All Things to All Men, for the Gospel’s Sake (1 Corinthians 9:12–20)

1 Cor. 9:12. If others participate in this right over you, do we not much more? But we have not used this right. Rather, we bear all things so that we may not place any obstacle to the Gospel of Christ.

He strengthens the significance of the previous argument for the Corinthians by reminding them of what they do for others, or how among them certain ones use such a right to take from them or exact from them. He wishes to say that if we had wanted to use our right among you, you could not object to this not merely on the basis of the matter itself, but also because you do this for certain ones. Who are these certain ones? The Apostle does not determine them by anything; but whoever they are, no one could provide more than what the Apostles provide. If even these certain ones provided nothing bad, and then the Apostle could have said: “do we not much more?” If, on the other hand, these were some kind of troublemakers, then this exceeds all measure. St. Chrysostom understands here false teachers of some kind, concerning whom in the second epistle St. Paul wrote: they devour you, they take from you, they boast, they strike you in the face (2 Cor. 11:20). However, it is not necessary to determine strictly who these certain ones are. For the strength is not in their quality, but in the fact that they enjoyed support and certain advantages from the Corinthians, while they could not in any way be compared to the Apostles. The words: “this right over you,” mean: authority over you, or over your things, or the right to your things; “participate in”—make use of. “Right”—authority, as above: “Or do we not have the right to take along a believing woman, or not to refrain from working?” St. Chrysostom sees in this an indication of the boldness, violence, and covetousness of those who used the authority. “They rule over you, show authority over you, treat you as slaves, not only take from you, but with great insistence and boldness. Evidently, he hints at some harmful people and deceivers. But be that as it may, from this circumstance it follows plainly: you yourselves have established and have as a rule to provide livelihood. Do we not much more? Would you not much more provide it to us if we wished it?”

“But we have not used this right.” “That is, we have not taken. See, after so many proofs that it is not unlawful for them to take, he finally said to them: we do not take, so they would not think that he abstains from it as from something forbidden. Not because it is forbidden, I do not take, he says; this is permitted, as I have proved by many arguments: by the example of the Apostles, by examples from life, such as: the soldier, the farmer, the shepherd, by the Mosaic law, by the very nature of the work—because ‘we sow spiritual things to you’, and finally by the fact that you yourselves do this in relation to others. It is permitted; but we ‘have not used this right’, of our own will we refrained from it, not as from something forbidden. Later he expressed this more clearly in the words: ‘I have not written this so that it may be done for me’ (1 Cor. 9:15); but here he says: ‘we have not used this right’. And moreover, what is even more important, no one can say that we did not use it because we lived in abundance; no, being in need, we did not yield to need. The same he says in the second epistle: ‘And having come to you, and being in want, I did not burden anyone’ (2 Cor. 11:8); also in the present epistle: ‘We hunger and thirst and we are naked and we are beaten’ (1 Cor. 4:11). And here again he hints at the same with the words: ‘we bear all things’. For the expression bear all things means both hunger, and need, and all other misfortunes. Yet all this, he says, did not force us to violate the law which we ourselves had established for ourselves. Why? — ‘So that we may not place any obstacle’ (εγκοπην — obstruction) ‘to the Gospel of Christ’. The Corinthians were weak; therefore, he says, so as not to offend you by receiving compensation from you, we resolved rather to do more than what is commanded, than to place any hindrance to the Gospel, that is, to the teaching of you. He did not say: destruction, but: “an obstacle” (obstruction, hindrance), and not simply an obstacle, but “an obstacle”—that is, so as not to cause the least delay and stoppage in the spreading of the word” (St. Chrysostom).

The fifth argument from the ordinance of the Old Testament priesthood — 1 Cor. 9:13.

1 Cor. 9:13. Do you not know that those who perform the sacred services eat what is from the sanctuary, and those who serve at the altar share in the altar?

“Very carefully the Apostle strives to prove that it is not forbidden to take (support from those taught). Having said much about this before, he is not satisfied with that, but again turns to the law and presents from it an example closer than the former. For it is not the same thing to present oxen as an example or to bring a clear law about priests” (St. Chrysostom).

