Deeper Commentary
CHAPTER 9
9:1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
Are not you my works in the Lord?- The preceding chapter has spoken of
how although we are 'free' to eat idol food, we should not do so for the
sake of the weaker others. Now Paul starts to appropriate those principles
to himself on a more personal level. Just as their liberty / freedom could
cause others to stumble (8:9), so Paul too is "free" but he doesn't use
that freedom, nor his authority, in a way which might make them stumble.
He had authority / power over them- he had seen Jesus, been commissioned
by Him as an apostle, and although he had not baptized many of them, they
were his spiritual children and the result of his work for them. But he
likewise would not use that power in a way which was harmful for them
spiritually- as he has been expounding in chapter 8. This principle of not
abusing power, knowledge and truth needs to be programmatic in our lives.
9:2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you. For you
are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord- Paul repeatedly speaks of
his authority over the Corinthians because he has been the source of their
conversion to Christ. He claims to be their spiritual father, and they
were his "work" in the Lord (:1) and the proof in fact that he is an
apostle to them. And yet he is clear in chapter 1 that he baptized very
few of them. We could infer from this that he had preached to them and
taught them, but had been careful to get others to perform the baptisms.
We could also infer that since he had left Corinth, there had been
relatively few baptisms by anyone else; unless we are to understand the
entire correspondence as being addressed only to those within the church
whom he counted as 'his work'. But that seems unlikely and there is no
hint of that being the case. The "others" who didn't count Paul as an
apostle would presumably be other purportedly Christian teachers who had
visited Corinth and sought to poison them against Paul by claiming he was
not in fact an apostle. This would presumably refer to the Jewish satan,
an organized attempt to undo and discredit Paul's work in every church he
founded. And this would explain the hints we have that Corinth had been
troubled by Judaizers. Paul claims the very fact the Corinthians were his
converts was evidence enough that he had been 'sent' to them and was
indeed therefore their 'sent one' or apostle. Whilst we are not apostles
in the sense that Paul specifically was, it remains true that those who
bring others to Christ have some authority over them and should be
afforded appropriate respect throughout their spiritual journey.
9:3 My defence to them that examine me is this- This is language
from the courtroom. The Corinthians had written to Paul and he is
replying; and they had included the criticisms which had been made of
Paul. Yet Paul almost revels in such legal language elserwhere, especially
in his letter to the Romans. His idea is that because we have appeared
before God's throne and been justified, leaving no outstanding accusation
against us, we are free from accusation altogether. And yet he here does
make a response to the criticisms. Whether or not to respond to criticism
is always a hard choice. Paul's major argument was quite simply that he
had brought the Corinthians to Christ. To argue about whether he had been
sent to them as an apostle was academic. We likewise should seek to answer
criticism by appealing to mega principles, rather than arguing about
details. The fruit of a person's life work in the Lord is what is
important, and not carping criticisms rooted in personality issues.
It was the Jews and their “false brethren” who infiltrated the ecclesias
(Gal. 2:4), and who were responsible for the deaths of many of the first
century apostles and prophets. This suggests that the circumcision party
within the ecclesias was linked with the Roman and Jewish authorities, and
therefore ‘satan’ is a term used for them all. It got beyond dirty
politics in the church. This would explain why Paul uses legal language in
describing his conflicts with the Judaizing element in Corinth: “My
defence [apologia, a technical legal term] to those [in the
ecclesia] who examine me [another legal term, anakrinein]…” (1 Cor.
9:3). The false teachers were taking the likes of Paul before the civil
authorities- they were hand in glove. Rev. 17 and 18 describes ‘Babylon’
as the system which was responsible for these deaths. Whatever other
interpretation we may give these chapters (and I would agree there is a
strong similarity with the evils of the Roman Catholic church), it cannot
be denied that they are full of reference to Old Testament passages
concerning Jerusalem, the Jews, and the temple, which became a spiritual
Babylon. I suggest that it was from within the Jerusalem ecclesia, linked
up as it was with the temple system and Roman authorities, that there came
much of the persecution of the early church. And this is why ‘Babylon’ in
its first century application refers to these things.
9:4 Have we no right to eat and to drink?- Paul had authority to
ask the Corinthians to provide him with food and drink, basic sustenance.
But "we did not use this right" (:12). He had the right- but didn't use
it. It seems he was put in a position where he had to be wrong; if he
didn't claim basic sustenance, then apparently he was not an apostle,
because in first century terms, a teacher had authority to require his
keep from his converts. And if he didn't ask for it- then he was not
really a legitimate teacher. And yet if Paul had made use of this right,
he would have been accused of profiteering. This idea of having the
possibility of using concessions but choosing not to is of course exactly
what he has just been talking about in the context of marriage and eating
idol meat.
9:5 Have we no right to lead a wife that is a believer, even as the
rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?-
Singleness was not respected in first century society. A religious leader
ought to be married- As with the matter of asking for material support,
whatever Paul did in the marital area was likewise going to be criticized.
