Don’t Use Your Rights-1 Cor 9:1-14

1 Corinthians, New Testament, Sermons

Paul’s remarkable humility. We vociferously demand our rights. Paul had all the rights and credentials as the top apostle, prophet, church planter, missionary, evangelist, shepherd, teacher, philosopher, law scholar and theologian. Today, he’d be a huge megahit celebrity pastor, academic and scholar with everything at his disposal. [Imagine all of his N.T. epistles/letters being international best sellers!] But he chose NOT to use any of his rights that he was entitled to.

Do you use and demand your rights to get what you and/or what others want?

  • If you have the right to sue someone for cheating you, will you?
  • If you have the right to criticize someone, will you?
  • If you have the right to defend yourself against malicious slander, will you?
  • If you have the right as a leader to lord over others and put them in their place, will you?
  • If you have the right to divorce your spouse, will you?
  • If you have the right for your church to support you [as Paul did], will you insist upon it?

After Paul reasserts his apostleship (1 Cor 9:1-2),

  • he defends himself against those who’re judging him (1 Cor 9:3).
  • His “defense” is a vehement insistence on his “rights” to their financial support (9:4-14), using every available argument (1 Cor 9:12-15).
  • But his conclusion is not “support me,” but the very opposite–a defence of his policy of not accepting what he’s just argued for so strenuously (1 Cor 9:12b, 15).
  • Next, he explains his social behavior which differs according to setting [Jew or Gentile] (9:19-23): he became all things to all people so as to win some (1 Cor 9:22).
  • Finally, he urges and exemplifies self-discipline (9:24-27). All of this elaborate argument is connected to the problem of food sacrificed to idols (8:1-13). How?

Outline:

  1. I‘m not using my rights (9:1-14). I have rights, but I won’t use it. [Rights and ministry]
  2. In defense of his apostleship (9:1-2)
  3. Paul’s apostolic rights (9:3-14)
  4. I freely renounce my rights (9:15-23). Paul’s free gospel.
  5. Paul’s apostolic restraint (9:15-18)
  6. Paul’s apostolic freedom (9:19-23). I’m a truly free man. [Those who want to be in control won’t like such a man.]
  7. I train myself to renounce rights (9:24-27). Exhortation and example. Running and not falling. Renouncing rights required rigorous training, self-discipline and self-control.

Ch. 9 is not a digression. Paul defends his apostolic practice–he refuses to accept financial support from them. Paul hasn’t left behind the idol meat problem (reappears in 1 Cor 10:19), but he’s artfully reframing their perspective in ch. 9. He kills 2 birds with 1 stone: his subsidiary problem (financial support) also functions implicitly in the service of his larger argument about food, idolatry, and the requirements of love. Here’s how his argument works.

  • In ch. 8, Paul calls upon the strong at Corinth to limit their freedom for the sake of the weak.
  • He points to himself as an eg.: he’ll never eat meat if it causes his brothers and sisters to fall (1 Cor 8:13). The strong regards this self–limitation as preposterous, for if Paul is a real apostle, he’d boss and tell others how to behave. His deferrence to the “ignorant” [weak] converts led them to question the authenticity of his apostleship. Paul seems cowardly and duplicitous, sometimes willing to eat meat among the strong but timidly caving in to the dietary restrictions of the weak. This vacillating behavior casts doubt on the legitimacy of Paul’s claim to be an apostle.

Paul supports himself as a low–status tentmaker (Ac 18:1–3). Menial labor is surely unworthy of a true apostle. Other leaders [Apollos? Cephas?] act more like respectable philosophical teachers by accepting financial support from their wealthy members. Paul’s slavish pursuit of a low–status occupation, together with his vacillating inability to take a consistently “strong” line on the freedom to eat, made them conclude that perhaps Paul is not really a legitimate apostle at all. If he were, surely he’d act in ways more dignified and more authoritative.Paul doesn‘t fit into any job description in their culture. There’s no established model for “Christian ministers.” There’s no institution or university or church denomination to employ or sanction teachers/preachers. Paul was a freelance missionary. They naturally compare him to their orators and philosophers. There‘s 4 basic models for financial support, each with drawbacks. The philosopher:

  1. …charges fees for his teaching, like the Sophists; they’re often accused of greed and manipulating their pupils.
  2. …is supported by a wealthy patron, as the “resident intellectual” in the patron’s household, often tasked with educating his children. This entails a loss of independence, for the philosopher would be tied to the purse strings of the patron.
  3. …begs on the streets, notoriously practiced by the Cynics; this was widely perceived as eccentric and demeaning.
  4. …works at a trade to support himself. The disadvantages was a low social status and consuming time and energy for mundane matters. But working for a living preserved the philosopher’s independence from control by other people.

