1 Corinthians 9:1-14

We are still under the general topic of food sacrificed to idols and the problem of complicity. In chapter 8, Paul laid out the general problem. He stated the main truth—which is that idols are not real, and therefore, food sacrificed to them is nothing more or less than any other food. However, for many Christians, it was impossible (at least at first) to disassociate the food from the idol and to view eating it as anything else but a religious act. For them, even to eat it would be a temptation to sin or a sin in itself. Paul ended by saying that he would rather give up meat entirely rather than cast a stumbling block before others.

Chapter 9 feels like a very abrupt shift. Reading this casually, you could think that Paul had moved on to a different subject. Here, Paul begins explaining a specific example—his own actions.

As I said, this section feels very disconnected from what came before. Paul will connect it back to the main point later, but it may also have a secondary importance. We know from 2 Corinthians that some in the Corinthian church disliked Paul or denied his authority. Paul may have been addressing that attitude here.

In the first two verses, Paul establishes his authority with a series of questions. Though they are questions, they imply a confirmation. If you wanted, you could write in a little 'yes' after each of them.

Paul says he was an apostle. The word apostle literally means one who is sent. To understand, we need to go back to the time before the Christian church had officially started, in the days leading up to Pentecost. Because Judas was dead, the other disciples felt led to appoint a replacement from the other followers of Jesus: “Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:21-22) They wanted to choose someone who had been with Jesus throughout the course of His ministry. But notice specifically what this person was to do. He was to be a witness of the resurrection. And in the following few verses, he is specifically referred to as Apostle.

The apostles were those specifically chosen to witness and tell of the Resurrection. They were the leaders of the early church and had a certain amount of authority, both natural and supernatural. This group included the eleven disciples, Matthias (who replaced Judas), James (the brother of Jesus), Paul—and possibly Barnabas.

The point is that Paul was an apostle—someone chosen to lead the church and testify to the truth of Christ's resurrection. This connects to another of these questions—Paul says that he had seen Jesus Christ. We just talked about that meeting on the Damascus Road. Paul was a witness, not just to the resurrection, but to the continued existence of Jesus. Even though this was years after the Ascension, he had witnessed the resurrected Christ. (Keep this in mind because it will become important in chapter 15.)

Paul also says that he is free. Barnes paraphrases his question: “Am I not a free man; have I not the liberty which all Christians possess, and especially which all the apostles possess?” Paul was a Christian and an apostle, and he had all the rights and privileges that came with that. He was no second-class spiritual citizen.

Finally, Paul could point to one other fact about himself—and that was the work he had done, the living testimony of his ministry---the church in Corinth itself. As we've discussed, Paul wasn't the only person to work at Corinth. Not every convert there had been won by Paul. And yet it is true that there wouldn't have been a church at Corinth at all if it weren't for Paul. He had laid the foundation, even if others had built on it later. Was Paul an apostle? Had he been sent out to witness of the Resurrection? The Corinthians could personally testify that he was—for he had been sent out to them and had witnessed to them.

Most water jugs in our country a produced with a tamper-evident lid. There is a small ring of plastic that connects to the lid and which breaks off when you first open it. If you buy a bottle from the store, and that ring is still attached to the lid, you know that no one has opened that bottle yet. You have a guarantee that the bottle's contents are exactly the same as when they left the factory. It is a testimony to the authenticity of the product. (In theory, anyway.)

In the first century, they had something similar. Things could be marked with hot wax, which would be impressed with a symbol. That was called a 'seal.' If anyone tried to tamper, they would break the seal. If something was sealed, it was proof that it was authentic. And Paul says that the Corinthian Christians were the seal of his apostleship. They were a testimony to the authenticity of his ministry and his message. Some of the Corinthians might have had their doubts about Paul, but they had only to look around to see the evidence that God had used Paul.

The seal is not the product. Paul was not an apostle because of the Corinthians. He would have still been an apostle if not a single Corinthian had become a Christian. But they stood as a testimony, a witness to his work.

So, what have we established so far? Paul was an apostle; he was someone who had witnessed God and been used by God. He was a leader in the church. He was in a unique, privileged position within the church. 

In verse 3, Paul says that he is making a defense before those who were scrutinizing him. Some people think this defense is verses 1-2, some think it is the verses following, and some think both. If we take this as referring to verses 1-2, it does make good sense; in those verses, Paul lays out a clear statement of his own standing and points to the evidence of it.