He has explained in chapter 7 that marriage is permissible, but he invites
single converts to try following his own example of singleness in order to
do the Lord's work. But religious leaders were expected to be married. We
can quite imagine the likely gossip this created- that perhaps Paul was
gay, or a womanizer with multiple casual relationships. If indeed as a
Sanhedrin member, Paul had once been married, we can imagine how that fact
would be distorted. He indeed had the "right" to be married to a believer,
and to lead her with him around his missionary circuits. As, he says,
Peter and the other apostles did. We note he mentions Peter separately, a
reflection of the huge respect he had for him. Indeed in the commentary on
Acts I have suggested Paul was almost obsessed with Peter and pretended to
him. The respect of the intellectual Jerusalem rabbi for illiterate
fisherman Peter is quite the lesson in respect within the body of Christ.
We note too that the Lord's brothers, who were once so against Him, became
leading missionaries in the early church. Paul had a "right" or "power" (exousia)
to be married; but he did not use that power / right, just as he has been
explaining in previous chapters that we are not to use power or knowledge
just because we have it, but should seek above all the building up of
others to God's glory. And that is the principle we are to take away from
this.
“To lead a wife” is literally, to lead around. See on Acts 9:43. It is
perhaps significant, given the theme of ‘following’ in the records of
Peter, that he became well known for ‘leading about’ his wife, as if she
followed him everywhere. Peter translated the principles of following
Christ into domestic life. There was a time when he may well have
‘forsaken’ his wife in order to follow Christ (Mt. 19:27-29). But further
down that path of following he came to see that as he was to follow his
Lord to the end, so he was to be as the self-crucifying Christ to her, and
lead her in her following of him that she might follow Christ.
9:6 Or are Barnabas and I the only ones who have a right not to have to
work for a living?- Paul likewise did not have to work as a
tentmaker. But he did; he chose a higher level for the sake of others. The
point was that other apostles made use of such a concession; but the fact
Paul didn't laid him open to criticism. But whichever way, he was going to
be condemned by his critics.
9:7 What soldier ever serves at his own expense?- Paul used
the metaphor of soldiery in explaining to Timothy the discipline required
in missionary work. He saw his work for the converts as having fought for
them, risking his life to liberate them in Christ. He could be implying
that he in his case had done this work "t his own expense"; for clearly
Paul at times did have access to funds. He lived in his own hired house in
Rome, and was thought wealthy enough to possibly pay a bribe for his early
release from prison in Jerusalem. And yet perhaps Paul is overstating his
case here, as he does at times; for in 2 Cor. 11:8 he admits he took
material help from other churches whilst ministering at Corinth, so as not
to ask them for money.
Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who feeds a
flock and does not drink the milk of the flock?-
Although he had not baptized many of them, Paul saw
the Corinthian church as a vineyard he had planted. They were a flock he
had fed; and so he could have legitimately asked for something material
from them in return. The One who planted a vineyard and got no fruit
alludes to the parable of the wicked husbandmen. God's hopefulness and
fruitless care for Israel was reflected in Paul's for the Corinthians. The
metaphor of drinking milk from a flock is slightly strange in that it
suggests the Corinthians were a flock of cows or possibly goats- and not
sheep. For a shepherd doesn't drink milk from his sheep.
9:8 Do I speak these things after the manner of men? Or did not the law
say the same?
- See on Dt. 25:4. At first blush it might seem strange to appeal to
the immoral, Gentile Corinthians on the basis of an argument from the
Jewish law. But I have mentioned elsewhere that there was a Judaistic
element at work in Corinth; as noted on Titus, immoral Gentile Christians
were attracted to the Judaistic arguments because they felt legalistic
obedience to a few laws justified their immorality in other areas. To this
day, this is the outcome of legalism in the churches.
9:9 For it is written in the law of Moses: You shall not muzzle the ox
when he treads out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God cares- In
another figure, Paul likens himself to a lowly ox treading out corn, and
being allowed to eat a bit of it. The argument seems to be that this
commandment was not given because God cares for oxen, but for the sake of
teaching us a principle. But often Paul uses a grammatical device whereby
he argues 'Not [so much] A, but B'. Such a device is common in several
other languages. God is clearly not insensitive to animals, as so many
cases in the Old Testament demonstrate. So surely we are to read this as
meaning that this command about not muzzling the ox was not primarily for
the sake of the oxen, but even more importantly for the sake of teaching
us a lesson. The treading out of corn connects with the metaphor of
judgment day in Mt. 3:12, where we read that the "floor", literally 'the
treading place' will be winnowed by the Lord Jesus in judgment. The fruit
of Paul's labours for Corinth would be tested by the winnowing of what he
had trodden out. He saw his work as preparing them for judgment, making
them true grain, separating them from the husks.
9:10 Or did He say it entirely for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was
written. Because he that ploughs ought to plough in hope, and he that
threshes, hopes to partake in the harvest- The context of this
argument, both in :11 and the preceding verses, is that Paul would be
justified in receiving material compensation for his work. But he elevates
that argument to a higher level here. He says that the benefit he
ultimately hopes to get out of this is that if his treading out leads to
their acceptance at the day of judgment, then he will share in the
harvest. He too will as it were eat the trodden out corn. Elsewhere Paul
says the same- that his reward in the Kingdom will be a function of
whether his brethren are there too.
