Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 9:1

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Corinthians 9:1” utilice nuestra app.

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Ch. 1Co 9:1-14. St Paul’s Defence of his Apostolic Authority

1. Am I not an apostle? am I not free? ] This chapter is devoted to a defence of the Apostolic authority of St Paul, but there is an under-current of thought connecting it with the last which may easily be missed. In ch. 8. St Paul has been exhorting the Corinthians to sacrifice their own personal predilections for the benefit of others. In 1Co 9:13 he declares himself to be ready to act upon this principle to the uttermost. But some may say, “Fine doctrine this, but does the Apostle practise what he preaches?” Robertson. He is about to give a proof of his sincerity by referring to his sacrifice of self for the good of others, when he anticipates in his mind the reply, You have no power to do otherwise: you are not an Apostle at all; and he replies to each of these statements in his usual fervid way, by asking of each of them, Is it really then true? This connection of ideas is strengthened if with the majority of MSS. and the Syriac and Vulgate versions (so Wiclif, Whethir I am not free? am I not Apostle?) we transpose the two clauses, and read, “ Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? The argument is admirably summarized by Bp Wordsworth thus: “Am I not free? Am I not an Apostle? Am I not your Apostle?”

have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? ] One distinction drawn by St Paul’s opponents between him and the other Apostles was that they had seen and associated with Christ, while he had not. He rebuts this in the form of a question. He had seen the Lord (1) in the way to Damascus (Act 9:3; Act 9:17); (2) after his return to Jerusalem (Act 22:17, cf. 1Co 9:14 of the same chapter, and Act 9:26; Gal 1:18); (3) at Corinth itself (Act 18:9, where observe that the Greek word does not signify dream, since it is used of the burning bush in Act 7:31 as well as of the transfiguration in St Mat 17:9); (4) on some occasion not specified (2Co 12:1), but probably during the Apostle’s sojourn in Arabia (Gal 1:17), unless indeed it be the vision above-mentioned in Acts 22.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Am I not an apostle? – This was the point to be settled; and it is probable that some at Corinth had denied that he could be an apostle, since it was requisite, in order to that, to have seen the Lord Jesus; and since it was supposed that Paul had not been a witness of his life, doctrines, and death.

Am I not free? – Am I not a free man; have I not the liberty which all Christians possess, and especially which all the apostles possess? The liberty referred to here is doubtless the privilege or right of abstaining from labor; of enjoying as others did the domestic relations of life; and of a support as a public minister and apostle. Probably some had objected to his claims of apostleship that he had not used this right, and that he was conscious that he had no claim to it. By this mode of interrogation, he strongly implies that he was a freeman, and that he had this right.

Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? – Here it is implied, and seems to be admitted by Paul, that in order to be an apostle it was necessary to have seen the Saviour. This is often declared expressly; see the note at Act 1:21-22. The reason of this was, that the apostles were appointed to be witnesses of the life, doctrines, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and that in their being witnesses consisted the uniqueness of the apostolic office. That this was the case is abundantly manifest from Mat 28:18-19; Luk 24:48; Act 1:21-22; Act 2:32; Act 10:39-41. Hence, it was essential, in order that anyone should be such a witness, and an apostle, that he should have seen the Lord Jesus. In the case of Paul, therefore, who was called to this office after the death and resurrection of the Saviour, and who had not therefore had an opportunity of seeing and hearing him when living, this was provided for by the fact that the Lord Jesus showed himself to him after his death and ascension, in order that he might have this qualification for the apostolic office, Act 9:3-5, Act 9:17. To the fact of his having been thus in a miraculous manner qualified for the apostolic office, Paul frequently appeals, and always with the same view that it was necessary to have seen the Lord Jesus to qualify one for this office, Act 22:14-15; Act 26:16; 1Co 15:8. It follows from this, therefore, that no one was an apostle in the strict and proper sense who had not seen the Lord Jesus. And it follows, also, that the apostles could have no successors in that which constituted the uniqueness of their office; and that the office must have commenced and ended with them.