In verses 4-6, Paul then asks three more questions, again rhetorical. Verse 4: “Have we not power to eat and to drink?” In English, that suggests that Paul is asking about his own eating ability—whether he does or does not have a mouth and stomach, which makes it possible to eat and drink. But that's not the idea here. The word 'power' is used in each of these questions, and each time translates the same Greek word—a word that can also be translated 'authority', 'freedom', or 'privilege.' (Strong #1849)

Paul is saying that he had the right or authority to eat and drink. And, given the rest of the passage, this seems to mean that he had the right to ask the church to supply him with food and drink. The NET Bible translates verse 4: “Do we not have the right to financial support?” Most of the time, Paul supported himself with his own work rather than asking for support from the churches. For instance, this is how he described his time at Thessalonica: “Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you: not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.” (2 Thessalonians 3:8-9)

Notice specifically what he said there—he worked rather than asking for support, but it wasn't because he lacked the power. Again, the word 'power' there refers to authority. He had the right to ask for financial support but had chosen not to take it.

This is echoed in verse 6. Paul includes himself and Barnabas here. They had both worked to support themselves, while other preachers took support from the church. Was there some reason they couldn't take this support and give up their secular work? No; they had the right to demand that support but had forgone it.

This is a parenthesis, but there's something I want to point out here. Barnabas and Paul had traveled together during Paul's first missionary journey, but after that, they had a disagreement and, so far as we know, never worked together again. But here Paul, some years after that disagreement, casually refers to Barnabas as a fellow-worker and perhaps even a fellow-apostle. Whatever difference may have been between them, Paul still had confidence in Barnabas.

In verse 5, Paul points to another issue. Peter and the other apostles were married. They had 'sisters'--that is, fellow Christians—as wives, and they ministered beside them. (We know Peter was married all the way back in the time of Jesus' earthly ministry since one of Jesus' miracles was to heal his mother-in-law.) Paul was an exception by being single.

The point is that Paul had the right to marry. There wasn't any law that prevented him. If he had wanted to, he could have married. This probably connects to the idea of financial support—if Paul had had a wife traveling with him, that would have required even more support. Perhaps one of the reasons he remained single was that he supported his own ministry, and it would have been too hard to support a family as well.

So, in these three verses, Paul uses rhetorical questions to establish this point—that he had certain rights as an apostle—the bottom line is that he had the right to be supported by the churches to whom he ministered. The rest of the passage expands on this idea.

In verse 7, Paul uses analogies to make his point. A soldier doesn't provide his own rations or pay his own salary. He is fighting for an army, and the army supplies what he needs. A farmer works for a farm, and the farm supplies his needs. The same for a shepherd. It is a general principle that a man who puts effort into something should, at the very least, be supported by it.

This isn't merely an idea of Paul's and has more than mere common sense to support it. It's a principle from God's word. “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” (Deuteronomy 25:4) In Old Testament times, after grain was harvested, they would spread it out on hard ground and have oxen walk over it or pull a heavy implement. So there you have an ox, working hard and surrounded by its food. It would be tempting to muzzle it to prevent it from eating any of the grain, but the law expressly forbade that. Even animals should be allowed to be supported by the thing for which they work.

And if God would provide for oxen, would it be logical to think he wouldn't care about humans? And especially his ministers? Surely, the principle is as applicable to them as it is to oxen. Paul says that this verse is written 'altogether for our sakes'. The word 'altogether' can also be translated “doubtless or assuredly” (Robertson, 1 Corinthians 1:9) Doubtlessly or assuredly, this can apply to us as well as to oxen. Surely, every worker—the plowman and the thresher—should be able to work in hope and partake of that hope.

Paul puts the same idea a different way in verse 11, calling on the familiar principle of sowing and reaping. He had sowed to the Corinthian spiritual things—he had been the means through which they received the riches of the gospel. And surely he should be able to receive back the comparatively small riches of financial support. ('Carnal' here means physical or material.) He had made spiritual investments and should be at least able to enjoy the interest.

In the first half of verse 12, Paul points to the example of others. Other people (assumably, this means teachers within the Corinthian church or other traveling ministers, perhaps even Apollos) received support from the Corinthian church. And if these people could claim such support, Paul surely had an even greater right, as the church founder.

In verse 13, Paul throws out a final analogy. He reminds them that the Mosaic law ensured that religious ministers would be supported by the religious institution. For instance, read the law concerning a food offering: “And the remainder thereof shall Aaron and his sons eat: with unleavened bread shall it be eaten in the holy place; in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation they shall eat it.” (Leviticus 6:16)

Paul summarizes his entire point in verse 14: “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” Throughout this passage in several different ways, Paul makes this point—that preachers and missionaries have a right to be supported by the church. And specifically, Paul—as an apostle and as the founder of the church at Corinth—had that right. That is the truth we must understand. It is essential to understand; it is only when we see this that we will understand the sharp contrast in the second half of verse 12. This is the right Paul had, “Nevertheless we have not used this power.”

Paul had the authority to ask for financial support, but he had not done it, choosing to work for his own support instead. That is the point we have to grasp—Paul had a right, and he had chosen not to make use of it. Paul briefly touches on why in verse 12, but he will get more in-depth in the second half of chapter 9.