Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not *ye* my work in [the] Lord?
Paul has just warned the Corinthians about a use of freedom that trips up weaker believers. Now he turns the argument on himself with four sharp questions. Some at Corinth were disputing whether he was a real apostle. He answers by pointing to what he had seen, and to what they themselves were.
The chapter is not a change of subject. Paul now offers himself as the example: a man who had rights and chose not to use them.
This follows well on his exhortation in the previous chapter. There he corrects a use of liberty that might trip up the weak. It was certainly not so with him. He did not even use his right to be supported while he was among them.
His freedom is real, and he says so first. But freedom in service never meant that he answered to no one.
It is often just this lack of true balance that ruins the path of service. Some claim liberty and refuse subjection. Others press subjection and deny freedom in service. "Am I not free?" asked the apostle in 1 Corinthians 9:1. He said he was "free from all" (v. 19) in the work entrusted to him. Even so, he made himself the servant of all for their good. Yet he was truly subject: "not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ" (v. 21). No servant enjoyed greater freedom!
The third question is his credential. Commentators note a difference between Paul and the other apostles.
One of the proofs of an apostle was that he had seen the Lord. In 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul says, "Am I not an apostle? … Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" The twelve apostles had seen the Lord Jesus as a Man on earth. They received their authority as apostles from Him then. Paul also truly had seen the Lord, but he had seen Him in the glory. And it was from the glory, from the Lord Himself in the glory, that Paul had received his authority as an apostle.
Kelly grants one point to Paul's opponents, then names where his authority came from.
He affirms his independence of any human yoke as clearly as his apostleship. Liberty went hand in hand with the highest responsibility. Nor was his office vague or secondary. He had seen Jesus our Lord. His critics were right this far: he had received no rank from the group of apostles, and no commission from Jerusalem. Others might claim to succeed the twelve apostles, and claim it falsely. Paul had his authority straight from the Lord seen on high.
The fourth question needs no research. Paul's readers only have to look at themselves. (Other translations read, "are not you my work in the Lord?")
The Corinthians had been calling into question the apostolic authority of Paul. How does he meet this? He points them to themselves. God called them and turned them from idols to Himself, and that call is "the seal of his apostleship." It is as though he said, "If Christ has not spoken by me, how is it that you are Christians?"
Their doubt turns back on them.
Verse 2 gives a crushing answer to those among them who had listened to his opponents and were ready to question his apostleship. They were themselves the proof that his work was genuine! To throw doubt on the reality of his work was to throw doubt on the reality of their own conversion.
If seeing the risen Lord is what makes an apostle, no one can pass the office on.
The mark of an apostle was that he could bear witness to Christ's resurrection… Paul had never seen Jesus during His life, or in the forty days before He went up to heaven. Even so, he rests his apostleship on the same ground. "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" … This was a condition of apostleship. So it is clear that no one who has not seen the risen Christ could be an apostle. In other words, apostles were only temporary gifts.
- Free — Paul opens by claiming full liberty, yet he is "legitimately subject to Christ". Freedom in service and subjection to the Master belong together. Losing either one ruins the path of service.
- Sent — his office is not vague or second-hand. He had no rank from the other apostles and no commission from Jerusalem. His authority came straight from the Lord seen in glory.
- Seen — the twelve had seen Jesus as a Man on earth; Paul saw Him in the glory, and that sight is what makes him an apostle at all.
- Sealed — he does not produce a certificate; he points at the Corinthians. To deny his apostleship they would have to deny their own conversion.
- Sole — seeing the risen Christ was the condition. So apostles were a temporary gift, and no line of successors can claim the same place.
If I am not an apostle to others, yet at any rate I am to you for the seal of mine apostleship are *ye* in [the] Lord.
Paul founded the church at Corinth, and now the very people he led to Christ were asking whether he was a real apostle. His proof is not a document or a title but the Corinthians themselves, whom he calls a "seal."
The chapter opens in the middle of a dispute.
We know from the Second Letter that some were questioning Paul's apostleship. So he opens this part of his letter with a short assertion of his apostleship, and of his liberty as well. He had the outstanding mark of an apostle, for he had seen "Jesus Christ, our Lord." And how could the Corinthians have any doubt about it? They were the seal and proof of it. Their existence as an assembly grew out of his "work in the Lord."
Behind the attack lay a charge about money.
False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed that he carried on his gospel preaching and his labours from selfish motives, and that he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks of his ministry.
A seal in Scripture carries several ideas, and this verse uses one of them.
One use of the seal was to ratify a resolution or decision. We may add the thought of proof of a mission or service, as in 1 Corinthians 9:2. And when high officials used a seal, it carried an unmistakable thought of authority. No one who feared that official's power would dare to break the seal.
Paul's whole argument comes down to one question.
The Corinthians had been calling into question the apostolic authority of Paul. How does he meet this? He appeals to themselves — to God's own call of them, when He turned them from idols to Himself, "as the seal of his apostleship." It is as though he said, "If Christ has not spoken through me, how is it that you are Christians?"
His critics were right about one thing: no human body had licensed him.
He affirms his freedom from any human yoke as clearly as his apostleship. Liberty went hand in hand with the highest responsibility. His office was not vague or secondary. He had seen Jesus our Lord. His detractors were right this far: he had received no degree from the apostolic college, no mission from Jerusalem. Others might claim to follow in succession from the twelve apostles, and claim it falsely. Paul had his authority directly from the Lord seen on high... If he was not an apostle to others, surely those should not deny it who were its seal in the Lord.
Paul does not appeal to outside witnesses. He turns to what the Corinthians knew about themselves.
Paul appeals to their consciences. Did he not have the credentials of an apostle? They could not fairly dispute that he had seen the Lord, and certainly not that they themselves had been converted through him. No one of these facts alone was proof of apostleship. But these, together with his own witness of God's clear appointment of him, were evidence their consciences could not ignore... Therefore their own state as Christians was proof of his apostleship. Whether others recognised this or not, they ought to.
