Paul’s Apostolic Rights, Which He Did Not Use (1 Corinthians 9:1–11)

The Apostle has proved that unwise use of freedom regarding the eating of food offered to idols is offensive to the weak and therefore must be avoided. Now he approaches them to persuade them to act thus. His persuasion draws from his own example. Look, as if he says, how I act: I have the right to live from the support of the faithful whom I have converted, but I do not do this, so as not to give reason to think I preach from mercenary motives and thereby turn away the weak from the Gospel. I myself work, I endure hunger and need, and I do not burden anyone with myself. Act so too. You see that your way of acting is offensive; change it. For you this requires no sacrifice; not so as for me. — The ninth chapter is devoted to the explanation of this. It appears to be a digression, but one should not regard it in that way.

Here are the words of St. Chrysostom on this: “The Apostle has not yet done what is expressed in the words: ‘if food causes my brother to stumble, I will not eat meat forever’, but only explained his readiness to do this if the need should require. Therefore, so that no one should say: you only boast, you show wisdom in words and make promises—which is easy for me and for everyone else—if you speak from the soul, then show it in deed, from what have you abstained so as not to offend a brother—he finds it necessary to explain this and show how he refrained even from what is permitted, so that he might not offend anyone, whereas no law compels him to do so. It is not only remarkable—though this itself is remarkable—that he refrained from what is permitted merely so as not to offend, but also that he refrained with great difficulty and amid dangers. Christ, he says, commanded the preachers of the Gospel to receive support from those whom they teach, but I did not even do this, and I resolved, should the need arise, to torment myself with hunger and subject myself to the most terrible death, only so as not to take anything from those whom I teach. And he makes as witnesses of this those very people with whom he worked, endured hunger, received his sustenance from others, and found himself in a constrained situation, so as not to offend them, though they would vainly have been offended, because it would have been a lawful matter; so much did he spare them! If, then, he himself acted above the law so as not to give cause for offense, and refrained from what is permitted for the instruction of others, what are they worthy of, not refraining from the offerings to idols, when many perish from that, and moreover, when even without offense one ought to refrain, because this is a table of demons. This is the chief content of the following verses (that is, of the ninth chapter). But the Apostle did not express his thought all at once, but began from afar.”

This beginning from afar consists in this, that, having to deal with the learned, St. Paul thought it necessary to prove to them comprehensively that he, as an Apostle, indeed had the right to receive support from the faithful whom he had converted. And thus arose the following course of thought: aa) I am an Apostle (1 Cor. 9:1–3); bb) as an Apostle, I could have used support from the faithful (1 Cor. 9:4–14); cc) but I did not use this right (1 Cor. 9:15–18); dd) and not only did I not use this, but I also renounced many other things for the benefit of those whom I was converting (1 Cor. 9:19–23). — The last verses (1 Cor. 9:24–27) contain ee) the application of what has been expounded.

1 Cor. 9:1–2. Am I not an Apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an Apostle, yet I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

“Am I not an Apostle?” Questions follow one after another—and with movement, perhaps intentionally, to arouse attention. To this as well led the unexpectedness of the questions themselves, for at first glance it is not evident where they lead. — His purpose is to restore in the minds of the Corinthians the thought that he is a true Apostle. “Am I not an Apostle?” Am I not a true Apostle, receiving appointment from on high? (Theodoret). It was not I who began the work of preaching on my own, nor was I sent by any other man. I was appointed by the Lord himself to this ministry, as were all the other Apostles. Therefore “am I not free?” Do I not have the authority to act fully in the capacity of an Apostle, as all the others do? “I am not under the dominion of another and do not hold the rank of a disciple, but the whole universe is entrusted to me” (Theodoret). “Do I not have power over myself? — Does anyone have the power to stop me or forbid me?” (St. Chrysostom). — “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” “Forasmuch as St. Paul was called after the ascension of the Savior, and the Apostles were held in great glory by all because they were deemed worthy to behold the Lord himself, therefore of necessity he added this too” (Theodoret), so that no one could think that he was in any way inferior to the others in apostleship. What others have, I have the same. They saw the Lord, and I saw him too. He himself appeared to me (1 Cor. 5:8), and he himself sent me to preach to all nations.