"He that ploughs" doesn't refer to a ploughman, as some paraphrase Bible
versions wrongly claim. The allusion continues to the ox, who ploughs. "He
that threshes" likewise refers to the ox, because the same word is used in
:9 about the ox treading out the corn. Paul saw all his missionary
activity with the Corinthians as the work of the humble ox, up and down
the fields, back and forth threshing out the corn. The repetitious nature
of teaching Biblical principles so familiar to us, patiently bearing with
the same questions- all this humble work is what will lead folks to the
life eternal. The parallel likes to imagine that the ox ploughs up the
fields looking forward to the time when the crop sown will bear grain
which he shall thresh, and get a few mouthfuls of that harvest by God's
grace in allowing him an unmuzzled mouth. Breaking up the fields to
receive the seed of God's word is indeed hard and thankless work. Paul was
far from the modern 'evangelist' doing acrobatics from a stage to impress
an audience. Such work is hard, and will only have any reward or true
recognition when the harvest has been winnowed at the Lord's return.
9:11 If we sowed to you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we
shall reap your material things?- Paul slightly changes the metaphor
here, likening himself to the sower. Clearly the sower parable was in his
mind, with its purposeful ambiguity as to whether the sower is the Lord
Jesus personally, or all those in Him who sow His word. According to
Paul's principle of Gal. 6:8, sowing to the spirit will lead to a
spiritual harvest; and a material or fleshly harvest from sowing to the
flesh. But here he seems to be saying that he does indeed sow to the
spirit and hopes for a spiritual harvest, but seeing the flesh / material
is far less than the spiritual, he sees no reason why before that
spiritual harvest comes, he shouldn't receive some material harvest from
them too.
9:12 If others have this rightful claim over you, do we not have more?-
Clearly the Corinthians were under the influence of other teachers,
probably Judaists, who claimed the right to material support from the
Corinthians. Or it could be that the "others" refer to the other apostles
who had visited Corinth (:5) and who had asked for material support. But
as the one who had led them to Christ, Paul felt he had more rightful
claim than anyone else.
Nevertheless we did not use this right, but we bear all things, that we
may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ-
Paul will soon use the very same phrase "bear all
things" in saying that love bears all things (1 Cor. 13:7). Love is
therefore no mere emotion or passing clutch at the heart. Love involved a
carefully thought out policy, looking ahead to how asking for money would
hinder the Gospel in this case. The idea of 'hindrance' is fairly common
in the NT, and it is individuals who are hindered, or the spread of the
Gospel. So we must interpret "the Gospel of Christ" here as referring to
the spiritual progress of those who had accepted it; or to the spreading
of that Gospel. For the Gospel is in itself an imperative to spread it.
And Paul saw here, in contrast to many evangelists today, that asking for
money can in some ways and contexts actually hinder the Gospel's work.
Clearly enough, the spread and progress of the Gospel, both to unbelievers
and within those who have accepted it, depends upon us to some degree. We,
or other people and attitudes, can hinder it. God will not just brush past
our dysfunctions. So much has been delegated to us, and we are to act
appropriately.
It seems that "the Gospel" is put by a figure for 'the spirituality which
the doctrines of the Gospel brings forth, so close is the link between the
Gospel and the inculcation of spirituality. We must walk worthy of that
pure doctrine, in the abstract sense of doctrine, which we have received
(Eph. 4:4-6). The purpose of keeping our understanding of the basic
principles clear is that this will lead to true love and faith (1 Tim.
1:3-5).
Paul says he could have asked Corinth ecclesia to support him financially,
but he chose not to. Thus he chose the higher of two options. See on 1
Cor. 7:11.
9:13 Do you not know that they that labour in the temple get their food
from the temple, and they that serve at the altar have their portion from
that which is sacrificed on the altar?- This argument from Jewish law
might seem inappropriate for Gentile, immoral Christians in Corinth. But
Paul's appeal to Jewish argument is likely because of the presence of
Judaist influence, encouraging the Gentiles in their immorality by kidding
them that obedience to some Jewish laws could of itself assure their
salvation. The New Testament is very insistent that the true temple
of God is the body of Christian believers (1 Cor. 9:13; 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb.
10:21; 1 Pet. 4:17; Rev. 3:12; 11:1,2; 1 Tim. 3:15). This string of
passages is quite some emphasis. Yet the Lord Jesus was the temple; He
spoke of the temple of His body (Jn. 2:19-21; Rev. 21:22). For this
reason, the Gospels seem to stress the connection between Him and the
temple (Mk. 11:11,15,16,27; 12:35; 13:1,3; 14:49; Lk. 2:46; 21:38).
Christ's body was the temple of God. By being in Christ, we too are the
temple (1 Cor. 3:16,17; Eph. 2:21), our body is the temple of God
(1 Cor. 6:19). Paul therefore saw his work for others in the church as
being like a priest labouring in the temple. He saw himself as a temple
servant, a Levite, able to take literally the food required to sustain
life- a far cry from pastors demanding 10% of everyone's cash.