Are not ye my work in the Lord? – Have you not been converted by my labors, or under my ministry; and are you not a proof that the Lord, when I have been claiminG to be an apostle, has owned me as an apostle, and blessed me in this work? God would not give his sanction to an impostor, and a false pretender; and as Paul had labored there as an apostle, this was an argument that he had been truly commissioned of God. A minister may appeal to the blessing of God on his labors in proof that he is sent of Him. And one of the best of all arguments that a man is sent from God exists where multitudes of souls are converted from sin, and turned to holiness, by his labors. What better credentials than this can a man need that he is in the employ of God? What more consoling to his own mind? What more satisfactory to the world?

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Co 9:1-22

Am I not an apostle?

Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

Signs of apostleship

Why should Paul, departing from his usual custom, speak here of himself and his claims? Undoubtedly because these were questioned. Now wishing to incite the Corinthians to self-denial, Paul exemplified this virtue; but to make this effective it was necessary that he should assert and vindicate his position and rights. If he had no special commission from Christ, there was no virtue in renouncing privileges which never were his. The signs of his apostleship were–

I. The vision of christ. Not that every one who saw Jesus became an apostle; but that none became an apostle who had not seen and been commissioned by Him. No doubt he had been contrasted with the twelve to his disadvantage in these respects. But Paul would not submit to an imputation which must needs weaken his authority. He had seen the Lord on the way to Damascus, had heard His voice, and been entrusted with a special mission to the Gentiles. He had not been preaching the gospel at the instigation of his own inclinations, but in obedience to the authority of Christ.

II. Success in apostolic labour. The craftsman proves his ability by the work he does; the sailor by his navigation of the vessel; the soldier by his courage and skill. So the apostle acknowledges the justice of the practical test.

1. Paul appealed to his work. Labour is misspent when no results ensue. But his labour had not been in vain.

2. The workmanship of the apostle was also his seal, i.e., it bore the mark and witness of his character, ability and office. A competent judge, looking to the Churches Paul had founded, would admit them to be evidence of his apostleship.

3. The signs were manifest in the very community where his authority was questioned. There is irony and force in the appeal made to the Corinthians. Whoever raised a question they should not. (Prof. J. R. Thomson.)

The leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister

The greater minister of Christ

I. The More Independent Of Ceremonial Restrictions. Paul was an apostle, and had seen Christ, a qualification that distinguished him as a minister from all but eleven others. Besides this, his natural and acquired endowments placed him in the first rank of reasoners, scholars, and orators. He was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, &c. But see how he regarded the mere conventionalities of religious society. Am I not an apostle? Am I not free?–referring to the eating of meat offered to idols, &c. (1Co 8:13). The greater the man, always the more independent he is of forms, fashions, customs. Hezekiah called that which his countrymen worshipped Nehushtan, a piece of brass. Cromwell called that glittering insignia of authority on the table of the House of Commons a bauble, Thomas Carlyle called all the pageantry of office and the glitter of wealth shams. Burns called the swaggering lordling a coof. A famous French preacher began his funeral address over the coffin of his sovereign with There is nothing great but God. What cared Elijah for kings? Nothing. Felix trembled before the moral majesty of Paul, even in chains.

II. The higher the services he renders to society (1Co 9:1-2). He that converteth a sinner from the error of his ways, &c. What work approaches this in grandeur and importance? And the man who succeeds in accomplishing it demonstrates the divinity of his ministry (1Co 9:3).

III. The more independent he is of the innocent enjoyments of life (1Co 9:4-5). Paul claims the privilege to eat and drink as he pleased, and to marry or not.

IV. The more claim he has to the temporal support of those whom he spiritually serves (1Co 9:6-14). The reasons are–

1. The general usage of mankind (1Co 9:7). He illustrates the equity of the principle from the cases of the soldier, the agriculturist, and the shepherd.

2. The principle of the Jewish law (1Co 9:8-9). Doth God take care for oxen? Yes; but is not man greater than the ox? And shall he work and be deprived of temporal supplies?

3. The principles of common equity (1Co 9:11).

4. Other apostles and their wives were thus supported (1Co 9:6-12). Have we done less? Is our authority inferior?

5. The support of the Jewish priesthood (1Co 9:13).

6. The ordination of Christ (1Co 9:14; cf. Mat 10:10). Looking at all that Paul says on that question here, the conviction cannot be avoided that no man has a stronger claim to a temporal recompense than a true gospel minister. Albeit no claims are so universally ignored. Call the money you pay to your butcher, baker, lawyer, doctor, charity; but in the name of all that is just, do not call that charity which you tender to the man who consecrates his entire being and time to impart to you the elements of eternal life.