By this series of questions he has restored the thought that he is a true Apostle. Now for his purpose he must make them remember how he apostolized among them. Hence the question: “Are you not my work in the Lord?” — “Not my work,” that is, apostolic work, not the work of my apostleship—you? — He means your conversion to faith and the establishment of the Church from among you, in its full composition. “In the Lord,” or by the help of the Lord, or to the glory of the Lord, or the Lord’s work,—making you ready for salvation in the Lord. This was supposed to bring to their remembrance all—how St. Paul came to them and how he acted during the course of a year and a half, and how he conducted himself among them. — “If to others I am not an Apostle, yet I am to you.” Others, who have not seen me, may still doubt whether I am an Apostle, but for you this ought to be evident. You have touched in me the apostolic power. “The Apostle expressed this briefly, but said much in few words—of labors in the teaching of doctrine, of struggles and all manner of sufferings for it and of the wonderful workings of grace, of which the Corinthians were true witnesses, as eyewitnesses” (Theodoret). — “For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.” — “The seal, that is, the proof. Whoever wishes to be convinced, he says, of my apostleship, I point him to you. For all that is proper to an Apostle I have done among you and have left nothing undone. Among you I showed both signs, and taught by word, and subjected myself to dangers, and lived an exemplary life. In the second epistle he testifies more fully of this: ‘The signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds. For what is there in which you were deprived more than the other churches?’ (2 Cor. 12:12–13)” (St. Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 9:3. This is my answer to those who examine me.

And this is my answer to those who would object against my apostleship and dispute. What I have said should convince everyone that I am a true Apostle. “For those who wish to know why I am an Apostle, or strive to prove that I am not an Apostle, your conversion serves as proof and justification for me” (St. Chrysostom).

The Apostle brings convictions of this by various arguments. The first argument he takes from the example of the other Apostles, 1 Cor. 9:4–6.

1 Cor. 9:4–6. Do we not have the right to eat and drink? Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other Apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who do not have the right to refrain from working?

“Do we not have the right to eat and drink?” — “Yet, notwithstanding that I have the right, I refrain from it. Did he not eat, not drink? Indeed, he often did not eat, did not drink. ‘In hunger’, he says, ‘and thirst… and we were naked’ (2 Cor. 11:27). But what does he mean here? — We do not eat and drink at the expense of the disciples, though we have the right to take from them” (St. Chrysostom). “The Apostle means: ‘to eat and drink’ from the Gospel. He intends to show thereby that, having the right, by the Lord’s law, to receive necessary food from his disciples, he continued to work and by his labor to earn his necessary sustenance, for the benefit of his disciples” (Theodoret).

“Do we not have the right to take along a believing woman?” By “sister woman” one cannot understand a wife; in that case it would have been sufficient to say: “a woman.” By adding “sister,” the Apostle made it known that he does not mean a wife here, but a woman from among the faithful. And in this case it would have been enough to say—“a sister”; but so that no one would think this is a sister by blood, he added “woman.” And the Greek word γυνη means properly a woman, not a wife. Who then is such a “sister woman”? — “As faithful women followed the Lord, providing the necessary food for the disciples (Lk. 8:3), so also some women followed certain Apostles, who showed themselves to have fervent faith, were devoted to their teaching, and assisted in the divine preaching” (Theodoret). These are women respectable both in position and in age. “Wealthy women from among the believers followed some of the Apostles, providing them with the necessities of life, so that, being free from care about this, they might devote themselves entirely to preaching” (Oecumenius).

“As do the other Apostles.” By no means were all the Apostles married—perhaps two or three. The rest were unmarried; and those, when they went out to preach, or even when they were still called by the Lord, left all marriage and domestic matters, as the Apostle Peter testified before the Lord: “Behold, we have left all things.” The word: “take along” is to be understood in this sense: they permitted to go behind them, they did not forbid them to provide for themselves. From the perspective of an onlooker looking at them, one could indeed think and say that they take them along with themselves.

“And the brothers of the Lord”—this refers either to the children of Joseph from his first wife, or to cousins. The Evangelist John spoke of them, that they did not yet believe in the Lord when he was on earth, which is to be understood thus: they did not yet fully believe, and not all, but some. Later they all believed and zealously devoted themselves to the work of preaching the Gospel.

“Cephas”—the Apostle Peter. “Do you see the wisdom of St. Paul? The chief Apostle he places last; the strongest proof he places at the end, for pointing to others who do this would not be so striking as pointing to the first Apostle. However, he does not point to him alone, but to all, and speaks as if thus: whether you look at the lesser or at the greater, all serve as an example. The brothers of the Lord, having abandoned their former unbelief, were also renowned, though they were equal to the Apostles (out of the 12); therefore he places them in the middle, putting the chief ones before and after them” (St. Chrysostom).

