Have I committed sin, abasing myself in order that *ye* might be exalted, because I gratuitously announced to you the glad tidings of God?
Paul brought the good news to Corinth and took no money for it. Some there used that against him. So he asks whether it was a sin to lower himself so that they could be lifted up.
He is not asking for information. He repeats the charge back at the people who made it.
From verses 6 to 9 we gather that people had belittled the apostle. It was not only that his speech was not polished. It was also that he had taken no money from the Corinthians while he was among them. When he speaks of this, his language carries a note of irony. He had lowered himself to lift them up. Was this an offence, a sin? He had accepted help from other churches, especially those in Macedonia. He calls this robbing, or spoiling, them — still irony, of course.
Behind the complaint lay an idea of what a real apostle should look like: fees prove authority.
I took no money from you when I brought you the good news. Some among you are clever enough to see in this a solid argument against the truth of my apostleship. A man truly worthy of that title, they will say, should think more of his official dignity. He should make the honour of his presence felt. Fees should back up authority. Christ's careless sheep should learn the value of sound doctrine from the price attached to their privilege of hearing true apostolic teaching!
The same writer then answers in Paul's own voice.
As for me, I own myself in fault. I came in the name of Him who did not please Himself. In my simplicity I thought that love would reproduce itself, and that my lowering myself would dethrone your pride. I reckoned that in my unselfish labour you would have found an example to follow, rather than a cause of blame. So if I erred in this, I did it on purpose.
He did take support elsewhere. What decided it was the spirit of the place.
Low-minded men misunderstand and despise a humility and love they cannot match themselves. Some at Corinth bowed to position and money. They were blind to the apostle's grace in working with his own hands, or at least in taking no help from rich Corinth... The apostle was ready to preach the gospel everywhere, at any cost to himself. In some places he felt free and glad to receive — not only from people, but from churches that were walking with God in grace and humility. Where the world's spirit ruled, he held back and would take nothing... From the poor Macedonian brothers he received; from the wealthy Corinthians, nothing.
So why refuse their money? The reason lay with other teachers at Corinth.
Was the offence perhaps in taking nothing from them and preaching the gospel freely, without money?... But why? Because he did not love them? God was his witness that this was not the case. He did it to take away the false teachers' boast of preaching for nothing. Then they could not say: we work free of charge, while the apostle takes money for his services.
Refusing pay was not a rule he imposed on everyone. He held the opposite rule for others and dropped it for himself.
Paul would not take a penny from the Corinthians. Yet he laid down the rule that people should support the Lord's servant. He laid that rule down for others and threw it away for himself. He worked and supported himself. He ministered the truth, but he kept the things of God far away from money.
The same reversal did not stop with Corinth.
Do you not see that the apostle Paul would not use the right to support that the gospel gave him? He would not let anyone take away that confident boast. He had the right, but he preferred to work with his own hands rather than be a burden... What a fearful decline from the whole spirit, and the letter too, of Christianity! What a complete change from the character of the gospel! Men of every kind now count as a stain, and a thing to blame, the very thing that was the apostle's boast.
- Free, on purpose. Paul preached at Corinth without charge. His question here is ironic: he repeats their accusation back to them.
- Free, so he stooped. Working with his own hands put him in a low place in the eyes of people who measured a teacher by fees and dignity.
- Free, so they rose. He lowered himself for their gain. He expected his example to break their pride, not feed it.
- Free, so rivals had nothing to use. Taking nothing removed the one boast the false teachers could have used to outbid him.
- Free, not required. He taught that people should support those who preach, and he took help from Macedonia. He gave up that right for himself alone.
I spoiled other assemblies, receiving hire for ministry towards you.
Paul's critics at Corinth said his refusal of their money proved he was no real apostle. His answer is blunt: other assemblies paid his way while he worked among the Corinthians for free.
The verse sits inside a defence. Some at Corinth valued position and money. They could not see the grace in a preacher who worked with his own hands and took nothing from them:
But small-minded men misunderstand and despise a humility and love they are not capable of themselves. Some at Corinth bowed to position and money. They were blind to the apostle's grace in working with his own hands, or at least in taking no help from rich Corinth. "Did I commit sin in humbling myself that you might be exalted, because I announced the gospel of God to you free of charge? Other churches I spoiled, receiving hire for service towards you." ... From the poor believers in Macedonia he received; from the wealthy Corinthians nothing. What a contrast that is to the Christian world today!
"Robbed" is strong language for gifts that people gave willingly. One writer says Paul meant every word of it:
"I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service." This strong expression is no exaggeration of the truth. Paul knew the natural temper of the people he is addressing here. He would not stir up feelings in them that might work against the free course of the gospel. So instead he had let too much weight fall on the grace of other believers. It is a low place these kingly Corinthians now have to fill. They alone were left out of the honour of supporting the apostle. That was a bitter dose, and good for their pride.
Older translations say "taking wages" where the ESV has "accepting support." The picture is a servant paid by one group while he works for another:
When Paul says (2 Cor. 11:8), "I robbed other churches, taking wages of them to do you service," he is clearly speaking in a figure, however absolute the wording. It does not refer to the ministry of the word as such. He had been servant of the Corinthians, and others had paid his wages.
