For in what is it that ye have been inferior to the other assemblies, unless that I myself have not been in laziness a charge upon you? Forgive me this injury.
Paul refused to take money from the church at Corinth, and some there held it against him. He turns the complaint into a question, then asks their pardon for it — with a sting.
Only one thing set Corinth below the other churches.
There was nothing, then, in which they were behind the other assemblies. The one exception was the independence from them that he seemed to show. If that was a wrong, they must forgive him for it. For him it was only the independence of a parent who seeks his children's good rather than their service.
The plea for pardon is not a real confession.
When he was with them, he took care not to be a financial burden in any way. Yet he had taken help from other churches. He speaks again with a tinge of irony in saying, "forgive me this wrong." He intended to continue on the same lines.
Some at Corinth admired teachers who charged them.
For all his apostolic power, he had not fleeced them to press the weight of his office on their minds — a style of pastoring that seemed to attract them. He had not even let them do what other churches did, who gladly gave to his support... He held back from using his undoubted rights as a labourer worthy of his hire. This, he acknowledged, was a wrong they might well resent. So he asks forgiveness — but in the spirit of a man who confesses while planning to do it again.
One reason lay in the state Corinth was in.
He could look for support from the church of God, but he preferred to work with his own hands. So in the second letter to the Corinthians he begs them to forgive the wrong. He would not accept anything from them. They were not in a state to be trusted with such a gift. Their state was what it was, and God so overruled it in His ways that the apostle received nothing from them. He uses this fact to humble them because of their pride and immorality.
A second reason involved rival teachers.
Later there was another special reason why the apostle would not take money from the Corinthians. False teachers wanted to profit from Paul's work, and they pretended to work without taking anything. Paul wanted to remove every chance of influence from these evil men. They were not to claim anything that was not just as true of him.
What Paul did at Corinth was the exception, not his rule for gospel workers.
He would not take from the Corinthians because they were fond of money. But he speaks of it as a wrong, and as something out of the ordinary. He did take from others for the gospel's sake. In 1 Corinthians 9 he treats the whole matter on the ground that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.
Paul's refusal ran one way: he took the loss, they took the benefit.
He lowered himself to lift them up. Was this an offence, a sin? He had accepted help from other churches, above all the Macedonian ones. He speaks of this as robbing, or plundering, them — still the language of irony, of course. He had done the Corinthians the greatest possible service, and it cost them nothing.
- Nothing lacking. Corinth lacked nothing the other churches had. The one place they came up short was the money Paul never took.
- The "wrong" is love. He asks pardon for refusing their money. One writer notes that he plans to commit the same fault again.
- Refusal had reasons. Their state made them unfit for such a gift. Taking nothing also left the rival teachers no hold over him.
- A choice, not a rule. Paul held that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. At Corinth he let his own right go.
- Parent, not pensioner. The whole stance is a father's: he stays free of his children so he can spend on them, not live off them.
Behold, this third time I am ready to come to you, and I will not be in laziness a charge; for I do not seek yours, but you; for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.
Paul is writing ahead of a visit to Corinth, and the subject is money — his own refusal to take any of theirs. Behind his words about parents and children lies a defence of his motives: what does a servant of God want from the people he serves?
Readers have puzzled over the count of visits. One writer explains that it counts intentions, not arrivals.
His planned visit was the third in purpose, not in fact. His second intention had remained unfulfilled, for the reasons already given. He was ready before, and held back only for their sakes. Now he was ready once more, and if he came, they would find him still unchanged. He will be at his own expense, and not theirs.
Paul had a right to support. His refusal at Corinth was not a rule he kept everywhere. It came from the spirit he found in that assembly.
The apostle was ready to preach the gospel everywhere at any cost to himself. In some places he felt free and happy to receive, not only from people but from assemblies, going on with God in grace and humility. When the world's spirit prevailed, he held back and would receive nothing. The general principle remained intact: "the labourer deserves his wages." But the apostle, while laying down what is right, could and did go beyond it in grace. He used his right not for himself but for Christ wherever His glory called for it. From the poor Macedonian brothers he received; from the wealthy Corinthians nothing.
The same writer shows what giving up that right cost him, and whose pattern he followed.
If he now at last revisited Corinth, the servant would still hold to the portion of his Master, and give instead of receive. He had a right to live by the gospel and to be cared for by the assembly. Yet he would give that right up among people who might misuse or misunderstand it, to Christ's dishonour. He would be like a parent in unselfish affection to his children. He would fare as the One whose love grew as others hated. How remarkably close was Paul's "imitation" of Christ!
Paul takes his illustration from ordinary family life. Scripture applies that family life in both directions.
He will not change his practice when he comes. He will still receive no support from them, for he does not seek what they have, but themselves — that is, their true welfare according to God. And he applies to this a natural, normal principle, that of parents providing for their children, rather than the reverse. He was doing this. We must not forget the other side of the truth either, as 1 Timothy 5:4 shows. If parents are in need, their children are responsible to relieve them, if they have the means.
People often use the line about parents laying up for children to justify piling up money. One writer answers them.
How glad people are when they get a semblance of Scripture authority for their worldliness! In this passage it is only a semblance of authority. The apostle is not teaching Christians to hoard. He is not teaching heavenly people to lay up treasure on earth, for any purpose. He only refers to a common practice in the world and a common feeling in nature. He uses it to illustrate his own way of dealing with the Corinthians, who were his children in the faith. He had not burdened them, and he would not burden them, for he was the parent.
It is sad that Paul had to defend himself over money. Yet he stoops to meet their suspicion, because love bears it.
If they had fallen behind other churches in any proof of his apostleship, it was in this: they had contributed nothing to his support. He was coming again. This proof would still be missing. He would spend himself for them, like a kind father, even though the more he loved, the less they loved him… It is sad work when someone is above these miserable motives and ways of judging things, and full of the divine and glorious motives of Christ. Yet he must come down to the motives that fill the selfish hearts of the people he deals with. But love must bear all things.
- Ready. The third time is the third intention, not the third arrival. Coming again, he would come unchanged — at his own expense, not theirs.
- Relinquished. The right to support stood firm as a principle. Paul gave up his own claim where the world's spirit made taking it dishonour Christ.
- Reversed. He would not take from Corinth what he took from poor Macedonia. The giving flowed toward the weaker, as a parent's does toward a child.
- Wanted. He wanted the Corinthians themselves, not their money. He kept spending himself as a father, even when their love came back thinner than his own.
- Misused. The line about parents laying up is an illustration from ordinary life, not permission to hoard. Children still owe help to needy parents (1 Timothy 5:4).