Paul follows the 4th model, working to earn his living (1 Th 2:5–10; 2 Th 3:7–9)—supplemented by occasional unsought gifts from some churches, particularly Philippi (Phil 4:10–20; 2 Cor 11:9b). This was unusual (the 1st 2 options were most common), and “controversial.” Paul says explicitly: “Did I commit a sin by humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I proclaimed God’s good news to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for my needs were supplied by the friends who came from Macedonia. So I refrained and will continue to refrain from burdening you in any way…. How have you been worse off than the other churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!” (2 Cor 11:7–9; 12:13) The criticism of his refusal to accept support from them had escalated. In 1 Cor 9, he responds to their first critical rumblings that later erupted in full force. His self-defense (1 Cor 9:3) didn’t defuse the issue. The argument has 2 phases:

  1. In 9:1–14 Paul argues that he‘s a real apostle and therefore has every right to receive financial support from them.
  2. In 9:15–23 he renounces these legitimate rights “for the sake of the gospel” by offering the gospel free of charge and identifying with lower–status members of the church. By choosing “not to make full use of my rights [exousia] in the gospel” (1 Cor 9:18), Paul confirms rather than denies his apostolic mission.

Paul serves as a model for the strong: like him, they should willingly surrender their exousia for the sake of the weak in order to promote the gospel–explicitly stated in his conclusion (10:32–11:1), but it’s clear by the thematic links between ch. 8 and 9 [exousia (1 Cor 8:9; 9:4, 5, 6, 12, 18)]. Whether they like it or not, Paul targets those church members who enjoy greater wealth and social prestige, the ones most enamored of their freedom to do what they like. To them, Paul says, “NO, for the sake of the gospel you must exercise self–restraint and discipline yourself for the sake of the greater good of building up the community in love.” The metaphors (1 Cor 9:24ff) of the athlete in training, exercising self-discipline, so Christians are to discipline themselves for the work. By sandwiching ch. 9 in between ch. 8 and 10, Paul wants them to think about the idol meat issue in light of the apostolic example and vice versa.To read ch. 9 as a defense of Paul’s apostleship unrelated to the idol food problem has great difficulty explaining how 9:24–27 fit into the defense. This clearly shows that the purpose of the unit as a whole is hortatory [aiming to exhort] rather than apologetic [defence]. Paul presents his own pattern of renouncing rights as exemplary and calls those gnosis-boasters to follow. Thus, 1 Cor 9 is an artful piece of rhetoric that accomplishes two purposes simultaneously:

  1. explaining Paul’s controversial renunciation of his rights and
  2. suggesting that renunciation as a model to be imitated.

Paul‘s right to receive support (9:1–14). 1 Cor 9:1 follows the conclusion of ch. 8: Paul articulates his principle of self–limitation for the sake of the weak (1 Cor 8:13), which will be objectionable to the “strong.” He anticipates the objection with a rhetorical question: “Am I not free?” (1 Cor 9:1), i.e., isn’t he free to eat what he wants? …followed with a volley of rhetorical questions, all formulated to expect a positive answer: of course Paul is a free apostle. It’s validated by his encounter with the risen Lord Jesus and also by his founding of the church. Even if “others” (1 Cor 9:2) challenge the legitimacy of Paul’s ministry, they themselves cannot, for their existence as a church is dependent on Paul’s work in their midst. That’s why the church itself is a “seal” of Paul’s apostleship, an external mark signifying the authenticity of the message (1 Cor 9:1–2; 2 Cor 3:1–3).

Presumptuously scrutinizing Paul‘s apostolic work. Paul says, “This is my defense to those who sit in judgment of me” (1 Cor 9:3), for they judged him. He had used the same verb (1 Cor 4:3): “But with me it is a small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court.” He declared himself accountable to God alone (1 Cor 4:4). Here he makes a similar point (1 Cor 9:16–17). In ch. 4, they judged him for his lack of rhetorically polished wisdom. In ch. 9 they criticize his lifestyle and his means of self–support. In both cases, he’s unfavorably compared to their ideal image of the true wise man.