9:14 Even so the Lord ordained that they that proclaim the gospel
should live from the gospel- Paul’s almost rabbinic respect for every
word of his Lord indicates how deeply he had them in his heart as the law
of his life. He speaks of how “The Lord [Jesus] commanded that
those who preach the Gospel should get their living by the Gospel” (1 Cor.
9:14 RSV). The Lord Jesus didn’t command this in so many words- but it’s
the implication of His teaching in Lk. 9:1-5; 10:1-12, especially of Lk.
10:4 “The workman deserves his food / keep” (Gk.). But those words of the
Lord to the disciples were understood by Paul as a command- so
clearly did he appreciate that those men following Jesus around Galilee
are really us, and every word of the Lord to them is in some form a
command to us. Another example would be the way Paul states that the Lord
‘commanded’ that the wife is not to separate from her husband (1 Cor.
7:10). The Lord didn’t actually state that in so many words- but He
implied it quite clearly. And so that for Paul was a command. He didn’t
reduce the teachings of Jesus to a set of yes / no statements; rather he
saw, as we should, even every implication of the words of Jesus as
a command to us. You will notice that in both these examples from 1
Corinthians, Paul doesn’t explicitly quote the Lord Jesus in the format in
which we expect a citation- e.g. ‘I’m saying this, because it is known and
written that Jesus said, XYZ’. I submit that this wasn’t simply because
the Gospels weren’t in wide circulation when Paul was writing. Rather I
think that the indirectness of Paul’s allusions and quotations from the
words of Jesus reflect how his mind was so full of the Lord’s words
that he doesn’t quote from them in a formal sense, as one usually would
quote from literature or the known words of a respected person. Rather did
Jesus so live within Paul’s consciousness, His words were so widely
and deeply within the texture of his thinking, that the allusions and
quotations are made less self-consciously. 9:16,17- see on Acts 18:4,5.
Yet despite this provision, Paul chose to disobey what he calls a
‘command’ from the Lord- because he figured that the purposes of the
Gospel would be served better long term if he in his case didn’t obey that
command. Paul was no legalist- for legalism would reason that a command is
there to be obeyed; but Paul perceived a higher principle than legalistic
obedience. Not only does all this give an insight into the nature of a
man’s relationship with his Lord when he knows Christ well enough; but it
indicates the huge priority placed by Paul upon the spreading of the
Gospel. He would even relegate a ‘command’ from the Lord Jesus beneath the
overall aim of spreading the Gospel. This is a line of reasoning which is
of course dangerous for us to adopt; but it indicates the priority
given to preaching. Actually one sees other examples of this in Paul- he
observed Torah amongst the Jews, but broke it amongst the Gentiles; he
thus relativized obedience to Divine law for the sake of the spreading of
the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:22). In fact all Paul’s decisions in controversial
matters seem to have been made based around the ultimate question: ‘What
would be best for spreading the Gospel?’. Perhaps the Lord was making the
same point when He told His preachers to stay in their converts’ homes and
eat whatever was out before them (Lk. 10:8), i.e. without insisting on
eating kosher food. For the Pharisees insisted that an observant Jew could
not do what the Lord said- i.e. eat ‘whatever’ was set before them.
But the Lord waived that commandment- for the sake of spreading the
Gospel. And we do well to get into his spirit as we face the many calls we
do in church life.
9:15 But I have used none of these things, and I do not write these
things that it may be so done in my case- Paul is covering himself
against the likely twist of this words, to the effect that he was hinting
at wanting money from the Corinthians. We need to think ahead to the
likely impact our words and positions are going to have, and the
possibility of misinterpretation.
For it is better for me to die, than that anyone should make my boasting
void-
Paul goes on to say that
he has nothing to glory / boast of regarding his Gospel work, for he is
only doing his job (:16). So what glory of his does he fear might be made
void? He has argued that his whole approach to these issues is because he
wants to see them saved, and their salvation will be part of his
salvation- for will partake in the same hope, the same acceptance of the
Corinthians into immortality. If they were to be accepted into God's
Kingdom, then they would be his glory. Thus he states in 2 Cor.
1:14 that the Corinthians accepted into God's Kingdom would be his glory
[s.w.]. Likewise he would glory in the day of Christ if the Philippian
converts were accepted (Phil. 2:16). Paul had constantly in mind this
picture of his rejoicing / boast / glory on their behalf at judgment day;
and therefore even in this life, he boasted / gloried about them (2 Cor.
7:14; 9;2), and the Thessalonians too (2 Thess. 1:4). The accepted
Thessalonians at the last day would be Paul's glory and joy (1 Thess.