Paul needed no written reference for Corinth. He pointed to changed lives instead.
If anyone had asked Paul, "Are you sure you are called to this work?" he could have replied, "If you have any doubts about it, go to Corinth, and you will see the effects of my calling." The saints in Corinth were his letter, his letter of commendation as to his apostleship.
- Challenge. Critics at Corinth questioned Paul's apostleship and hinted that he served for personal gain.
- Credential. A seal ratifies and proves a mission. The converted Corinthians were that proof — his work in the Lord, standing in front of him.
- Source. Paul's commission came straight from the Lord seen in glory. No degree from Jerusalem and no claimed line of succession lay behind it.
- Scope. Others might not accept him. But the people he led to Christ carried the evidence in their own hearts. If Christ had not spoken through him, how were they Christians at all?
- Result. Where God works through a servant, changed people become the letter of recommendation. Anyone can go and read it.
My defence to those who examine me is this
Some in Corinth were picking apart Paul's claim to be an apostle. Here he answers them, and his words read like a reply in court: what was the charge, and where does the answer lead?
The charge was about money and motive.
The apostle faced the accusations of false teachers. They claimed that he preached and worked for what he could get out of it. They said he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks about his ministry.
The people demanding proof were the very people his preaching had produced.
Had it come to this? Paul was put on trial — at least at the preliminary inquiry, to see whether there was a case against him. And he had to make his plea, his speech of defence, to his own Corinthian children in the faith.
The word Paul uses for their examining is a legal one.
The simple form of the word means "to judge." Anakrisis is the technical term for the earlier enquiry, the preliminary investigation.
Commentators differ. One reads the verse as closing the challenge Paul has already made. What follows sets out privileges, not proof of his title.
These words seem to belong to the challenge made in the opening verses rather than to what follows. He has already given the proofs of his apostleship. A statement of the privileges of that office follows. But that is hardly an answer to anyone who questioned his claim to the title of apostle in the first place.
Others take it as the heading over all that follows. That splits the chapter in two.
Some were jealous of the Apostle and were ready to suggest that he preached for what he could get, seeking to make a profit out of his service (2 Cor. 11:9-12). The Apostle answers this in two ways. First he states the rights of the servant (verses 3-14). Then he shows how he had used those rights (verses 15-27).
If the defence does run forward, its shape is surprising. Paul builds the case for what he has a right to, then hands it all back.
So he goes on stating his rights, and giving his authority for those rights, both from the law and from the ordinances of God. But why does he state his rights at all? Simply so that he may give them all up for the sake of the gospel.
That surrender answers the charge of self-interest. It came from a man who pleaded for the rights of others.
He made the gospel without cost to others, at all cost to himself. He did not use his right to be supported… So his plea for the rights of others was all the harder to challenge, because nothing in it was mixed with any desire for himself.
Paul had no visible appointment to point to. His work had to speak for him — and that did not end with him.
He had no visible proof that the Lord had called him to serve, as Peter and the rest had, for the Lord appointed them while He was here on earth. So he had to prove that his ministry came from God by its effect on souls, as all true ministry has had to do from that day on. As a result, people kept calling his ministry in question. The servant must expect this in our own day too, when he seeks to serve according to God's mind.
- Answer, not apology. Paul replies to men who cross-examine him. Their word is a legal one: the inquiry that comes before a verdict.
- Answer to his own children. Look at who sits in judgment. His own converts now weigh up whether their father in the faith is genuine.
- Answer disputed. Commentators differ. The defence may close his opening challenge, or open the case for a servant's rights that fills the chapter.
- Answer by surrender. He lists every right he has, then refuses to use any of them. The gospel cost others nothing, and cost him everything.
- Answer still required. Ministry with no human backing proves itself by its effect on souls. The servant who works that way should expect questions.
Have we not a right to eat and to drink?
Paul had just asked the Corinthians to give up their freedom for a weaker believer's sake. Now he turns that test on himself: critics were attacking his right to food and drink, and with it his standing as an apostle.
The words are not about permission to enjoy a meal. They are about who pays for it. Kelly renders the word "authority," and says what it covers:
"Have we not authority to eat and drink?" That is, a right to maintenance… and the right not only to marry a sister in the Lord, but to bring her wherever he went, cared for by the saints along with him.
Pridham reads the claim the same way, and takes it as far as the worker's family:
If he is an apostle, then the rights that belong to that office are justly his. Here they are summed up as a claim to free support for the apostles and their families, if they had them. He is not claiming only a right to marry. He is claiming that if he were married, or took a wife, she could look to the Church for support just as he could.
A man does not defend his right to eat unless someone has questioned it. Darby traces the questions to a smear campaign:
False teachers were accusing the apostle. They claimed he preached and worked for what he could get out of it, and that he took the property of Christians by trading on their devotion. So he speaks about his ministry.
Paul's critics used his self-denial — his and Barnabas's — as evidence against him:
His enemies thought any stick was good enough to beat him with. Time after time he went without this food or that drink, out of care for others. Unlike the other apostles, he had no wife to help him and share his travels. He and Barnabas worked and travelled without a pause, and without the breaks for rest that others enjoyed… In fact all these things were to his credit, for each one was his by right. He was giving up what truly belonged to him, both as a man and as a servant of the Lord, because he was wholly devoted to his Master's interests.
Paul had asked others to limit their freedom for a brother's sake. He had already done it himself:
It fits well that this follows what he urged in the chapter before, where he rebukes a use of liberty that might trip up the weak. He himself was clear of that. He did not even use his right to support while he was with them, and he had done the same about marriage (1 Cor. 7) right through his career, so that he could serve the Lord with a more undivided heart.
He builds the whole case only to walk away from it:
So he goes on stating his rights, and showing his authority for them, from both the law and the ordinances of God. But why does he set out his rights like this? Only so that he may give them all up for the gospel's sake.