“Those who perform the sacred services, those who serve at the altar.” By this the Apostle means either indiscriminately all who served in the temple, Levites, priests, and high priests, or by “those who perform the sacred services” he means high priests and priests, and by “those who serve at the altar” Levites (St. Chrysostom). The words: “eat what is from the sanctuary, share in the altar,”—mean that the priesthood then subsisted on the support of the sanctuary and altar. Whatever was brought as a sacrifice, all was brought to the sanctuary and altar; and the sanctuary and altar distributed from it to those who served. Not everything brought in sacrifice was put on the altar, only a part of it. These parts, which remained from the sacrifices, the Lord commanded to be divided among those who served. By these they were supported. The Apostle wishes to urge: if it is thus in the old law, which was a shadow of the new, do we not much more see that it should be thus in the new? But he also makes this application directly, deriving from the Lord a particular ordinance about this.

The sixth argument from an explicit commandment of the Lord — 1 Cor. 9:14.

1 Cor. 9:14. Thus the Lord ordained that those who proclaim the Gospel should live from the Gospel.

When did the Lord ordain this? — When, sending the Apostles out to preach, he commanded them to take nothing with them, neither extra clothes, nor food, nor money, but where they were received, there to live on their support, saying: “Remain in that house, eating and drinking what they have; for the laborer deserves his wages” (Lk. 10:7; Matt. 10:10). “So that no one might say: why do you remind us of the Old Testament? Do you not know that now is the time of more perfect commandments? — The Apostle presents what is most important: ‘Thus the Lord ordained.’ And here he does not say: to be fed by men, but, just as concerning the priests he said: ‘from the sanctuary and altar,’ so here: ‘from the Gospel’; and as there: ‘eat,’ so here: ‘live,’ and not to make a profit or become rich” (St. Chrysostom). “‘To live,’ means to receive the necessary livelihood” (Theodoret). When the Lord himself sent the Apostles out to preach, he both inspired those who received them to do so, and to support them. And also later, when they went throughout the world, he both disposed people to hear their preaching and inspired them not to let them die of hunger. It came about that the Apostles were maintained by the Lord himself. Men were only instruments. And in the Old Testament the Lord ordained that those who brought the sacrifices not take the remains of the sacrifices, but leave them to the sanctuary, and from the sanctuary the servants took them, receiving support from the house of God, as if from the hands of the Lord himself. This for the Apostles was provided by the Gospel.

Thus the holy Apostle has made clear on all sides for the Corinthian learning that there ought not be even the slightest doubt that he, as an Apostle, had the right to be supported by the Corinthians.

1 Cor. 9:15. But I have used none of these rights. And I write this not so that it may be done for me; for it would be better for me to die than to have anyone deprive me of my ground for glorying.

Now for you, he says, it is evident that I could have used support from you; but I voluntarily have used nothing from you, I have not presented any claim to you, to which the apostolic labors among you would have authorized me. “He says this not once and not twice, but several times. Above he said: ‘we have not used this right’; later he will say: ‘not to use my authority’ (1 Cor. 9:18) and here: ‘I have used none of these rights’. — What does it mean: ‘none of these’? — I have not used so many examples. Much gave me the right: examples of the soldier, farmer, shepherd and Apostles, ordinances of the law, our conduct toward you and yours toward others, the example of priests, the commandment of Christ—and yet nothing forced me to violate my law and take from you” (St. Chrysostom).

“And I write this not so that it may be done for me.” I have written this to you now not with the intention that from now on you provide me with everything needful. Let no one think thus: “If hitherto you have not done this, do you not then wish to do so in the future? — No, he says, in the future the same will be. I would rather die of hunger than be deprived of such crowns: ‘it would be better for me to die than to have anyone deprive me of my ground for glorying.’ — He did not say: so that no one might violate my law, but: my glory. So that no one might say that although he acts this way (in itself), yet not with joy, but with sighing and sorrow, he calls this glory, wishing to show with how great joy and with how great zeal he acts thus. For he was so far from sorrow that he even glories and resolves rather to die than to lose this glory. It was more pleasing to him than life itself!” (St. Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 9:16. For if I preach the Gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting; for an obligation is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!