2:20). This future glorying which Paul ever had in mind would, however, be
made void if the Corinthians turned away from the faith. And by asking
them for money, Paul feared he might make them stumble out of the path to
the Kingdom, and thus his future glorying in their salvation by grace
would be voided. Throughout Corinthians, Paul speaks of his fear that his
labour would be void, or "in vain", if they turned away from Christ (1
Cor. 15:14,58; 2 Cor. 6:1). Likewise if the Philippians and Thessalonians
turned away, then his labour also would be in vain / voided (Phil. 2:16; 1
Thess. 3:15). Paul felt that he would prefer to die rather than see their
salvation lost and his glory in them voided. His whole life and reason for
being was the salvation of others; and this must be our pattern. This
explains his extreme concern for his brethren's path, rather than
shrugging his shoulders. His desire to die if they were not saved is
clearly alluding to Moses, who asked that his name be taken out of the
book of the living so that Israel might be saved, and Paul in Romans 9
applies this spirit to himself. This desire to die if they were not going
to be saved reflected how he felt he had nothing to live for apart from
the salvation of others- a powerful challenge to our cluttered lives. It
provides help in understanding his comment that he did have a desire to
die, but to remain alive in the flesh was more necessary for his converts
(Phil. 1:23).
9:16- see on Acts 20:26.
For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast about. For necessity
is laid upon me-
We may need to read in an ellipsis here: 'If I preach the Gospel [from a
sense of necessity]. The necessity, in the context, would be the necessity
of preaching because he was a paid preacher and needed an income in order
to survive. But he goes on to explain that because he is not preaching
from the necessity of getting an income, his necessity is of a more
spiritual kind. Again we see the contrast between the way of the flesh and
that of the Spirit. The necessity he had was one laid upon him by God and
the Lord Jesus; and not because of his material needs. "Necessity" is the
same word translated "compel" in Lk. 14:23- "compel them to come in" and
sit in their places at the marriage supper of the Lamb. The compulsion is
laid upon us by the tragedy of human rejection of the places Christ
prepared for them, and the wonderful, so easy possibility to be there.
Significantly, this same Greek word is used elsewhere about the
'necessities' which are part of our ministry of the Gospel (2 Cor. 6:4;
12:10). The urgency of our task will lead us into many an urgent
situation, with all the compelling needs which accompany them. But that
compulsion, in this context, was from spiritual reasons and not because we
want financial gain in this life.
For woe to me, if I do not preach the gospel- The "woe" was because
he would not be discharging his need before God to preach. It may be that
in these words Paul is alluding to how the High Priest had to have bells
so that "his sound may be heard... that he die not" (Ex. 28:35; this idea
of the sound being heard is picked up in Ps. 19 concerning the spread of
the Gospel). Whatever the predestined and foreknown purpose of God with
Paul as a preacher may have been, the fact still stands that the record
emphasizes the quite natural spirit of compulsion to preach which arose
within him. Paul was under no financial necessity to preach- indeed he
himself admits a tendency not to preach, to hold back from giving his all
to fulfil that commission he had received to testify of the Gospel of
God’s grace (1 Cor. 9:16). He asks his brethren to pray that he
would be able to “make it manifest” more than he did (Col. 4:4 cp. Eph.
6:20). He voluntarily, and not for financial motive, made himself a slave
to all, selling himself as it were into slavery, in order to save them
(:19).
9:17 For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if against
my own will, then I have clearly had a stewardship entrusted to me-
The "reward" referred to the financial motives which Paul has just denied
having. The fact that true preaching is a carrying of the cross explains
why Paul felt that the fact that to preach what he did went right against
his natural grain, it was not at all what he wanted to do, and this was
the proof that indeed a “dispensation of the Gospel” had been given to
him. Likewise Jeremiah complained that the visions which he had to preach,
about violence and judgment, were quite against the grain of his sensitive
soul (Jer. 46:5 RV; 47:6). There is therefore no such person as a natural
preacher in the ultimate sense. This is a job one would not do for money,
not any amount of it.
It seems strange to think that Paul had to make himself preach,
that he did it against his natural will. But remember his poor eyesight,
ugly physical appearance, his embarrassing early life spent persecuting
and torturing Christians - no wonder public preaching of Christ was
something he had to make himself do. It may be that the reason he went to
the wilderness of Arabia after his conversion was that he was running away
from the command to preach publicly (Gal. 1:17,18). Several times he
speaks of how he fears he will lose his nerve to preach, and thereby lose
his salvation; he even asks others to pray for him that he will preach
more boldly. It also needs to be remembered that Paul was a passionate
Jew; he loved his people. It seems that he "preached circumcision" (Gal.
5:11) in the sense of being involved in actively trying to proselytize
Gentiles. But it was Paul the Hebrew of the Hebrews who was called to be
the apostle to the Gentiles. It might have sounded more appropriate
if preaching to the Jews was his specialism, and fisherman Peter from
half-Gentile Galilee went to the Gentiles. But no. Each man was sent
against his grain. And more than this. It seems that the Lord set up
Peter, James and John as some kind of replacement to the Scribes and
rabbis. And let’s not forget Amos, too. He defended his prophetic
ministry, as Paul defended his, by saying that it was something he had
been called to quite against his nature. He was not a prophet nor a
prophet’s son, and yet he was taking from following his flock of sheep to
be a prophet to Israel- quite against his will and inclination (Am.
7:14,15).