V. The more ready to surrender his claims for the sake of usefulness. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

A true minister

We see in these verses–

I. What it is that constitutes a true minister.

1. Communion with Christ. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

2. Souls won for Christ. Are not ye my work in the Lord?

II. The true minister ought to be recognised by his people.

1. Courtesy demands it.

2. His message demands it.

3. His work requires it.

4. Their consciousness declares it.

III. It is often better to answer foolish questions than to pass them by.

1. For the sake of individual character.

2. For the sake of the Christian Church.

3. For the sake of mankind. (A. F. Barfield.)

The claims of the Christian minister

I. Are founded–

1. Upon his character as–

(1) A messenger of Christ.

(2) A man.

(3) A Christian.

2. Upon his work.

II. Include–

1. The common rights of man.

2. The particular right to a just compensation for his labour.

III. Should be enforced–

1. With moderation.

2. With a due regard for the interests of the gospel.

IV. Ought to be relinquished rather than occasion reproach: still the right remains, and will finally be established. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Maintenance of the ministry

In the preceding chapter Paul has disposed of the question as to meats offered in sacrifice to idols. He has inculcated the duty of accommodating ourselves to the consciences of others, and is prepared to abridge his own Christian liberty. But keeping pace, as he always does, with the thought of his readers, it at once occurs to him that his opponents will declare that his apostleship stands on so insecure a basis that he has no option in the matter, but must curry favour with all parties. The original apostles may reasonably claim exemption from manual labour, and demand maintenance both for themselves and their wives; but Paul has no such claim to maintenance, and is aware that his apostleship is doubtful. He therefore–

I. Asserts his right to the same privileges and maintenance as the other apostles (1-14). He rests his claim on–

1. His apostleship (1Co 9:1-6). No one could be an apostle who had not seen Christ after His resurrection. Paul therefore, both in his speeches and in his letters, insists that on the way to Damascus he had seen the risen Lord. But an apostle was also one who was commissioned to bear witness to this fact; and that Paul had been thus commissioned he thinks the Corinthians may conclude from the results among themselves of his preaching. In presence of the finished structure that draws the world to gaze, it is too late to ask if he who built it is an architect.

2. The principle of remuneration everywhere observed in human affairs (1Co 9:7). However difficult it is to lay down an absolute law of wages, it may be affirmed as a natural principle that labour must be so paid as to maintain the labourer in life and efficiency; as to enable him to bring up a family which shall be useful and not burdensome to society, and as to secure for him some reserve of leisure for his own enjoyment and advantage. Paul anticipates the objection that these secular principles have no application to sacred things (1Co 9:8-9). But this law is two-edged. If a man produce what the community needs, he should himself profit by the production; but, on the other hand, if a man will not work, neither should he eat.

3. Ordinary gratitude (1Co 9:11). And some of the Churches founded by Paul felt that the benefit they had derived from him could not be stated in terms of money; but prompted by irrepressible gratitude, they could not but seek to relieve him from manual labour and set him free for higher work. The method of gauging the amount of spiritual benefit absorbed, by its overflow in material aid given to the propagation of the gospel would, I daresay, scarcely be relished by that monstrous development the niggardly Christian.

4. The Levitical usage (1Co 9:13-14). That evils may result from the existence of a paid ministry no one will be disposed to deny. But if the work of the ministry is to be thoroughly done, men must give their whole time to it; and therefore must be paid for it; a circumstance which is not likely to lead to much evil while the great mass of ministers are paid as they are.