Paul's refusal never cancelled the right. Hole shows what stays normal, and who really deserves credit for going without:
God has ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." That is clearly the normal thing. Some who work like this have means of their own and do not need such help. Others need it, yet are great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. Only note this difference: there is no virtue in refusing help when you have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
Yet a right to support is not the same as a wage, and the difference decides whom the worker serves:
The servant of God is to share in the material things of the saints, yet there is not a hint of a bargain between them. To fix a salary and take it drags the whole service down. It makes the worker a servant of man, not of Christ. He is to look for support to the Lord who has employed him — not to the world, and not even to fellow Christians… He is free from all, so that he may serve all the better.
- Right. The question is about support. Those he serves owe the worker his food, and his family's with him.
- Challenged. He spells this out because false teachers said he preached for profit and lived off the devotion of believers.
- Surrendered. He lists his rights one by one, then lays them all down for the gospel's sake. His critics twisted that into proof he was no apostle.
- Consistent. He had given up support and marriage long before he asked the Corinthians to limit their freedom for a weaker brother.
- Owed. The right stands even when no one uses it. Those who preach are to live by the gospel — cared for as servants of Christ, never hired hands on a fixed wage.
have we not a right to take round a sister [as] wife, as also the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Paul is defending his apostleship at Corinth, where some were willing to question it. His defence takes an odd form: he lists rights he never used. Verse 5 names one of them — the right to travel in service with a wife at his side, supported as the other apostles were.
The phrase joins two words that describe one person: a fellow believer who is also a wife. One commentator restates Paul's question and explains why an unbeliever would not do.
It is, "Why should I not have a sister as a wife?" It would not do for him to have an unconverted person. He was at liberty to marry, though an apostle. Cephas had a wife, we know; for Simon's wife's mother lay sick with a fever.
The right Paul names is larger than permission to marry.
He does not claim only a right to marry. He claims that if he were married, or took a wife, she too could look to the Church for support, just as he could. Not all twelve of the first apostles were single men. The Lord's own brothers were not all single either. The others claimed and enjoyed freedom from ordinary work, so that they could give themselves fully to prayer and to the ministry of the word.
Cephas is Peter, the last name in the verse. One writer takes it as evidence about how Peter travelled.
From this one would gather that Peter's wife accompanied him on his missionary journeys.
The same detail explains a greeting at the end of Peter's own letter, where a woman sends greetings from Babylon:
The Revised Version is right in its rendering, "She that is in Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you" (an older translation). The apostle is just sending a Christian greeting from his wife. She was with him as he wrote, in Babylon, the old capital of King Nebuchadnezzar.
The verse also names the Lord's brothers. During His ministry they did not believe in Him. One writer follows what became of them.
We know that for some time after He entered His public ministry His brothers did not believe in Him... But how sweet it is to see that the one next in age, and perhaps closest to Him, "James, the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19), was quickly won to be His loyal and faithful follower. And James was not the only one of those four won by Him; for in 1 Cor. 9:5 we see "the brothers of the Lord" linked with Cephas.
Writers have long used this verse against rules that forbid marriage for Christian workers.
It was an evil day for Christendom when the idea took hold of men's minds that Christ's servants should remain unmarried. This idea has exposed frail human flesh to the gravest moral danger. It also defies both apostolic example and the plain instructions of Holy Scripture. In 1 Cor. 9:5 Paul insists that he had the same right to a wife as to eat and drink. He points to the example of "the other apostles," and names Cephas (Peter).
One writer dates the ban on priests having wives to A.D. 324. Another records the resistance when the rule was first proposed:
At the council of Nicaea they wanted to make a rule that church leaders must stay unmarried. But one old bishop stood up and told them they would only be setting a trap for their own feet.
Paul had no wife travelling with him, and his critics used that against him.
He did not, like other apostles, have a wife to help him and share his travels... His critics seized on every one of these things to discredit him. In fact they were heavily to his credit; each one was within his rights.
Paul had one aim in proving these rights.
He states his rights only so that he may give them up. Many quote his words only so that they may insist on the very rights he gave up for the gospel's sake. There would be no grace, no moral beauty, in giving up privileges you had no right to. But when the right is clearly established, the grace that gives it up is seen in full.
- Right, not rule. Paul claims the right to take along a believing wife — a sister who is also a wife — and to have her supported along with him.
- Right, proved. Peter, the other apostles, and the Lord's own brothers all used it. Peter's wife travelled with him, and she sends greetings at the end of his letter.
- Right, defended. Writers set this verse against later rules that forbid marriage for Christ's servants.
- Right, surrendered. Paul proves the claim in full and then gives it up for the gospel's sake.
- Right, and grace. Giving up what was never yours costs nothing; the beauty lies in laying down a right you have proved you hold.
Or *I* alone and Barnabas, have we not a right not to work?
Some people at Corinth doubted that Paul was a real apostle. So he lists the rights he could have claimed. Here he names one more: he and Barnabas could have stopped earning a living and let those they served support them.
The tone of the question is legal. Paul is not boasting against the other apostles. He is answering a cross-examination from the very people he had led to Christ.
Had it come to this? Paul was put on trial — at least in the first inquiry, to see whether there was a case against him. He had to make his defence to his own Corinthian children in the faith. He then asserts the title of an apostle... To cut off the self-seeking of false apostles, he did not use his right, above all at Corinth. He worked with his own hands, as it seems Barnabas did too. Yet he lays down as beyond question the right of the spiritual worker to a living for himself and his family.
The phrase is not about idleness. It is the right to stop doing manual work and live on the support of others. Paul adds it to the rights he has already named.
The apostle, at the opening of this chapter, states his rights and privileges as an apostle... "Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living?" That is, working with their hands for their own support. So he goes on stating his rights, and he gives his authority for them, both from the law and from the ordinances of God.
Of all the names Paul could have added, this one surprises. Barnabas and Paul had separated after a sharp falling-out.