9:18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may
present the gospel without charge- This was the question the cynical
Corinthians wanted answering. Why was Paul preaching, if indeed it was not
for money or personal gain? Paul’s decision not to take money from
Corinth was due to his deep, deep meditation on the principle contained in
Mt. 10:8 "freely you have received, freely give"; although there were
other passages in the Gospels, even two verses later in Matthew 10, which
he knew implied that it was Christ's will that the missionary should be
paid (1 Cor. 9:14 = Mt. 10:10). This issue of payment shows how Paul based
his life decisions on his understanding of the principles of the Gospels.
He did far more than learn those Gospels parrot-fashion. They were in his
heart, and influenced the direction of his life.
So as not to use to the full my right in the gospel- Paul could
have taken wages from the Corinthians for his service. But on that
occasion he chose “not to use to the full my right in the gospel”; and he
uses the same word in 1 Cor. 7:31, in teaching that although we have to
‘use this world’ we are to ‘use it to the full’ (RVmg.). As God operates
with us on different levels, accepting non-ideal situations, so we are to
deal with each other. Paul could have used his power in the Gospel more
sharply than he actually did with the Corinthians (2 Cor. 13:10)- and note
how he earlier uses those two words "power" and "use" in saying that he
could have demanded financial support from them, but he chose not to use
that power / authority which he had (1 Cor. 9:12).
9:19- see on Mt. 20:27 and 1 Cor. 9:16 Woe to me.
For though I was free from all, I brought myself under bondage to all,
that I might gain the more-
Far from seeking personal financial gain from preaching, Paul had as it
were sold himself into slavery so that he might save others. But he "was
free from all" in that he did not take money for preaching. The idea of
gaining or winning people rather than money [as he was falsely
accused of] alludes to the Lord's words about winning men (Mt. 18:15).
When Paul speaks of how he has "made myself a slave unto all" in his
preaching (1 Cor. 9:19), there is an evident connection with his reasoning
in Phil. 2:7 about how on the cross, the Lord Jesus likewise made
Himself a servant to all. For Paul, preaching was and is to be a sharing
in the cross of Christ. In his preaching of the Gospel, Paul could say
that "I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more" (1 Cor.
9:19). Yet elsewhere, Paul uses the idea of the "servant unto all" as
descriptive of Christ's attitude upon the cross (Phil. 2:7). The
connection of thought reflects how Paul understood that in seeking to gain
others for Christ, we make ourselves their servants, and in this sense our
witness to them is a living out of the principles of the cross. Being such
a "servant unto all" hardly squares well with the image of arrogant
platform preachers dazzling their audiences. That isn't the preaching
which truly 'gains' people for Christ.
If we can at least grasp the spirit of taking up Christ's cross, there
will be a deep sense of fellowship with others who have reached the same
realization; and a deep joy and calmness in confidence of sharing His
resurrection. The cross is attainable. It’s not just an awful thing
that happened in a few hours of history so long ago, the details of which
we flinch from, excusing ourselves that it’s just too terrible. Look how
Paul alludes to it, and arose to the point where he could truly claim to
us that he was living the crucified life. The Lord predicted in Mk.
10.44,45: "and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of
all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many". And Paul alludes to
this in 1 Cor. 9.19: "I have made myself a slave to all..."; and
later in 1 Cor. 10.33: "Just as I also please all men in all things, not
seeking my own profit, but the profit of the many, that they may be
saved". Through his sharing in the cross of the Lord Jesus, he, the
very human Paul, became an agent in the salvation of all men. He too
became a ‘slave of all’ after the pattern of the Lord in His time of
dying. We may make excuses about Jesus not being exactly in our position,
because God was His Father etc. Valid or not, those excuses disappear when
we are faced with Paul’s challenge.
9:20- see on 2 Cor. 11:24.
And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews. To them
that are under the law, I became as one under the law-
Acts is full of examples of this. Indeed, Paul's
arrest in Jerusalem which led to his journey to imprisonment in Rome was
all due to trying to be as a Jew to the Jews, entering the temple and
paying for sacrifices. To become something else to others must be done for
the sake of connection with them, with their salvation in view- there is a
fine line at times between this and the natural desire we have to be as
others would like us to be, apparently adopting their positions for the
sake of peace and acceptance. The Lord Jesus was by nature one of us, but
Phil. 2:5-9 speak as if He 'became' as us- in that He wilfully entered
fully into our human situations. And this came to ultimate term in the
death of the cross.
Though I am not under the law-
One of the simplest and thereby most powerful statements that the Law of
Moses is not now operative nor required for Christians.
That I might gain those that are under the law-
Paul is writing this in answer to the aspersion that
he was in the preaching business for personal or financial "gain". He is
saying that the gain he sought was for the Lord and for his converts- that
they should be gained for Christ and the life eternal. Yet again, He is
alluding to the Lord's teaching, which uses the same Greek word for
"gain". The Lord taught against seeking personal gain, even gaining the
whole world (Mt. 16:26)- instead we should seek to gain our brother (Mt.
18:15, cp. 1 Pet. 3:1). Paul could say that he had 'lost' all the secular
things which he once counted "gain" (Phil. 3:7).
9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, not being without
law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are
without law- Whilst Paul was "not under the [Jewish] law" (:20), he
clarifies that this does not mean that he is in total "without law to
God". God's law is now not the law of Moses, but the law of Christ. The
law of Christ is to bear each others' burdens (Gal. 6:2). This was what
Paul was doing by trying to relate to others in the burdens they carried,
even if those burdens were a self-imposed attempt to keep the Jewish law.