If I preach the Gospel, I do not deserve special glory thereby, “for an obligation is laid upon me.” It is my duty. “I do this as a servant, serving the master; no servant thinks highly of himself when he merely fulfills what the master has commanded” (Theodoret). “‘An obligation is laid upon me’—this is not to be understood as if he were doing this against his will—far from it—but thus, that upon him lies a duty, and in contrast with freedom—to take or not to take (I must preach, whether I wish or not—it is my duty; but to preach at my own expense is a matter of freedom—when I wish, then I do so; there is room for glory for the free choice of what is not even commanded). Therefore Christ also said to the disciples: ‘When you have done all that is commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done only what we ought to have done’ (Lk. 17:10)” (St. Chrysostom). — So, if I preach the Gospel, there is nothing for which to praise, on the contrary, if ‘I do not preach the Gospel, woe to me.’ ‘Because to resist the Master is an act worthy of punishment’ (Theodoret). ‘A miserable end awaits me. Consciousness of this inspires fear; fear compels me to preach. This is why I say that ‘an obligation is laid upon me’ (Theophylact).

1 Cor. 9:17. For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a stewardship.

“Not of my own will,” corresponding to “an obligation is laid upon me,” means—from duty, because it is commanded, while “of my own will” means beyond duty, by free choice I add something of myself to the work of preaching, beyond what is commanded—for preachers of the Gospel to live from the Gospel. “The words: ‘of my own will’ and ‘not of my own will’ the Apostle uses in the sense: commanded and not commanded” (St. Chrysostom). So, he says, if I do this, that is, preach of my own will, not because a duty lies upon me, but because I myself desired it and chose it; then I have a reward,—“reward,” that is, glory, in the course of the discourse,—there is something for which to give me something special. But indeed, this cannot be said of me. And how would I myself have dared to undertake such a matter? So, I have been entrusted with this work, upon me has been laid the duty of preaching, not of my own will do I do this. If not of my own will, then, laboring in preaching, I do nothing special,—“I am entrusted with a stewardship,” I fulfill what has been entrusted to me (Theophylact).

“He did not say: ‘if not of my own will,’ then I have no reward; but ‘I am entrusted with a stewardship,’ expressing that even in this case there is a reward, but such as one receives who has fulfilled a command, and not such as one receives who has shown his own zeal and done more than commanded” (St. Chrysostom).

1 Cor. 9:18. What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the Gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the Gospel.

“What do you say to me? Tell me. If you preach the Gospel, there is no glory for you; but if you preach the Gospel without compensation, then there is? — So is the latter more important than the former? — Not at all; but in a certain different respect the latter has the advantage, namely in this, that the former is a command, and the latter a work of my will. For what is done beyond command deserves great reward; but what is done by command, is not thus. In this respect the latter is more than the former, and not in the very essence of the matter. For what can be compared to preaching? It makes preachers like the Angels. And yet, since it is for them an obligation and a duty, and preaching without compensation is a work of voluntary zeal, in this respect the latter is more than the former” (St. Chrysostom).

The reward is that I preach the Gospel without compensation. I preach the Gospel of Christ, or about Christ, I fulfill my duty; but in doing so I do not use the right belonging to me,—I do not “make full use of my right,” the right given by the Lord to me as an Apostle, “in the Gospel,” that right, that in the Gospel preachers should live from the Gospel. “Do you see how he uses the word ‘right’ everywhere, so as to show that even those who take (support) do not deserve blame” (St. Chrysostom).

Blessed Theodoret applies what is said in this section to the chief subject of the chapter thus: I sacrifice my right so as not to hinder the Gospel; do you also renounce the right of your knowledge and do not eat food offered to idols, so as not to cause your brother to stumble, for whom Christ died, and not plunge again into destruction him whom my preaching had saved. “The Master gave me the right, the Apostle says, to receive necessary sustenance from my disciples, but I do not use this right, but labor, working myself, so as to reap the fruit of this labor. On all this the Apostle expanded, trying to force the Corinthians, who made bad use of knowledge, fearlessly ate food offered to idols, and thereby gave the weak cause to suffer harm,—to renounce their bad right. For this reason he showed that, having received the right both from the law and from God of all things, and seeing that the Apostles use this right, and seeing its foundation in the very nature of the matter, he paid no heed to any of this, having in view only the success of preaching and the benefit of the hearers.”

