaches willingly, he merits a reward (or ‘wage’, misthos), whereas if he is not willing he must still do it, for an obligation is laid on him. Or he may be starting from the fact that he is ‘compelled to preach’ (v. 16). If his preaching were in fact voluntary, he would merit a reward; but as it is, he has no choice. He is Christ’s slave (7:22; Rom. 1:1, etc.). He must preach. There is nothing of grace in misthos, reward, which rather signifies ‘wages’, ‘the payment of what is due’. Paul can claim nothing, for he has done no more than he should and is an ‘unprofitable servant’ (Luke 17:10). For discharging the trust (oikonomia) see the note on ‘those entrusted’ (oikonomos) in 4:1. The thought is that Paul is responsible to God; he must discharge the commission God has given him.
18. Paul had to preach. But he did not have to preach without charge. He did not see this simply as good strategy. He has already said that it is his boast (v. 15), something he delights in. Now he says it is his reward: his pay is to serve without pay! Preaching without pay is his privilege. The gospel gave him rights, but he chose not to use them.
3. Paul’s service of all people (9:19–23)
The apostle did not stand on his dignity, but adapted himself to the position of his hearers in a whole-hearted determination to win them for Christ.
19. Nothing could more strongly show his abandonment of his rights than this astonishing statement. He was a free man (and proud of his Roman citizenship), but made himself a slave to everyone (and specifically to those very Corinthians, 2 Cor. 4:5 where ‘servant’ translates doulos), so that he could gain the more.
20. Paul could assert his Jewishness (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5), but here he speaks of becoming like a Jew. His prime relationship was to Christ, and he saw himself accordingly as not under the law (the law of Moses). For him ‘Christ is the end of the law’ (Rom. 10:4); the believer is ‘not under law, but under grace’ (Rom. 6:14). But in approaching Jews he conformed to practices that would enable him to win those under the law. The sort of thing in mind is his circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16:1–3) and his joining in Jewish ‘purification rites’ (Acts 21:23–26). He always respected Jewish scruples. He asked Jews not so much to give up the practice of the law as their confidence in it (Phil. 3:3ff.). Their trust must be in Christ.
21. Those not having the law are the Gentiles, those not bound by the law mentioned in v. 20. Paul met them on their own ground (cf. Acts 17:22ff.). D. Daube points out that Jewish rabbis such as Hillel made the law no more burdensome than necessary in their endeavours to win people for Judaism (The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism, Athlone, 1956, pp. 336ff.). Paul went further. He did not bring them under Jewish law at all; he became like one not having the law. He does not mean that he was a lawless person; he was not free from God’s law, but was under Christ’s law. His disavowal of subjection to the Jewish law is emphatic. But equally emphatic is his commitment to ethical ends in the service of God (Rom. 7:22; Gal. 6:2). He is not making Christianity into a ‘new law’; he is affirming his commitment to the kind of life that befits the servant of God. And as far as this service allows he says he conformed to Gentile practice so as to win Gentiles.
22. This whole discussion has underlined Paul’s tender concern for the weak. But, unlike the Jews and the Gentiles of the previous verses, the weak were already Christians. He does not seek to win them in the same sense, but to win them for greater strength, or perhaps simply to keep them from slipping. He respected their scruples and conformed his behaviour to theirs to help them. He sums it all up with I have become all things to all men. This does not, of course, mean that his conduct was unprincipled. On occasion his principles led him to follow courses of action in the teeth of strong opposition. But where no principle was at stake he was prepared to go to extreme lengths to meet people. Personal considerations are totally submerged in the great aim of by all means saving some. H. Chadwick finds in this sort of thing evidence that Paul ‘had an astonishing elasticity of mind, and a flexibility in dealing with situations requiring delicate and ingenious treatment’ (NTS, 1, 1954–55, p. 275).
23. Paul’s conduct was determined by the gospel. That was what mattered, not the preacher. Yet he is not unmindful of his own need, and he looks to share in its (the gospel’s) blessings. Yet even here he thinks of others, for share points to partnership.
4. Paul’s self-control (9:24–27)
Athletic contests were common in the Greek world, and the Isthmian Games, second only to the Olympic Games, were held every two years at Corinth. Paul often uses imagery from the Games.
24. A foot race yielded but one winner. Therefore the runners must make every effort. Winning is more than simply starting in the race. The parallel with the Christian way is not complete, for many are saved, not just one winner. Paul’s point is that, like the runner, the Christian must give of his best.
25. Competes in the games renders agōnizomai, which gives us words like ‘agony’ and ‘agonize’. It does not mean a half-hearted effort. Every competitor had to undergo strict training for ten months, during which he was ‘temperate in all things’ (AV). After all this, his reward if he won was a crown that will not last (in the Isthmian Games it was a pine wreath at first, later celery was used, and towards the end of the first century, pine again; SPC, p. 101). The Christian has before him something much more worthwhile, a crown that will last for ever (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8). The strenuous self-denial of the athlete as he sought a fleeting reward is a rebuke to half-hearted, flabby Christian service. The athlete denies himself many lawful pleasures and the Christian must similarly avoid not only definite sin, but anything that hinders spiritual progress.
26. The imagery from the Games continues. Paul is not like a runner who does not know where the finishing-line is, or a boxer who hits nothing but air (either shadow-sparring or missing his opponent). Paul’s Christianity is purposeful. He puts everything into direct and forceful Christian endeavour.
27. Paul refuses to be bound by bodily desires. In picturesque language he speaks of the way he disciplines himself. Beat renders hypōpiazō, a verb from boxing, with the meaning ‘give a black eye to’. This, coupled with make it my slave, leaves no doubt as to the vigour with which Paul subdues his body. This does not mean that he saw the body as evil. That is not a Christian position. Paul is saying emphatically that the body must be controlled. Disqualified translates adokimos, which means ‘which has not stood the test’; it was used of disqualification in the Games. Paul’s fear was not that he might lose his salvation, but that he might suffer loss through failing to satisfy his Lord (cf. 3:15).