He has used the slavery metaphor in :19, saying that he was a slave to all
men's salvation; but that is the same as being under the law of Christ,
whose passion is the salvation of all men.
9:22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I have
become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some- The
"weak" in NT usage are the spiritually weak. He "became weak" without
being spiritually "weak". The "weak" in the Corinthian context were those
who still thought that the pagan gods behind the idols actually existed (1
Cor. 8:7,10), those who were smitten with weakness because of their gross
sins (1 Cor. 11:30), the weak parts of the body of Christ that need extra
care (1 Cor. 12:22). Perhaps Paul has in mind the 'weak' as being those
who were taken in by Judaism, who were still "under the law"; for the same
word is used about the weakness of the Law of Moses (Heb. 7:18). It is a
tribute to the Lord Jesus that someone of His spirituality could be
naturally attractive to sinners such as tax collectors and prostitutes.
Paul likewise sought to connect with the spiritually weak- the total
opposite of his earlier Rabbinic mindset, which sought to distance oneself
from the spiritually weak. He desired by all means to "save some"- but the
Greek appears to mean "somebody". To save just one person was worth it
all. As Paul reflected upon how many had turned away, this must have
become an every stronger credo for him- to save at least one person is so
wonderful that all the grief is worth it. I have had those thoughts at the
funerals of those I feel I brought to Christ. By all means I saved
somebody, in bringing them to Christ the Saviour. We note that Paul felt
that he could play a role in another's salvation. The Lord's saving work
has been delegated to us to the extent that we can save some, and also
cause others to stumble from salvation.
Minucius records that opposition to the Christian faith was because the
believers so closely identified themselves with the crucified Christ that
His death and shame were seen as theirs: “They are said to be a man who
was punished with death as a criminal and the fatal wood of his cross,
thus providing suitable liturgy for the depraved friends". Thus we see how
deep was their appreciation of the doctrine of representation: they saw
the Lord in His time of dying as representative of themselves. Time and
again the words and actions of Paul show that both consciously and
unconsciously he was aware that he was experiencing in himself the
experiences of his Lord. In his preaching he made himself a
slave of all, weak that he might gain the weak (1 Cor.
9:19,22). This is language he elsewhere understands as appropriate to the
Lord in His death (2 Cor. 13:4; Phil. 2:7 cp. Mk. 9:35).
9:23 And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint
partaker of it- Here again we may need to read in an ellipsis with
regard to "the Gospel's sake". As explained on :10, Paul's hope was that
he would be a "partaker" in the final salvation of his converts, just like
the ox who ploughs and threshes in the hope he will get a mouthful of the
corn finally produced. As it stands here in :23, the "joint partaker" has
no reference- joint with what or whom? The sake of the Gospel therefore
refers, I suggest, to "the sake of your response to the Gospel". The "all
things" which he "did" refer in the context to being all things to all men
in order to save them. He did these things for the sake of their response
to the Gospel, so that he might be a joint partaker with them of the hope
of the Gospel.
9:24 Do you not know that they that run in a race all run, but only one
receives the prize? Run like this, so that you may attain the prize-
There is only one who so ran that He received the prize thanks to His own
efforts- and that was the Lord Jesus. But we are in Him, and should run
like Him. But we must read this emphasis upon one receiving the prize as
an intended contrast to what Paul has just written- that salvation was a
matter of being "a joint partaker" of the hope contained in the
Gospel. We are to run as if in a race where only one gets the
prize- even though that prize is in another sense a matter of 'joint
partaking', a prize received jointly. For Paul felt that the nature of his
eternity was tied up in the salvation of his converts. He doesn't want
them to think that this idea of joint partaking meant that they were not
to run well themselves. They were to run, as he himself did (:26), as if
it was a very personal race with an individual, unique prize at the end of
the course. And yet in another sense, that prize is a collective matter, a
'joint partaking'.
9:25- see on Lk. 13:24.
And every man that strives in the games exercises self-control in all
things. Now they do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we an
incorruptible- Paul lifts the
arguments about receiving material advantage from preaching to an
altogether higher plane. We are aiming to receive an eternal,
incorruptible victory wreath. Even the highest personal achievements and
possessions in secular life are not worthy to be compared with that. The
crown is both personal and collective; Paul speaks of the Philippians and
Thessalonians as being his eternal crown- if they entered God's Kingdom
(Phil. 4:1; 1 Thess. 2:19). Paul's striving [literally, 'agonizing'] was
not just for his own crown, but for they to be accepted at the last day.