II. Gives the true season for foregoing his lawful claim. Paul felt the more free to urge them because his custom was to forego them (1Co 9:15). How apt are self-denying men to spoil their self-denial by dropping a sneer at the weaker souls that cannot follow their heroic example. Not so Paul. He first fights the battle of the weak for them, and then disclaims all participation in the spoils. Nor does he consider that his self-denial is at all meritorious. On the contrary, he makes it appear as if no choice were left to him. His fear was that if he took remuneration, he should hinder the gospel of Christ. Some of the best incomes in Greece were made by clever lecturers; Paul was resolved he should never be mistaken for one of these. And no doubt his success was partly due to the fact that men recognised that his teaching was a labour of love, Every man finds an audience who speaks, not because he is paid for doing so, but because there is that in him which must find utterance. Paul felt that on him lay the gravest responsibilities. Had he complained of bad usage, and stipulated for higher terms, and withdrawn, who could have taken up the task he laid down? But while Paul could not but be conscious of his importance, he would arrogate to himself no credit. Whether he does his work willingly or unwillingly, still he must do it. If he does it willingly, he has a reward; if he does it unwillingly, still he is entrusted with a stewardship he dare not neglect. What, then, is the reward? The satisfaction of knowing that, having freely received, he had freely given (1Co 9:18).

III. Reaffirms the principle on which he has uniformly acted. It was from Paul (1Co 9:19) that Luther derived the keynote of his blast on Christian Liberty with which he stirred Europe into new life: A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one. But Paul was no mere latitudinarian. While accommodating himself to the practice of those around him in all matters (1Co 9:20-23) in all matters of mere outward observance, he held very definite opinions on the chief articles of the Christian creed. No liberality can ever induce a thoughtful man to discourage the formation of opinion on all matters of importance. No doubt righteousness of life is better than soundness of creed. But is it not possible to have both? Again, Paul had an end in view which preserved his liberality from degenerating (1Co 9:22). In order to remove a mans difficulties, you must look at them from his point of view and feel the pressure he feels. In order to gain men, you must credit them with some desire to see the truth, and you must have sympathy enough to see with their eyes. Parents sometimes weaken their influence with their children by inability to look at things with the eyes of youth. Put yourself in the place of the inquiring, perplexed, embittered soul, find out the good that is in it, patiently accommodate yourself to its ways so far as you legitimately may, and you will be rewarded by gaining some. (M. Dods, D. D.)

Abstinence from rightful privileges

Verse 27 is commonly quoted in the Calvinistic Controversy, to prove the possibility of the believers final fall. In reality, it has nothing whatever to do with it. The word castaway, is literally reprobate, that which, being tested, fails. Reprobate silver shall men call them. St. Paul says, Lest when I have preached to others, I myself, when tried by the same standard, should fail. In chap. 8. Paul had laid down the principle that it was good to respect the scruples of weaker brethren (1Co 8:13). But to this teaching an objection might be raised. Does the apostle practise what he preaches? Or it is merely a fine sentiment? Does he preach to others, himself being a castaway, i.e., one who being tested is found wanting? The whole of the chapter is an assertion of his consistency. Note:–

I. Pauls right to certain privileges, viz., domestic solaces and ministerial maintenance. This right he bases on four arguments:

1. By a principle universally recognised in human practice. A king warring on behalf of a people, wars at their charge–a planter of a vineyard expects to eat of the fruit–a shepherd is entitled to the milk of the flock. All who toil for the good of others derive an equivalent from them. Gratuitous devotion of life is nowhere considered obligatory.

2. By a principle implied in a Scriptural enactment (1Co 8:9). The ox was provided for, not because it was an ex, but because it was a labourer.

3. By a principle of fairness and reciprocity. Great services establish a claim. If they owed to the apostle their souls, his time had a claim on their gold.

4. By the law of the Temple Service. The whole institution of Levites and priests implied the principle that there are two kinds of labour–of hand and of brain: and that the toilers with the brain, though not producers, have a claim on the community. They are essential to its well-being, and are not mere drones.

II. His valiant abstinence from these privileges (2Co 8:12; 2Co 8:15). Note–

1. His reasons.

(1) He was forced to preach the gospel, and for the preaching of it, therefore, no thanks were due. But he turned his necessity to glorious gain. By forfeiting pay he got reward: and in doing freely what he must do, he became free. When I must is changed into I will, you are free.

(2) His object was to gain others (verse 19) His whole life was one great illustration of this principle: free from all, he became the servant of all.