He was not being cold toward them. He was cutting the ground from under men who wanted an excuse to boast:
He explains his true motive. "But what I am doing I will also do, in order to cut off the occasion of those who desire an occasion, so that in what they boast about they may be found just as we are." It is a cheap boast, where men have plenty and need no self-denying devotion. "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ."
Paul never said gospel workers should go without support. He would not press the claim himself, and one writer gives two reasons:
At the same time he fully recognised our Lord's rule: "the labourer deserves his wages." Why then, someone may ask, did the apostle not make more use of it? On the one hand, this devoted servant would not claim his rights, for fear he should be misunderstood. On the other hand, some of his converts had only just been won back from the deepest darkness. He felt they needed an object lesson in him, of how to earn an honest living.
Some read the verse as a warrant for a fixed salary from a congregation to its minister. One writer marks the difference:
For special reasons he would take nothing from the believers at Corinth. He did take from other churches... But how different this is from what is called a paid ministry. Here was a man led by the Spirit to give his whole time to the Lord's work. The Lord would not let him be in want. He supplies what is lacking by putting it into the hearts of people or of churches to give to his needs.
Paul took gifts from some assemblies and refused them from others. One writer turns that into a question for today:
If Paul were with us today, I wonder if there would be gatherings from whom he could not accept gifts?
- Hired — Paul pictures himself as a servant. One set of assemblies paid his wages while he worked for another. The picture is a figure of speech, not a rule about salaries.
- Robbed — the harsh word is deliberate. He had leaned hard on the grace of poorer saints so the gospel could run free at Corinth.
- Rich — the poor believers in Macedonia supported him. He left wealthy Corinth out on purpose, and the snub was good medicine for their pride.
- Right — he never denied that the labourer deserves his wages. He set it aside, so no one could misread him, and so his converts had a living lesson in honest work.
- Reason — false apostles traded on cheap boasting. Paul cut the ground from under them, and the Lord met his needs another way.
And being present with you and lacking, I did not lazily burden any one, (for the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied what I lacked,) and in everything I kept myself from being a burden to you, and will keep myself.
Paul took no money from the Corinthians while he preached in their city, and they thought less of him for it. So why would a preacher with a right to support turn it down, and promise never to change?
His critics turned his refusal of their money into evidence against him.
From verses 6 to 9 we gather that people had belittled the Apostle. They did so partly because his speech was not polished, and partly because he had taken no money from the Corinthians while he was among them. When he refers to this, his language carries a touch of irony. He had humbled himself to lift them up. Was this an offence, a sin? He had accepted help from other churches, especially those in Macedonia. He calls this robbing, or plundering, them — again the language of irony, of course. He had done the Corinthians the greatest possible service, and it cost them nothing.
The verse admits real need. What it also shows is what Paul did with that need while he was living among them.
Paul knew the natural temper of the people he is now addressing. He did not want to stir up feelings among them that might work against the free course of the gospel. So he had allowed an undue pressure on the grace of other saints. These Corinthians, who acted like kings, now have a low place to fill. They found themselves shut out of the honour of supporting the apostle, and that must have been a bitter but healthy blow to their pride... If he came to them, he came at no expense to them. While among them, though he was in need, he would not tell them about his needs. He would live at the cost of others instead — people who could better appreciate his grace.
Macedonia lay far to the north of Corinth.
Later he was at the wealthy city of Corinth, far south of Macedonia, and in real need. It was saints from Macedonia who met that shortage: no doubt saints from Philippi, and perhaps also from Thessalonica and Berea.
Paul did not take help from every church alike.
The apostle was ready to preach the gospel everywhere at his own cost. In some places he felt free and happy to receive, not only from people but from churches, going on with God in grace and humility. Where the world's spirit ruled, he held back and would take nothing... From the poor Macedonian brothers he received; from the wealthy Corinthians nothing.
Paul had a right to be supported. He chose not to use it.
The apostle was called in an extraordinary way, and it was fitting that he should act in extraordinary grace. This is what he does. He made the gospel without cost to others, at all cost to himself. He did not use his right to a support for himself... It is the giving up of one's right for special reasons of grace.
Corinth was a trading city, and that shaped how Paul handled money there.
We are meant to see how fitting this was in wealthy, trading Corinth. He would not have them think of the gospel as one of the goods they traded in. Money could not buy the priceless gift of God. They should not be able to think, even for a moment, that he was after anything of theirs. No, he sought only the people themselves. He sought them in the love of Christ, who was so rich, yet became poor for men, so that His poverty might make them rich.
The promise looks forward, and Paul gives its motive in the next verses. Rivals in Corinth were making a boast out of preaching for free.
It was his boast that he took nothing from them, since the brothers in Macedonia had supplied his needs... But why? Because he did not love them? God was his witness that this was not the case. It was to take away from these false teachers their boast of preaching for nothing. Then they could not say, "We work free of charge while the apostle receives money for his services."
- Charge — Critics looked down on Paul for preaching at Corinth without pay. He answers them with irony.
- Want — He ran short of money among them, and said nothing about it to them.
- Supply — Believers from Macedonia filled the gap. He took from the poor and refused the rich.
- Right — Gospel workers may be supported. Paul held to that rule, and still refused to use it for himself.
- Resolve — His promise to refrain was settled policy. It took away his rivals' boast and kept the gospel out of the market.