Not many years before, these devoted fellow-workers had parted in anger over a point of godly judgment. From that moment the inspired record says no more about Barnabas and his labours. But it was not in Paul's heart to stop remembering his first and closest friend in Christ with affection. Now false Jewish influences were at work to belittle his own claims next to the original apostles. So he brings into the defence of his rights, as if by instinct, the name of the one fellow-worker in the gospel who from the first had been quickest to welcome and rejoice in God's grace reaching the nations outside Israel.
Paul's wording also hints at how Barnabas was living years after the two men parted.
The mention is of him and Barnabas both being people who worked for their living while serving the Lord. It is written as though this was the way Barnabas continued to serve the Lord, even though no longer with Paul.
Paul proves the right, then walks away from it. The proof is what gives the surrender its beauty.
He states his rights only so that he may give them up. Many quote his words only so that they may claim the very rights he gave up for the gospel's sake. There would be no grace, no moral beauty in giving up privileges you had no right to. But once the right is settled, the grace that gives it up shines out in full. So it was with Paul. He had a right to live by the gospel, but grace led him to live by the work of his hands. He would take nothing from the Corinthians; but that was to their shame. He did receive "once and again" from the Philippians; that was fruit increasing to their account.
Paul's choice was his own to make. It does not become a rule others may quote back at workers to justify keeping their money in their pockets.
On the other hand it is a wonderful testimony when a man has the best gift and is full of the most self-denying labours, like the apostle, and still is not above working with his hands. He supplies the needs of others as well as his own... But, precious as this is, the church has no right to use such a scripture as an excuse for her own selfishness and neglect. It is a good word from a man who works like this to his fellow-workers, small or great. But it is quite out of place when the saints use it to hold back the faith of a spiritual worker, or to forget their own duty to those given up to the Lord's work.
- Right claimed. Paul first proves the right. He and Barnabas could have laid down their tools and lived on the support of those they served.
- Right shared. Paul names Barnabas long after their painful parting. He still counted his old friend a fellow-worker with the same rights as himself.
- Right refused. He had the right to live by the gospel. Grace led him to live by the work of his own hands instead, for the gospel's sake.
- Right measured. He took nothing from the Corinthians, and that was to their shame. He did take gifts from the Philippians, and their giving was fruit increasing to their account.
- Right owed. What one worker gave up by choice, no assembly may demand. The duty to care for those given to the Lord's work still stands.
Who ever carries on war at his own charges? who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? or who herds a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock?
Paul is answering a suspicion: that he preached for what he could get out of it. His first answer quotes no Scripture at all. He simply asks three questions from ordinary working life. Everyone in Corinth already knew the answers.
This chapter is a defence, and the questions in this verse are part of it. Paul had accusers who attacked his motives.
False teachers accused the apostle. They said he carried on his evangelising and his labours from selfish motives. They said he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotedness. So he speaks of his ministry.
The verse holds up three occupations, and each one touches Paul's case from a different side.
The apostle often uses comparisons from nature to wake up a dull spiritual understanding. We have here a threefold comparison. He likens spiritual service to the calling and work of a soldier, a vine-planter, and a shepherd. The first and third of these concern the apostle's relation to his Master, and the provision which He has appointed for His servants. The second looks rather to his own special connection with the Corinthian Church. They might be called, in subjection to the Lord, Paul's vineyard.
Each figure also matches a stage of real spiritual work.
If a man's country calls him to war, is he expected to pay all his own expenses? This pictures preaching the gospel in an enemy's country, and such work should rightly support the one who does it. Or if one plants a vineyard, should he not be allowed to eat of its fruit? This would speak of the labour of establishing the assembly. Or, in feeding a flock, is one denied even the milk of the flock? Here it is the labour of shepherding the assembly. In each case it is only morally right that those who receive blessing should help in the support of the labourer.
Paul does not rest his case on human custom alone. He stacks up three independent lines of proof, and this verse is the first of them.
Nature speaks in verse 7, Scripture in verses 9 and 10, and the direct command of the Lord in verses 13 and 14. All agree in maintaining the rights of the one who ministers spiritual things to receive the material things of the saints.
The three trades in the verse have one thing in common.
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human standards, no one can challenge this. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction.
The argument carries a warning for everyone who loves the Lord.
The Apostle lays down a principle, and spiritual reasoning in verse 7 supports it... The principle then is overwhelmingly established. Let all who love the Lord be very careful not to neglect any true servant called by Him to His service. If we do so we shall be flying in the face of His word, and as a result be great losers ourselves.
There is a line between support and a salary.
While the servant of God is to share in the temporal things of the saints, there is not a hint of a bargain between them. To fix and take a salary is to degrade the whole service, and to make the labourer not a servant of Christ, but of man. He is to look to the Lord who has employed him for support — not to the world, nor even to his brothers and sisters... his ministry has none of the flavour of a bargain, the work of a hired man, but the freshness and spontaneity of love.
Paul proves the claim, then sets it aside.
He draws the plain right to support for all labourers — from the soldier, the farmer, the shepherd, and the herdsman... While asserting the right, he refused to use it for himself in the gospel. It was God's grace in it that filled his heart and led his course.
- Right. Soldier, vine-planter and shepherd all live on what their own work brings in. Nobody disputes it. The servant of Christ stands on the same ground.
- Roles. Each picture says something different. Soldier and shepherd speak of the servant's relation to his Master. The vineyard is Paul's own planting at Corinth.
- Reasons. Nature argues it in verse 7. Scripture confirms it. The Lord Himself commanded it.
- Response. Those who receive the blessing should help support the labourer. Neglect a true servant, and you are the one who loses.
- Restraint. Support is never a wage bargain. Paul proved his right, then refused to use it. Grace, not payment, marked his service.
Do I speak these things as a man, or does not the law also say these things?
Paul has just listed the soldier, the vine‑dresser and the shepherd, each of whom lives off his own work. Now he asks whether a servant of Christ's right to support is only human common sense, or whether God says the same.
Paul knew that some would treat his words as private opinion. So he appealed to an authority his critics could not brush aside.