2. The general principles of our human life. You cannot run as you will; there are conditions (verse 24). You cannot go on saying, I have a right to do this, therefore I will do it. You must think how it will appear, not for the sake of mere respectability, or to obtain a character for consistency, but for the sake of others. And its conditions are as those of a wrestling march–you must be temperate in all things–i.e., abstain from even lawful indulgences. Remember no man liveth to himself. The cry, Am I my brothers keeper? is met by St. Pauls clear, steadfast answer, You are. (F. W. Robertson, M. A.)

If I be not an apostle unto others I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.—

The successful minister

I. His happiness.

1. Success.

2. Divine attestation.

II. His claims upon–

1. The respect.

2. Affection.

3. Help.

4. Support of his charge. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The seal of apostleship

I. Consists in actual success–in the conviction and conversion of sinners.

II. Establishes the claim to apostleship–because it–

1. Indicates the Divine call and blessing.

2. Is of more value than human authorisation.

III. Entitles a minister to the special regard of those to whose spiritual benefit he has contributed. If no claim on others–yet on you for sympathy, love, support. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Mine answer to those that do examine me is this.—

Ministerial independence

I. Attempts are often made to limit the free action of Christian ministers; as in apostolic times, so now.

II. These attempts should be resisted with Christian dignity and in a Christian spirit–Pauls answer–he excludes all interference with–

1. His manner of life.

2. His personal and domestic associations. His mode of working. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

The right of the ministry to support

Observe—

I. The occasion of the apostles appeal.

1. Not selfish (1Co 8:12).

2. Some disputed his apostleship and its rights (1Co 8:3).

II. His assertion of his right–

1. To support for himself–for his wife if he thought proper to marry.

2. Sufficient to free him from the necessity of manual labour.

III. His defence of his right–is sustained by an appeal to–

1. Human justice.

2. The law.

3. The sense of gratitude.

4. Divine ordination under the law, under the gospel. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

CHAPTER IX.

St. Paul vindicates his apostleship, and shows that he has

equal rights and privileges with Peter and the brethren of our

Lord; and that he is not bound, while doing the work of an

apostle, to labour with his hands for his own support, 1-6.

He who labours should live by the fruit of his own industry, 7.

For the law will not allow even the ox to be muzzled which

treads out the corn, 8-10.

Those who minister in spiritual things have a right to a

secular support for their work, 11-14.

He shows the disinterested manner in which he has preached the

Gospel, 15-18.

Now he accommodated himself to the prejudices of men, in order

to bring about their salvation, 19-23.

The way to heaven compared to a race, 24.

The qualifications of those who may expect success in the games

celebrated at Corinth, and what that success implies, 25.

The apostle applies these things spiritually to himself; and

states the necessity of keeping his body in subjection, lest,

after having proclaimed salvation to others, he should become a

castaway, 26, 27.

NOTES ON CHAP. IX.

Verse 1. Am I not an apostle?] It is sufficiently evident that there were persons at Corinth who questioned the apostleship of St. Paul; and he was obliged to walk very circumspectly that they might not find any occasion against him. It appears also that he had given them all his apostolical labours gratis; and even this, which was the highest proof of his disinterested benevolence, was produced by his opposers as an argument against him. “Prophets, and all divinely commissioned men, have a right to their secular support; you take nothing: – is not this from a conviction that you have no apostolical right?” On this point the apostle immediately enters on his own defence.

Am I not an apostle? Am I not free?] These questions are all designed as assertions of the affirmative: I am an apostle; and I am free – possessed of all the rights and privileges of an apostle.

Have I not seen Jesus Christ] From whom in his personal appearance to me, I have received my apostolic commission. This was judged essentially necessary to constitute an apostle. See Act 22:14, Act 22:15; Act 26:16.

Are not ye my work] Your conversion from heathenism is the proof that I have preached with the Divine unction and authority.

Several good MSS. and versions transpose the two first questions in this verse, thus: Am I not free? am I not an apostle? But I cannot see that either perspicuity or sense gains any thing by this arrangement. On the contrary, it appears to me that his being an apostle gave him the freedom or rights to which he refers, and therefore the common arrangement I judge to be the best.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Chapter Introduction

In the greater part of this chapter, the apostle proceedeth in his former discourse, not speaking particularly to the case of eating meat offered to idols, but to the general point, viz. That it is our duty to abate of our liberty, when we see we cannot use it without harm to other Christians. And here he proposeth to them his own example, who had restrained himself in three things, to two of which he had a liberty, and yet avoided it, and that not to prevent their sinning, but only their suffering, and that, too, only by being by him over-burdened:

1. As to eating and drinking.

2. Abstaining from marriage, by which he might have been more chargeable to them.

3. Requiring maintenance of them for his labour amongst them. As to both which he declares he had from Gods law a liberty, but had forborne to use that part from which the church in that state might be prejudiced.