1 Cor. 9:19. For though I am free from all, I have enslaved myself to all, so that I might win the more.

“Free,” he says, “from all”—not of things, but of people—and “I have made myself a slave to everyone,” not to things, but to people. For the discourse concerns persons throughout. And this enslavement consisted in his subjecting his own disposition, his own customs and desires to the dispositions of others in order that, by drawing near to them in this way, he might find access to their hearts, and by laying there the seed of the word, might win them for the Lord. Saint Chrysostom says: “Here the Apostle presents yet another excellence. And not to accept—that is a great thing; but what he wishes to say is far more important. What is it then? I not only, he says, did not accept, and not only did not use my right, but I even subjected myself to slavery, and to slavery diverse and comprehensive, for not in money alone, but, what is far more important than money, in many and varied matters did I act in just the same way; I enslaved myself, when I was not subject to anyone and had no necessity, for this is what the expression means: ‘free from all’—and I enslaved myself not to one person alone, but to the whole world, therefore he adds: ‘I have made myself a slave to everyone.’ To preach and announce what was entrusted to me I was obliged, but to devise and invent thousands of ways to do so—this depended on my zeal: I was obliged to deliver the silver, but I employed all measures besides to demand it back, fulfilling more than what was commanded. For he did all things through zeal, diligence, and love toward Christ, and had an insatiable desire for the salvation of mankind, therefore from the excess of his zeal he transgressed the bounds and in all things stretched beyond the very heavens. Having spoken of his enslavement, he now speaks of its various kinds. What are they then?”

1 Cor. 9:20. To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those under the Law, as under the Law, that I might win those under the Law.

All the Jewish ordinances, prescribed by the Law to the Jews, through faith in the Lord lose their binding force and pass into the category of things indifferent, which one may use freely, depending on circumstances, having in view one thing alone—what pleases God. Thus acted also Saint Paul for the sake of the Gospel’s success. When he was among Jews, he acted in all outward matters as a Jew, not attributing in his conscience any religious meaning for himself to anything he did. If he had appeared among them, standing apart from them in things of no moral value and yet loved by the Jews, he would have pushed them away from himself and thereby closed the door of his word to their ears. The Gospel would thereby lose followers. Therefore, he says, “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews.” Where and when? Everywhere and always he was such, in Jerusalem and in other places, when he moved among the Jews. Such instances relate, for example, to the circumcision of Timothy in Lykaonia, attending the synagogues on Sabbaths, as in Philippi, and listening there to the Law and prayers, and other similar things. Saint Chrysostom says: “How was this? He circumcised in order to abolish circumcision. Therefore he did not say: I was a Jew, but ‘as a Jew,’ for this was with deliberate purpose. What are you saying? A preacher of the world, who ascended to the very heavens and sowed with such grace, could he suddenly descend so low? Yes; for this too is an ascent. Look not only at the fact that he descends, but also at how, descending, he restores the one lying below and raises him up with himself.”

“To those under the Law, as under the Law, that I might win those under the Law.” These words can be taken as a repetition of the preceding. There he pointed to a Jew in general, but here he specified more particularly how he looked upon him—namely, from the aspect of his zeal for the Law. Or here he means other people who have bent themselves under the Law besides Jews—that is, full proselytes and partly incomplete ones, or those of the believers in the Lord who, along with faith in Him, regarded it as necessary to keep the Law entirely and did keep it. And such people needed to be won, for they were far from Christ in spirit. There is no great need to seek precision in the meaning of these words, for the power of the discourse does not lie in them. Saint Chrysostom says: “These words are either an explanation of what was said before, or they mean something else. By Jews he calls those who were such from antiquity and from the very beginning (by race and blood), and by those under the Law—proselytes, or those who accepted faith but still held to the Law, for they were not Jews but were under the Law. When then was the Apostle under the Law (with respect to these)? When he cut his hair short, when he offered sacrifice. (The Apostle James advised Saint Paul to do something according to Jewish Law for the sake of believers who were zealous about the Law. (Acts 21:18–26). He did this not because he changed his way of thinking—that would be a corrupt deed—but out of love and condescension toward others, so as to turn actual Jews; he himself was ‘as a Jew,’ not in reality but only in appearance, not truly being such but only acting so without genuine disposition. For how could he sincerely do this, when he strove to turn others also, when he did everything to free them also from such degradation?”