"Do I say these things on human authority?" He was aware that his words might be criticised, and treated by some as merely his own, with no divine authority. So he hurries to back them up by appealing to the law of Moses. He knew that Jewish prejudice lay behind the opposition to his apostolic claims. He also knew that his opponents traded on Gentile ignorance to serve their own ends. So he does not quote the words of the Lord Jesus first. He cites the older command instead, to stop the mouths of such opponents more effectively.
Everyday life makes the point on its own. Does God's law say something different?
Everyone lives on the return of their work: soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human standards, no one can question how fitting this is. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It goes even further in the same direction. When God spoke of not muzzling the ox as it treads out the grain, He did not have cattle in view. He meant His people, His servants in the word.
Reason on its own is still one man's judgment, however spiritual the man. So the support for Paul's claim comes from more than one direction.
Spiritual reasoning in verse 7 supports the principle the apostle lays down. But then this was not only the word of a man — even of a spiritual man. The law spoke in exactly the same way. Deuteronomy 25:4 holds a small law that seems oddly placed there, and it set the principle with a humble working animal. The temple service and the Jewish altars also put it into practice. Finally, the Lord Himself ordained it for the present time.
Some fear that quoting Moses drags a believer back under law. Paul's own practice answers that fear.
Let no one think that it is legal to look into the requirements of the law and to profit by them. Does not the apostle Paul write, "Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same?" For it is written in the Law of Moses… — and he builds an important truth on it.
The command Paul quotes is about an animal. Yet he claims it as instruction for gospel workers.
Verse 10 shows how freely the Spirit of grace applies all the Scriptures to the believer and his affairs, as parts of the "word of Christ." The words of Moses had to do with oxen. As far as Moses himself understood, they likely carried no further force. But the apostle is bold enough to claim them as a specific provision for himself and his fellow workers in the gospel. What Moses spoke was the word of God. God sees the end from the beginning, and He has sown seed in His earliest testimonies to bear fruit through time and into eternity.
Commentators differ on whether the command still had a literal force. One writer keeps both the literal and the spiritual sense.
Not that verse 9 means it had no literal reference to an ox. Of course the law expected the Jews to care properly for the life of their animals. Yet that was only minor compared with its spiritual meaning.
Paul's argument settles more than his own case. It sets out what the Lord has ordained for everyone who preaches.
The Lord has ordained that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. The priests and Levites of old lived on the offerings the people brought. It is the same now. God truly calls some to preach the gospel, Christ gifts them, and the Holy Spirit equips them. Those who give themselves steadily and diligently to that glorious work have a moral right to material support. It is not that they should look to those they preach to for a fixed sum. There is no such idea in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support.
- Question — Paul asks whether this is only human authority. He points to the law, so the claim rests on God, not on Paul.
- Agreement — Human reason and God's law say the same thing here, and the law says it more strongly.
- Freedom — Drawing on the law for instruction is not a return to legalism; Paul builds an important truth on it.
- Depth — A rule about an ox becomes a provision for the gospel worker, because the God who spoke through Moses sees the end from the beginning.
- Obligation — Those who preach have a right to support. But the worker looks to his Master for it, not to a fixed sum from his hearers.
For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that is treading out corn. Is God occupied about the oxen,
Some at Corinth whispered that Paul preached for money. He answers from one line of Moses about an ox at work, then asks whether God's concern in that law was really the animal — a question that touches how the Old Testament speaks to Christians, and how believers should support those who preach.
Paul writes here under attack.
False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed he preached and worked for selfish gain, and that he took the property of Christians by trading on their devotion. So he speaks about his ministry.
Before quoting Moses, Paul points to the soldier, the farmer and the shepherd. The law does not merely echo common sense here; it presses the same point harder.
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human reckoning no one can question how right this is. Did the law of God speak otherwise? The law is even stronger in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out grain, He did not have cattle in view but His people, His servants in the word.
The question is not a denial that God cares for animals. It asks what the greater purpose of the command was.
Was it really, after all, for the oxen that God cared so much? He does not, of course, mean to deny that God has care for oxen, but was that the great thing? Was there no higher purpose in such a principle as that? Does he not say it entirely, as the apostle puts it, for the sake of others — the ministers of His grace?
One writer keeps both sides in view.
Here is another strong proof that the Old Testament Scriptures were written especially for our benefit today. This quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4 applies with far more force to the Church than to the case of a literal ox. That does not mean verse 9 denies any literal reference to an ox. Of course God expected the Jews to care properly for the life of their animals. Yet this was only minor compared to the spiritual meaning of it.
Paul takes a rule about farm animals and claims it for himself and his fellow workers.
The words of Moses had to do with oxen, and as far as the lawgiver understood, they likely went no further. But the apostle is bold enough to claim them as a definite provision for himself and his fellow workers in the gospel. What Moses spoke was the word of God. God sees the end from the beginning, and He has sown seed in His earliest testimonies to bear fruit through time and on into eternity.
Writers also read this verse as a statement about Scripture itself.
The law is the law of Moses (1 Cor. 9:9); and this is God's mind, taken for granted as being so. "Is it for oxen that God is concerned?" What Moses taught was what God taught.
This way of reading Scripture carries a danger, and one writer meets it head on.
The next commandment seems to come in very strangely, and only the spiritual sense, as the apostle gives it, explains it. Some object that this opens the door wide to very loose and fanciful explanations. No doubt that is to be feared. But the remedy is not to reject the principle; it is to guard the application strictly.
The New Testament picks up this same line again.
"For the Scripture says, 'You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,' and, 'The laborer deserves his wages'" (1 Timothy 5:18). These words explain this verse, which would otherwise be rather unclear. The toiling ox is a picture of the servant and his ministry. And this has its rewards.
Commentators are careful about how this right works in practice.
It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain agreed sum. There is no such idea as this in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support.
The responsibility also runs the other way.