Paul’s defense is with another salvo of rhetorical questions: his right as a free person to eat and drink what he likes (1 Cor 9:4), and his right to receive support from the churches (1 Cor 9:6). The former links to ch. 8, and the latter to his succeeding argument (9:6–14), smoothing the transition.Exousia is the key word: “Do we not have the right/authority [exousia] to eat and drink?” Paul throws their own buzzword back at them, emphasized by its 3 fold repetition (9:4–6). [“Take care lest this exousia of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak” (1 Cor 8:9)] Paul has the right to eat what he wants, be accompanied by a wife like the other apostles (1 Cor 9:5), and be supported financially by the churches he founded (1 Cor 9:6). Yet, he doesn’t do any of these things. The very posing of the questions suggests the important distinction between having a right and exercising it. That Paul chooses NOT to use his rights doesn‘t mean that he lacks the authority to do them.Pitting leaders against one another. Paul’s point with wives of “the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas” (1 Cor 9:5) [cf. Christian traditions that insist upon clerical celibacy] is that they have the right to receive support from the churches for their wives to accompany them in their travels. “The Lord’s brothers” are Jesus’ natural siblings, who overcame their initial skepticism (Mk 3:31–35) and became leaders of the early church (Acts 1:14). James, Jesus’ brother, emerged as a prominent figure in the Jerusalem church (Acts 12:17; 15:13–21; 21:18). Mentioning Cephas suggests again that partisans of Cephas were those who opposed Paul (1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22).Financial support is their most troublesome issue (1 Cor 9:6). Apostles are normally supported by their churches. But Paul and Barnabas are exceptions (Ac 4:36–37; 9:26–28; 11:19–26; 15:36–41). Paul spins 3 analogies: Don’t soldiers and vine growers and shepherds all get their livelihood from their work (1 Cor 9:7)? Likewise, proclaimers of the Word should be sustained by their own flock of followers. Paul turns to the authority of Scripture. The Law supports Paul’s case that he has a right to be financially supported by the church (9:8–11). He cites other Christian leaders (9:5–6), common–sense analogies (1 Cor 9:7), and quotes Dt 25:4: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” What is Paul’s complex hermeneutical strategy?

  1. God is really concerned about human beings, not oxen, and the text should be read accordingly (1 Cor 9:9–10).
  2. Dt 25:4 supports Paul’s claim. The laws in Dt 24, 25 (Dt 24:6–7, 10–22; 25:1–3) almost all serve to promote dignity and justice for human beings [1 verse about the threshing ox sits oddly in this context. Paul would’ve read this to suggesting justice in human economic affairs.].
  3. The point is the ox being driven around and around the threshing floor shouldn‘t be cruelly restrained from eating the food that his own labor is making. Since he’s working, the ox should be allowed to eat; so, too, with apostles.
  4. Finally, Paul is not just claiming that the verse applies to human laborers; rather, “It was indeed written for our sake” (1 Cor 9:10)–the church. 1st person plural pronoun (“written for our sake”) has the same implied antecedent as the 1st person plural pronoun: “If we [Paul & associates] have sown spiritual things among you, is it a big thing if we reap material things among you?” (1 Cor 9:11). This instructs them to financially support Paul and apostles, eschatologically disclosed, concluding with 1 Cor 9:12a. Paul has a stronger claim than anyone on a fair share of the crop (1 Cor 9:10).

Choosing to NOT make use of his right. Paul at last makes the point he’s building up throughout ch. 9: despite his exousia to receive support, he doesn’t use his (1 Cor 9:12b). Why? Because he doesn’t want to “put an obstacle in the way of the gospel.” This echos the “stumbling block” image (1 Cor 8:9, 13). To Paul, accepting financial support hinders his gospel ministry, his preeminent concern. So, he takes no money. Finally, 2 more arguments for Paul’s right to receive support.

  1. The analogy of the priests in the temple getting a share of the sacrificial meat (1 Cor 9:13)—a particularly vivid image in light of the issue under discussion in ch. 8–10.
  2. Finally, almost as an afterthought, is the trump card of the whole argument: Jesus himself commanded that proclaimers of the gospel should get their living by the gospel (1 Cor 9:14). Paul, a skilled rhetorician, saves his knockdown argument for last, introducing it without fanfare or elaboration, allowing the point to carry its own considerable weight. Paul doesn’t quote Jesus, but the tradition in commissioning the 72 to proclaim the kingdom of God: “The laborer is worthy of/deserves his wages/keep” (Mt 10:10; Lk 10:7). (1 Tim 5:17–18 quotes this alongside Dt 25:4 to teach that elders who rule well in the church should get “double honor,” i.e., extra pay.)

Reference:

  1. Richard B. Hays. First Corinthians. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. 1997.
  2. Gordon D. Fee. First Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the NT. 1987.
  3. Richard B. Hays. The Moral Vision of the N.T. A Contemporary Introduction to N.T. Ethics. 1996.
Number of Views: 357