The contrast between corruptible and incorruptible will be developed later
in 1 Cor. 15:52; our corruptible body will be made incorruptible at the
resurrection of the body at the Lord's return. The crown is therefore to
be understood as the change of our bodies, both of Paul and the
Corinthians, at the last day. The crown will therefore be very personal
and intimate to ourselves- it is in the form of our eternal bodies. And
those bodies, that being, shall reflect our efforts for others. If those
we work with are saved as a function of our efforts for them, then they
shall be part of our crown. Paul's self control was motivated by a desire
for others' salvation as well as his own. And this surely is one of the
factors explaining the Lord's amazing achievement of perfection within
human nature; the motivation came from a desire to save us. For He died
primarily "for us". If we are motivated solely by a desire to save
ourselves, to get eternity for our personal body, then we will likely
fail. We are too dysfunctional to be deeply motivated by that. But
enduring for the sake of others' salvation is a more powerful motivator.
9:26 I therefore run, but not with uncertainty. So fight I, but not as
a shadow boxer- Later we will find Paul answering the aspersions that
he is indecisive and not serious (e.g. 2 Cor. 1:17). He was deadly
serious, totally focused, because the issues before him affected not only
his eternal destiny but that of many others. He uses the same word to urge
that the trumpet not give an uncertain sound (1 Cor. 14:8). Various images
are used in the Bible to bring home to us our sense of purpose. We are to
see ourselves as soldiers disciplining ourselves for action, fighting in
the only ultimately worthy cause with victory in sight; as slaves of a
great Master; as athletes running a race. Paul saw himself as very much in
reality, and not just shadowing boxing. Why does he bother saying this-
that he boxes not as one who merely beats the air? Surely because he
perceived that many people don’t grasp the ‘reality’ of life, and he stood
accused of being one of them. They think it’s all some virtual game,
online rather than real life. But Paul saw the real issues of eternal life
and eternal death very clearly. Those who responded to his preaching and
teaching really would live forever; those who rejected it or fell away
from it would ultimately remain eternally dead. Paul perceived that we are
dealing with the ultimate of all realities: the love of God, His feelings
for us, His mission and purpose for us, how every moment the King of the
Cosmos is yearning for us, the life eternal, the sense of the future men
might miss. And so Paul fought for it all, not uncertainly, and not as one
who feels only half in reality. It was his life.
9:27- see on 2 Cor. 12:10.
But like an athlete I discipline my body and make it my slave; lest by any
means, after I have preached to others-
The Greek for "body" is also translated "slave". Paul speaks here not
only of the extent of his self-mastery; he is continuing the metaphor of
enslavement with which he opened this section in :19. He made himself a
slave to all men in order to save them, empathizing with their
sensitivities and weaknesses in order to save them. And so continues the
theme being developed here; that although he would be a joint partaker
with his converts of the same hoped for salvation, yet he ran the race, as
they should, as if only he personally was going to get the prize. His
salvation, as ours, was personal; and yet on another hand, it was bound up
in the salvation of the others in his life. He beat his body (NEV
"discipline"), directing the boxing of :26 at himself, in order to enslave
himself- but that enslavement was for the salvation of others (:19). If he
did not do this, then having preached to others he would himself be
rejected. So his argument is that he would be rejected from salvation if
he did not enslave himself to the salvation of others. Serving them and
their foibles and needs was a necessary part of his own path to salvation.
This is a wide ranging principle. If we consider that we shall reach
salvation by simply focusing upon our own faith, sitting behind a screen
hitting the right buttons, but making no effort for the salvation of
others- then we may well find that in the longer term, we shall ourselves
miss salvation. This is the danger of the 'out of church Christian'
movement.
I myself should be disqualified- A castaway, reprobate, rejected. The threat of Lk. 9:23-25 rung in his
mind (also in 1 Cor. 3:15; 2 Cor. 7:9; Phil. 3:8): If a man gains the
world for Christ but does not take up the cross, or is ashamed of Christ's
words and principles in this world, he will be cast away.
Especially does Paul allude to these words here in 1 Cor. 9:27: "Lest,
when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway" (AV). Paul
recognized his temptation: to think that his zeal for preaching excused
him from taking up the cross. In essence, we must all see our own likely
temptations: to focus on one area of spirituality, with the hope that it
will excuse us from the cross.
The real possibility of rejection at judgment day was evidently a
motivator in Paul's life, and he used "the terror" of the coming day of
judgment to persuade men in his teaching of the ecclesias (2 Cor. 5:11),
and also in his preaching to the world (e.g. Acts 17:31). Paul's
exposition of judgment to come caused Felix to tremble (Acts 24:25). I
don't suppose Felix would if he walked into many churches today. The fact
is, many will be rejected. The unforgiving believer will be delivered to
the tormentors to pay what is due (Mt. 18:34); God is preparing torture
instruments for the punishment of the rejected (Ps. 7:13). These are
awesome descriptions of the self-inflicted mental agony in which the
rejected will writhe. The matchless grace of God and His eagerness for our
salvation should not be allowed to blunt the impact of these warnings- of
what we can do to ourselves, more than God doing to us. Almost certainly,
some of those you know today will go through the terrible rejection
process which we are going to explore now. People from all over the world,
the living responsible, will see the sign of the Son of man, will know His
return is imminent, and wail with the knowledge that they have crucified
Him afresh and must now meet Him (Mt. 24:30,31 cp. Rev. 1:7; Zech. 12:10).
Our response to the certain knowledge that His return is imminent will in
effect be our judgment.
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter 