Let all who love the Lord be very careful not to neglect any true servant called by Him to His service. If we do so, we shall be flying in the face of His word, and so we ourselves will be the great losers.
- Ox — The command guards a real animal. But its weight lies elsewhere: God's care reaches past the ox to His servants.
- Author — Paul quotes Moses as God speaking. What Moses taught was what God taught, and God sees the end from the beginning.
- Application — The rule reaches past Israel to the Church. The one who labours in the word may live by that labour.
- Restraint — No agreed salary from the hearers. The worker looks to his Master alone for support.
- Warning — To neglect a true servant is to fly in the face of God's word. The loss falls on those who neglect him.
or does he say [it] altogether for our sakes? For for our sakes it has been written, that the plougher should plough in hope, and he that treads out corn, in hope of partaking of [it].
Paul quotes a line from the law of Moses about not muzzling an ox as it treads out grain. He says the words look past the animal to those who work for God, who plough and thresh expecting a share.
So was that old rule about a farm animal really written with us in mind?
Here is another strong confirmation that God wrote the Old Testament Scriptures for our benefit in this present day. This quotation from Deuteronomy 25:4 applies with far more force to the Church than to a literal ox. This does not mean the command had no literal reference to an ox. The Jews of course had to care properly for the life of their animals. But that was minor compared with its spiritual meaning.
No reader of Deuteronomy could have guessed the use Paul would make of it.
The LORD wrote by Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain." Who would have thought this had any bearing on believers now, in supporting those who preach the gospel?
The argument moves through soldier, vine-grower and shepherd before reaching the ox, and the imagery stays consistent all the way into the application.
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By human reckoning no one can dispute that this is right. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It speaks even more strongly in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out grain, He did not have cattle in view. He had His people in view, His servants in the word. The picture is kept up exactly. The one who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and the one who threshes ought to thresh in hope of sharing. That last phrase fits better, because the time for a share was clearly near.
Some object that reading law this way opens the door to fanciful interpretation. One writer answers that objection directly.
Wordsworth is right to dwell on the use the apostle makes of it. It shows "that the law has a spiritual sense, in which it is still binding upon all". It also gives "us the key by which we may unlock the casket and take out of it its treasures." Gosman objects that this "opens wide the door to a very loose and fanciful exposition." No doubt that is to be feared. But the remedy is not to reject the principle; it is to guard the application strictly.
In Deuteronomy this command stands beside rules about punishing a criminal. The contrast carries the point.
The ox pictures someone who labours for the Lord. He therefore has a right to the consideration of being supported by his work. One guilty of serious crime had to be punished (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), but one who laboured for the Lord had to be rewarded.
What the servant sows and what he receives are different in kind.
In speaking this way God is not thinking only of the oxen. He wrote it for our sakes. The one who ploughs and the one who threshes benefit from their work. In the same way, if the Lord's servants have sown "spiritual things", they have every right to receive "material things" in return.
Hope here is not vague optimism. It expects something real to come out of the work.
It is clear from the New Testament reference to the matter that there is to be a yield from the exercise. "He who threshes should thresh in hope of sharing in the crop" (1 Cor. 9:10).
Because the harvest is still ahead, the working stretch of it is often hard, and that is exactly where hope is needed.
Do not lose heart. If we truly labour we must be in some measure in conflict, trial and sorrow. It is a work of faith, even if it is also a labour of love and a patience of hope. Blessed fruits do come along the way, and we may see them ripening. But the great harvest is the time of joy. A clear view of that harvest, and constant reference to it, gives our work a real, deep, holy character, like His own. It will prove real in that day.
- Written for us — God gave the command about the ox with today's people in view. Its care for animals was real, but minor beside its meaning for those who serve.
- Ploughed in hope — soldier, farmer, shepherd, ox: each lives on what his work returns. God's law leans that way even harder than human fairness does.
- Threshed in hope — the worker threshes with a share of the crop in view. Hope here expects a real yield.
- Shared in hope — those who have sown spiritual things have every right to receive material things back.
- Sustained by hope — the great harvest is still ahead, so work now runs through conflict and sorrow. The coming harvest keeps the worker from losing heart.
If we have sown to you spiritual things, [is it a] great [thing] if *we* shall reap your carnal things?
Paul has just claimed the same right other workers have: support from the people he serves. Verse 11 turns that right into a question. Is it too much for those who received the greater thing to give back the lesser?
Someone might object that a farmer eats the grain he threshes. A preacher asks for something different from what he sowed. Commentators note that verse 11 answers that objection.
It is worth noticing that verse 11 also guards against anyone who would object that the comparison fails. The labourer just described is paid in the very thing he works with, while the spiritual labourer might need help in the things of this life. The apostle meets this senseless or selfish objection by showing that a return is owed all the more, since what is of the Spirit far exceeds what is of the flesh.
The sentence weighs two things against each other, and readers often put the weight on the wrong side.
Many look at the second thing — giving to servants of our Lord Jesus Christ — as the "great thing." That is a mistake! The giving of spiritual things is what is truly great, and the other is only a right and ordinary return. The labourer must be supported. It is not good when those who benefit from his service neglect the one who sows spiritual things. Spiritual poverty may follow.
Verse 11 does not stand alone. Writers point to three separate arguments that all back the same right.
The rights of the servant remained, as pictured in the service connected with the temple and its altar. Above all, the apostle asserts that these rights follow what the Lord has ordained: "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel". Nature (verse 7), Scripture (verses 9, 10), and the direct command of the Lord (verses 13, 14) all agree. Each upholds the right of the one who ministers spiritual things to receive the material things of the saints.
The Scripture argument comes from the law about not muzzling the ox that treads out the grain. That rule about farm animals was written for people.
God is not thinking only of the oxen. It is written for our sakes. If the one who ploughs and the one who threshes benefit from their labours, so do the servants of the Lord. If they have sown "spiritual things", they have a full right to receive "material things" in return.
Paul states the right, then does without it himself. Writers set out what is normal, and where the virtue lies.