“Or is it only Barnabas and I who do not have the right to refrain from working?” — “To refrain from working,”—that is, not to earn one’s livelihood by the labor of one’s hands. He speaks as if thus: “The Lord allowed all who preach the Gospel ‘to live from the Gospel’; and are we alone deprived of this right?” (Theodoret). “If all else is common with them, why should this not be common also? Both they and we are Apostles, and free, and have seen Christ, and have done what befits Apostles: therefore we too have the right to live without labor and to receive support from the disciples” (St. Chrysostom). — Why is Barnabas mentioned, when Silas and Timothy were with St. Paul in Corinth? — Probably the Corinthians knew that St. Barnabas, even after separating from St. Paul, acted similarly to him regarding the matter of supporting himself. St. Chrysostom remarks only this: “Do you see how humble and pure of all envy is the soul of St. Paul, how he does not pass over in silence those who shared in his labors?”

The Apostle takes the second argument from “the customs of life” (Theodoret).

1 Cor. 9:7. Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?

“Having brought the strongest proof—the example of the Apostles—that one can do this (live by labor not of the hands), he now turns to comparisons and accepted customs and says: ‘Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense?’ See how fitting are the comparisons he brings to the present subject, and how he mentions first a matter joined with dangers—military service, arms, and war. Such also is apostleship, and even much more difficult. For the Apostles had warfare not only with men, but with demons and with their commander. The meaning of his words is as follows: if even external (pagan) rulers, cruel and unjust, do not require from soldiers that they go to war and subject themselves to dangers, while at the same time supporting themselves; is it possible that Christ required this (of the Apostles)? He is not satisfied with one comparison—for a simple crude man is more easily convinced when he sees that God’s commandments accord with accepted customs; but he brings another and says: ‘Who plants a vineyard without eating its fruit?’ By the first he expressed dangers, and by the second—labor, zeal, and diligence. Then he adds a third comparison: ‘who,’ he says, ‘tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the flock?’ By this he means the great solicitude which it is proper for a teacher to have toward his disciples. The Apostles were both soldiers, and farmers, and shepherds, having to do not with earth, not with dumb animals, not with sensible enemies, but with rational souls and with demonic forces. Note how the Apostle everywhere observes proportion, striving to say only what is useful, and not what is superfluous. He did not say: which soldier serves and does not become rich? but: ‘Who ever serves as a soldier at his own expense?’ He did not say: ‘Who, having planted a vineyard,’ does not derive gold, or does not gather all the fruit? but: ‘without eating its fruit?’ He did not say: who, tending a flock, does not sell the lambs? But how? — ‘Does not drink of the milk of the flock?’ Not from the lambs, but ‘from the milk’; expressing that the teacher should be satisfied with a small comfort and with only necessary food. And by such comparisons the Apostle teaches not only this, but also shows what kind the priest ought to be. He must have the courage of a soldier, the industriousness of a farmer, and the solicitude of a shepherd—and with all this, desire nothing but what is necessary” (St. Chrysostom).

The Apostle takes the third argument from the typical significance of the ordinance of the Mosaic law concerning not muzzling the ox that treads the grain 9–10. “Having proved both by the example of the Apostles and by comparisons from ordinary life that a teacher is not forbidden to take support, St. Paul proceeds to the third proof, and says” (St. Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 9:8. Am I saying this only on human authority? Does not the Law also say this?

“Until now he had brought nothing from the Scriptures, but referred to accepted customs; therefore do not think, he says, that I base myself on this alone and ground the commandment upon human opinion; I can prove that this is pleasing to God and cite the ancient law, which commands the same. Here he continues his discourse in the form of a question, as happens in a discussion of something well known, and says: ‘Am I saying this only on human authority?’ That is, am I basing myself only on human customs? ‘Does not the Law also say this?’ (St. Chrysostom).”

1 Cor. 9:9. For in the Law of Moses it is written: You shall not muzzle an ox that treads the grain. Is it for oxen that God cares? (Deut. 25:4).