Am I not an apostle? Some that are puffed up or seduced, will, it may be, deny that I am an apostle, a preacher of the gospel of the greatest eminency, immediately sent out by Christ to preach his gospel; but will any of you deny it?

Am I not free? Have I not the same liberty that any of you have in things wherein the law of God hath no more determined me than you? What charter of liberty hath God given to any of you more than he hath to me?

Have I not seen Jesus Christ? Did not I see Christ in my going to Damascus? Act 9:5; 22:13,14; and when I was in my ecstasy, when I was rapt into the third heavens? 2Co 12:2-4; in prison? Act 23:11. He was the only apostle we read of, who saw Christ after his ascension.

Are not ye my work in the Lord? If others will not look upon me as an apostle: God having wrought nothing upon their souls by my ministry, yet you, whose faith is my work, though in the Lord, as the principal efficient Cause, yet by me as Gods instrument, cannot deny me to be so: if my having seen Jesus Christ, and being immediately sent out by him, be not enough to prove me so to you, yet the effects of my ministry upon you puts it past your denial.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1. Am I not an apostle? am I notfree?The oldest manuscripts read the order thus, “Am Inot free? am I not an apostle?” He alludes to 1Co8:9, “this liberty of yours”: If you claim it, I appealto yourselves as the witnesses, have not I also it? “Am I notfree?” If you be so, much more I. For “am I not anapostle?” so that I can claim not only Christian, but alsoapostolic, liberty.

have I not seenJesuscorporeally, not in a mere vision: compare 1Co15:8, where the fact of the resurrection, which he wishes toprove, could only be established by an actual bodily appearance, suchas was vouchsafed to Peter and the other apostles. In Act 9:7;Act 9:17 the contrast between”the men with him seeing no man,” and “Jesusthat appeared unto thee in the way,” shows that Jesus actuallyappeared to him in going to Damascus. His vision of Christ in thetemple (Ac 22:17) was “ina trance.” To be a witness of Christ’s resurrection was aleading function of an apostle (Ac1:22). The best manuscripts omit “Christ.”

ye my work in the LordYourconversion is His workmanship (Eph2:10) through my instrumentality: the “seal of mineapostleship” (1Co 9:2).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Am I not an apostle? am I not free?…. The Syriac, Ethiopic, and Vulgate Latin versions, put the last clause first; so the Alexandrian copy, and some other copies; and many interpreters are of opinion that it is the best order of the words; the apostle proceeding by a gradation from the less to the greater, having respect either to his freedom in the use of things indifferent, as eating of meats, c. for though he did not think fit to use his liberty, to the wounding of weak consciences, it did not follow therefore that he was not free, as some might suggest from what he had said in the latter part of the foregoing chapter: or he may have respect to his freedom from the ceremonial law in general for though, for the sake of gaining souls to Christ, he became all things to all men; to the Jews he became a Jew, that he might gain them; yet in such a manner as to preserve his liberty in Christ, without entangling himself with the yoke of bondage. Some have thought he intends, by his liberty, his right to insist upon a maintenance, and that he was no more obliged to work with his hands than other persons, of which he treats at large hereafter; but to me it rather seems that the words stand in their right order; and that, whereas there were some persons that either denied him to be an apostle, or at least insinuated that he was not one, nor was he to be treated as such, he goes upon the proof of it; and the first thing he mentions is his freedom, that is, from men; no man had any authority over him; he was not taught, nor sent forth, nor ordained by men as a minister, but immediately by Jesus Christ, as apostles were; they were set in the first place in the church, and had power to instruct, send forth, and ordain others; but none had power over them; and this being the apostle’s case, proved him to be one; he was an apostle, because he was free:

have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? He had a spiritual sight of him by faith, but that did not show him to be an apostle; this is what he had in common with other believers: whether he saw him in the flesh, before his crucifixion and death, is not certain; it is very probable he might; yet this was no more than what Herod and Pontius Pilate did; but he saw him after his resurrection from the dead, to which he refers, 1Co 15:8 and designs here, as a proof of his apostleship, this being what the apostles were chosen to be eyewitnesses of, Ac 10:41 and publish to the world: now our apostle saw him several times; first at the time of his conversion, next when in a trance at Jerusalem, and again in the castle where the chief captain put him for security, and very probably also when he was caught up into the third heaven:

are not you my work in the Lord? as they were regenerated, converted persons, and were become new creatures; not efficiently, but instrumentally; they were God’s workmanship, as he was the efficient cause of their conversion and faith; his only, as an instrument by whom they believed; and therefore he adds, “in the Lord”; ascribing the whole to his power and grace: however, as he had been the happy instrument of first preaching the Gospel to them, and of begetting them again through it; of founding and raising such a large flourishing church as they were; it was no inconsiderable proof of his apostleship.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Rights of a Christian Minister.

A. D. 57.

1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

Blessed Paul, in the work of his ministry, not only met with opposition from those without, but discouragement from those within. He was under reproach; false brethren questioned his apostleship, and were very industrious to lessen his character and sink his reputation; particularly here at Corinth, a place to which he had been instrumental in doing much good, and from which he had deserved well; and yet there were those among them who upon these heads created him great uneasiness. Note, It is no strange nor new thing for a minister to meet with very unkind returns for great good-will to a people, and diligent and successful services among them. Some among the Corinthians questioned, if they did not disown, his apostolical character. To their cavils he here answers, and in such a manner as to set forth himself as a remarkable example of that self-denial, for the good of others, which he had been recommending in the former chapter. And, 1. He asserts his apostolical mission and character: Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? To be a witness of his resurrection was one great branch of the apostolical charge. “Now,” says Paul, “have not I seen the Lord, though not immediately after his resurrection, yet since his ascent?” See ch. iv. 8. “Am I not free? Have I not the same commission, and charge, and powers, with the other apostles? What respect, or honour, or subsistence, can they challenge, which I am not at liberty to demand as well as they?” It was not because he had no right to live of the gospel that he maintained himself with his own hands, but for other reasons. 2. He offers the success of his ministry among them, and the good he had done to them, as a proof of his apostleship: “Are not you my work in the Lord? Through the blessing of Christ on my labours, have not I raised a church among you? The seal of my apostleship are you in the Lord. Your conversion by my means is a confirmation from God of my mission.” Note, The ministers of Christ should not think it strange to be put upon the proof of their ministry by some who have had experimental evidence of the power of it and the presence of God with it. 3. He justly upbraids the Corinthians with their disrespect: “Doubtless, if I am not an apostle to others, I am so to you, v. 2. I have laboured so long, and with so much success, among you, that you, above all others, should own and honour my character, and not call it in question.” Note, It is no new thing for faithful ministers to meet with the worst treatment where they might expect the best. This church at Corinth had as much reason to believe, and as little reason to question, his apostolical mission, as any; they had as much reason, perhaps more than any church, to pay him respect. He had been instrumental in bringing them to the knowledge and faith of Christ; he laboured long among them, nearly two years, and he laboured to good purpose, God having much people among them. See Act 18:10; Act 18:11. It was aggravated ingratitude for this people to call in question his authority.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Am I not free? ( ;). Free as a Christian from Mosaic ceremonialism (cf. 9:19) as much as any Christian and yet he adapts his moral independence to the principle of considerate love in 8:13.

Am I not an apostle? ( ;). He has the exceptional privileges as an apostle to support from the churches and yet he foregoes these.

Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? ( ;). Proof (1Cor 15:8; Acts 9:17; Acts 9:27; Acts 18:9; Acts 22:14; Acts 22:17; 2Cor 12:1) that he has the qualification of an apostle (Ac 1:22) though not one of the twelve. Note strong form of the negative here. All these questions expect an affirmative answer. The perfect active from , to see, does not here have double reduplication as in Joh 1:18.