It is ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." That is plainly the normal thing. Some who labour in this way may have means of their own and not need such help. Others may need it, yet be great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. But note the difference. There is no virtue in refusing help when you already have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
Commentators also give his reason for not taking their support.
He judged that in their case the interests of the gospel of Christ would best be served by his suffering "all things", rather than by taking their "material things". In his service the apostle was not governed by the thought of gain, but by the interests of Christ and His gospel.
If support is a right, it could be mistaken for employment. Writers draw a sharp line here.
Here too God used the willing hands of His people. But no one understood that they "hired" him, or that he was their labourer. What they gave, they gave to God, and it was his privilege to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference. You cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" in this sense to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.
The loss in neglecting this falls on the givers, not only on the worker.
An assembly would be to blame if they knew an evangelist was labouring and did not help him. They would be losing one of their privileges.
- Sown. The spiritual seed comes first. The whole argument rests on what Paul gave before he asked for anything.
- Greater. What is of the Spirit far exceeds what is of the flesh, so the return asked for is small, not large.
- Ordinary. Giving material help back is the right and ordinary response — the truly great thing was the sowing.
- Confirmed. Nature, the law of Moses, and the Lord's own command all agree: the one who sows spiritual things may reap material things.
- Offered. What is given is offered to God, not paid to a hired man — and the assembly that withholds it loses a privilege of its own.
If others partake of this right over you, should not rather *we*? But we have not used this right, but we bear all things, that we may put no hindrance in the way of the glad tidings of the Christ.
Paul has just argued from the soldier, the farmer and the shepherd that a worker has the right to live from his work. Then, the moment he wins the point, he lays that right down and refuses to use it — and this verse tells us why.
Paul raises the subject of money for a reason. He is answering people who questioned his motives.
False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed that he preached and worked from selfish motives. They said that he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. So he speaks of his ministry.
Paul points to what the Corinthians already did for other teachers. His own claim was stronger — and his refusal to press it proved nothing against him.
If others made use of this right to take their material things, how much more could the Apostle? He had served them so faithfully. If he held back from taking their material things, that was no proof that he was not an apostle. It did not mean that he had no right to receive from them. Rather, it showed his judgment. In their case, the interests of the gospel of Christ would be best served if he suffered "all things" instead of taking their "material things." In his service the Apostle was not driven by the thought of gain. He was driven by the interests of Christ and His gospel.
The obstacle Paul feared was not in the message but in what people could say about the messenger. So he removed the material for the accusation before anyone could make it.
They are his witness too, that the right he so justly asserted he had never used. He had chosen another and a wiser way. Knowing the enemy's devices well, he would carefully cut off any occasion. He would let nothing appear in his ministry that the enemies of truth could use to do damage... No one should be able to hint, with any show of reason, that God's chosen ambassador of reconciliation to the world used his commission to make money. And no one should be able to claim that a man who openly gloried in the cross of Jesus Christ his Lord traded in the gospel of free grace.
Paul argues hard for the worker's right, then never uses it himself. That is what gives his case for others its force.
He takes care, however, to show that he was wholly above selfish aims in pleading this way for the spiritual labourer and his right to support: "We have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ." He would plead for others and their right. He would press the duty of the saints who are served, on a right view of the work done. But he did not use the right for himself. Instead he bore every kind of trial, so as to put no hindrance in the way of the gospel.
What Paul bears, he bears out of love. And love, as one writer describes it, is not a soft feeling but a strength.
Love is willing to put up with everything except sin. And sin, when confessed, love takes care to cover... It does not break under the weight of any secret, and is not discouraged by neglect. It can cheerfully face obstacles, because it has a steady and self-governing aim. The apostle bore all things for the gospel's sake. There is in true love all the force of will, and this is what distinguishes it from mere sentiment. It is not a duty only, but a power.
The verse cuts two ways. Christians owe support to those who teach them. The teacher himself should be slow to claim it.
How much more, then, is this true of the servant of Christ? The servant of the Lord can never say, Why do you not minister to me? Rather, he will long to be like the Apostle Paul. Paul held to the principle "that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." Yet he adds, "But I have made no use of any of these rights." It will be his joy if he can, as far as possible, "present the gospel free of charge." He will be very afraid that he might hinder the gospel of Christ.
- Right. Paul's claim to support was real. It was stronger than the claim of the teachers the Corinthians already supported.
- Refused. He never collected it. He had the right; he judged that the gospel would gain more if he went without.
- Reason. He cut off every occasion, so no one could say the ambassador of free grace traded in it.
- Cost. "We endure anything" is love with a will behind it. Not sentiment, but a power that faces obstacles with a steady aim.
- Result. He claimed nothing for himself. That is why no one can argue against his plea for every other worker's support.
Do ye not know that they who labour [at] sacred things eat of the [offerings offered in the] temple; they that attend at the altar partake with the altar?
Paul has already argued from a soldier's pay, a farmer's crop, and an ox treading grain that a worker deserves support. Now he points to the one place his readers could not dispute: God's own sanctuary. The men who served there lived on what people brought. So why raise it, when Paul goes on to say he never used the right himself?
The verse names two groups. The law of Israel set out what each one received, and one writer traces it forward to the preacher:
Verse 13 refers to the Levites who served in connection with the temple, and the priests waiting at the altar. The Levites received the tithes of the people (Num. 18:21); and as well as sharing in this, the priests received part of the sacrifices that they offered (Lev. 6:26; 7:6, 14). In this way God provided for their support. In the same way God had ordained that those who preach the gospel should "get their living by the gospel."
Behind both arrangements stands the same Giver:
Jehovah Himself was the portion and inheritance of the priests among the sons of Israel, so He gave them a share in His offerings and sacrifices. In the same way, under the gospel, the Lord does not forget those who preach it. He appoints them to draw their living from it. There may be exceptions, as with the man who has written this rule for us.