In the East they thresh with oxen. They spread wheat or barley in sheaves loosened on the threshing floor and drive oxen over them, a pair, two, or three. They with their feet will tread everything into small particles. Then they winnow, and get the grain. The law forbade muzzling the mouths of these threshing oxen. This can be applied also to all who labor. St. Paul applies this to the Apostles, laboring in preaching, giving the thought that if the disciples did not support the Apostles, it would be like a cruel master muzzling the mouths of threshing oxen, which the law forbids. The legitimacy of this application is based on the fact that the old law in all its parts prefigured spiritual matters that were to appear in the kingdom of grace of Christ. All ordinances are exactly such that in them spiritual life is pictured forth clearly, as in a mirror. St. Chrysostom says regarding this: “Why does the Apostle mention this (not muzzling the mouths of threshing oxen), when he has the example of the Jewish priests? So that he might prove his thought more strongly. Then, so that no one might object, what does it matter to us what is said about oxen, he explains this thoroughly and says: ‘Is it for oxen that God cares?’ Does God not care for oxen? He does care, but not so much that he would make a special law about them (it must be understood: about them alone,—without application). If God did not have something more important in mind, if he did not wish by the example of dumb creatures to teach the Jews kindness of heart and at the same time remind them of teachers, he would not show such care for oxen as to prescribe a law about not muzzling their mouths. (In prescribing the latter, he had the former in view.) From this we see how great is and ought to be the labor of the teacher, and something more. What is it then? — That what is said in the Old Testament regarding care for animals principally relates to the instruction of men, as does all else, for instance, what is said about various garments, about vineyards, about seeds, about not sowing the land with various kinds of seeds, about leprosy, and, we may say, about everything else. Since the hearers were crude people, he speaks to them in such a way as to lead them to understanding little by little. However, the Apostle does not prove what is clear and evident in itself. For having said: ‘Is it for oxen that God cares?’, he continues:”

1 Cor. 9:10. Or does he not say this entirely for our sake? For our sake it has been written: that the one who plows should plow in hope, and the one who threshes in hope should share in the fruits of his labor.

Or, he says, does the law speak of us under the image of oxen? Or “does he not say this entirely for our sake?” — “Entirely” is inserted so that in the question the answer is already indicated, decisively affirmative, not admitting any objections (St. Chrysostom). Then he adds anyway: yes, this is written about us—there is no doubt that it is about us. What then is written? — Not what follows: “that the one who plows should plow” etc., but what was said before: “You shall not muzzle an ox that treads the grain.” Here, after “written,” the typical interpretation of that law is applied, only again not in simple words, but by metaphor (St. Chrysostom). Instead of saying: yes, this is written about us, in the thought that we cultivate your souls and sow in them the seeds of truth, and then direct you in every way so that you may bring forth fruit, being unconcerned about our support—just as one who cultivates the land cultivates it in hope that it will give him fruit, and one who threshes threshes in full assurance that he will eat bread—instead of so fully describing his thought, the Apostle takes one last comparison and sets it forth, giving the readers themselves to understand that by these images he means the preachers of the word. “By the words: ‘the one who threshes in hope should share’, the Apostle said the same thing as: the teacher must receive compensation for his labors” (St. Chrysostom). By placing in the word both “plowing”—the beginning of the work, and “threshing,” nearly the end of it—he showed the continuousness of the Apostles’ labor over the faithful, that is, that they do not act such that they sow the word and thereby do everything. No; but they continue to watch over them and labor so as to beat out everything good from them and winnow away from them everything bad. “From sowing he passes to threshing and thus shows how great are the labors of teachers, who both plow and thresh” (St. Chrysostom). The last words: “and one who threshes,” etc., can be read thus: and one who threshes threshes in hope of sharing in the fruits, that is, what he looked for from the time he began to plow and sow; the work approaches its end, the time is near when he will taste the fruit of his labors. “Thus, the law about not muzzling the mouth of an ox threshing the grain means nothing else than that laboring teachers should receive compensation” (St. Chrysostom).

“And here is the fourth proof that it is necessary to provide livelihood for teachers” (St. Chrysostom). An argument from the nature of preaching itself.

1 Cor. 9:11. If we sowed spiritual things to you, is it a great thing if we reap material things from you?

“The Apostle brings a new and most substantial reason why they have the right to take—namely, that they not only labor, but also provide the disciples with something far more important” (St. Chrysostom). We, he says, sow spiritual things; is it a great thing if we reap material things. “Having given something far greater, do we err if we take something far smaller?” (Theodoret). “Do you see the reason, most just and most substantial compared to the former? There, he says, material seeds, material fruit also; but here it is not so, but spiritual seed and material recompense. So that those who provide something to teachers should not think much of themselves, he shows that they receive more than they give. Farmers reap what they sow; but we sow spiritual things in your souls, and we reap material things, for such is the food provided to us” (St. Chrysostom). Those who taste the spiritual blessings of faith are naturally ready themselves to give everything to those who brought them into the participation of these blessings. For the faith of Christ is not mere theory, but the work of the renewal of the soul, which is immediately felt. He who has felt it understands that he has been deemed worthy of a blessing beyond price on earth. How will not such a one be ready to share everything with his enlightener?!