His readers in Corinth were not Jews, yet Paul assumes they know how Israel's sanctuary worked. One writer explains why that assumption is fair:
He next makes a special reference to the Levitical system, to establish the analogy between the priestly service and reward under the former covenant, and the ministry of Christ under the new... Nor should it seem strange that Paul assumes these Gentile believers know Jewish ordinances. Apart from his own teaching among them, we may be sure they had listened to Apollos, a man so mighty in the Scriptures — and no one could do that without becoming familiar, at least in general, with the ordinances of the former sanctuary.
This verse is the last of several arguments, and they all reach the same conclusion:
Whether it was nature (verse 7), or Scripture (verses 9, 10), or the direct ordinance of the Lord (verses 13, 14), all agree on the same right. The one who ministers in spiritual things may receive material things from the saints.
The temple picture shapes how the saints give, not only that they give. Money handed over as a fee for service would break the analogy:
Although here also God used the willing hands of His people, it was not understood that they "hired" him, or that he was their labourer. What they gave, they gave to God, and his privilege was to be Christ's servant. His responsibility was to the Lord, and theirs also. They did not understand that they were to get so much work for so much money. They did not pay, but "offered." There is a wonderful difference; for you cannot "pay" God, and you do not "offer" in this sense to man. The moment you pay, God is out of the question.
That leaves the worker looking in one direction only:
It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain fixed sum. There is no such idea in the New Testament. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support... True, He expected the people to serve Him by caring for His servants. He told them what to give, and blessed them in giving; it was their high privilege as well as their duty to give.
Paul builds the case and then declines to collect on it:
He was wholly above selfish aims in pleading for the spiritual labourer and his title to support... He would plead for others and their title, and for the duty of the saints who receive that ministry, based on a right view of the work done. But he did not use the right for himself. Instead he bore all sorts of trial, so as to put no hindrance in the way of the gospel.
Giving up such a right does not always cost the same:
Some who labour in this way have means of their own and do not need such help. Others need it, yet are great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. Only there is just this difference: there is no virtue in refusing help when you already have enough. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
- Altar — The priests and Levites lived on the tithes and sacrifices people brought to God. He Himself was their inheritance, so they ate at His table.
- Analogy — Paul reaches back to the sanctuary to settle the matter. What God arranged for the altar, He has arranged for those who preach.
- Agreement — Nature, the law, and the Lord's own word point to the same right. The case rests on three witnesses, not one.
- Offering — The gift goes to God, not to a hired man. The servant looks to his Master alone, and the saints give as a privilege, never as payment.
- Abstaining — Paul argues the right in full and then refuses it. Giving it up costs something only when the one giving it up has nothing else.
So also the Lord has ordained to those that announce the glad tidings to live of the glad tidings.
Paul has just piled up examples — the soldier, the farmer, the shepherd, the ox, the priests at the altar. Now he points to the highest authority of all, the Lord's own command, and then refuses to use it himself.
The command goes back to words of the Lord in the Gospels, and a later letter quotes them as settled.
The labourer is indeed worthy of his food, and of his hire. There are other necessities beyond food, and the Lord forgot none. This twofold statement makes it plain (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7, as cited in 1 Timothy 5:18). So the apostle declares that the Lord ordained the same for those who preach the gospel: they should live by the gospel, as the law had done before for those who ministered about holy things.
"In the same way" ties this verse to everything before it — even the rule about the threshing ox.
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By any human reckoning, no one can question that this is right. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out the grain, He did not have cattle in view. He meant His people, His servants in the word. The figure holds exactly. The one who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and the one who threshes ought to thresh in hope of sharing.
The phrase covers what a worker needs to keep going.
If a preacher gives up his trade for the Lord's sake, of course he may live by the gospel: others maintain and feed him, giving food, clothing, and what he needs. Or, if he has the energy, he may work like Paul all night. He can then support his household and stop selfish people, like some at Corinth, from saying, He is doing it for his pay. Not many have energy enough to do both things well. If you have a man preaching, supply him while he preaches.
So where does the worker look for that living?
It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain agreed sum. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support. Woe to him if he looks to the church, or to men in any way.
It also matters who does the giving.
These and other scriptures show who should support the servant of the Lord: those who have received the Word through him, and other Christians. From the unsaved they were to take nothing (see 3 John 5-8). Think how out of place it is to preach to a room full of unsaved people. The preacher tells them of God's gift and urges them to accept it. He assures them they can give nothing to God until they receive Christ — and then comes the collection.
Failing to support a worker is not a neutral choice. It costs those who hold back.
An assembly would be to blame if they knew an evangelist was labouring and did not assist him. They would be losing one of their privileges. The Philippians were very forward to do it, and so it was now with some. Such help would bring blessing not only on the one side but on the other. Locality makes no difference. An evangelist is a servant of Christ, not of the assembly.
Paul proved the right, then refused to use it.
The Apostle has carefully asserted the rights of the servant. In the rest of the chapter he shows how he had used his own rights in the assembly at Corinth. He had turned them into an occasion for sacrificing himself in the interests of Christ and His gospel. He gave up one privilege to enjoy a higher privilege.
Paul's choice is not the rule for everyone, and not everyone who declines help gives up something.
The Lord ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." This is the normal thing. Some who labour in this way may have means of their own and not need such help. Others may need it and still be great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. But there is just this difference: those who have enough gain no virtue by declining help. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
- Ordained — the right rests on a command of the Lord Himself, not on custom or need. The Gospels record it and 1 Timothy repeats it.
- Ordinary — nature, the law of God and the altar all agree: the one who works eats. Support of a gospel worker is the normal thing, not a special favour.
- Ordered — the Lord ordained maintenance, not a salary. The servant looks to his Master, receives from those he has taught, and takes nothing from the unconverted.
- Owed — believers who leave a worker unsupported are not saving money. They lose a privilege the Philippians were quick to seize.
- Offered up — Paul proved the right, then handed it back. He traded a privilege for the higher privilege of sacrificing himself. The virtue lay in having nothing and still refusing.