Are not ye? ( ;). They were themselves proof of his apostleship.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Seen Jesus. See ch. 1Co 14:8; Act 9:17; Act 18:9; Act 22:17, 18; 2Co 12:1 sqq. Compare Act 22:14.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

PAUL DEFENDS HIS APOSTLESHIP

1) “Am I not an apostle?” (ouk eimi apostolos? From the following context this appears to be a rhetoric question suggesting an affirmative answer.

2) “Am I not free?” (ouk eimi elutheros?) In the previous chapter Paul had declared liberty of all from the Mosaic law, including himself, 1Co 8:8-9; 1Co 8:13; Joh 8:36; 1Co 7:22.

3) “Have I not seen Jesus Christ, our Lord?” (ouchi iesoun ton kurion hemon heoraka?) To be an apostle one requisite was that he must have seen the Lord, Act 1:21-22; Act 9:5; Act 9:17; Act 22:15-16.

4) “Are not ye my work in the Lord?” (ou to ergon Mou humeis este en kurio?) “Are ye not my work in the Lord?” As individuals won to Christ, and as a church he had taught, Paul addressed the Corinth brethren as “his work” in the Lord, 1Co 4:15.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

1. Am I not free? He confirms by facts what he had stated immediately before, — that he would rather never taste of flesh during his whole life, than give occasion of stumbling to a brother, and, at the same time, he shows that he requires nothing more from them than what he had himself practiced. And, assuredly, natural equity requires that whatever law is imposed by any one upon others, should be submitted to by himself. More especially a Christian teacher should impose upon himself this necessity, that he may have it always in his power to confirm his doctrine by an exemplary life. We know by experience, that it is a very unpleasant thing that Paul required from the Corinthians — to refrain, for the sake of their brethren, from making use of the liberty that was allowed them. He could scarcely have demanded this, if he had not taken the lead and shown them the way. And he had, it is true, promised that he would do this, but, as he might not be believed by all on his simply promising for the future, he makes mention of what he had already done. He brings forward a remarkable instance, in respect of his having denied himself the liberty which he might otherwise have used, purely in order that he might give the false Apostles no occasion for calumniating. He had preferred to earn his food with his own hands, rather than be supported at the expense of the Corinthians, to whom he administered the Gospel.

He treats, however, at great length of the right of the Apostles to receive food and clothing. This he does, partly for the purpose of stirring them up the more to forego many things for the sake of their brethren after his example, because they were unduly tenacious in the retaining of their own rights, and partly for the purpose of exposing more fully in view the unreasonableness of calumniators, who took occasion for reviling from what was anything but blameworthy. He speaks, also, interrogatively, in order to press the matter home more closely. The question — Am I not free? is of a general nature. When he adds — Am I not an Apostle ? he specifies a particular kind of liberty. “If I am an Apostle of Christ, why should my condition be worse than that of others?” Hence he proves his liberty on the ground of his being an Apostle.

Have I not seen Jesus Christ ? He expressly adds this, in order that he may not be reckoned inferior in any respect, to the other Apostles, for this one thing the malevolent and envious bawled out on all occasions — that he had received from the hands of men whatever he had of the gospel, inasmuch as he had never seen Christ. And, certainly, he had not had converse with Christ while he was in the world, but Christ had appeared to him after his resurrection. It was not a smaller privilege, however, to have seen Christ in his immortal glory, than to have seen him in the abasement of mortal flesh. He makes mention, also, afterwards of this vision, (1Co 15:8,) and mention is made of it twice in the Acts, (Act 9:3, and Act 22:6.) Hence this passage tends to establish his call, because, although he had not been set apart as one of the twelve, there was no less authority in the appointment which Christ published from heaven.

Are not ye my work ? He now, in the second place, establishes his Apostleship from the effect of it, because he had gained over the Corinthians to the Lord by the gospel. Now this is a great thing that Paul claims for himself, when he calls their conversion his work, for it is in a manner a new creation of the soul. But how will this correspond with what we had above — that

he that planteth is nothing, and he that watereth is nothing? (1Co 3:7.)

I answer, that as God is the efficient cause, while man, with his preaching, is an instrument that can do nothing of itself, we must always speak of the efficacy of the ministry in such a manner that the entire praise of the work may be reserved for God alone. But in some cases, when the ministry is spoken of, man is compared with God, and then that statement holds good — He that planteth is nothing, and he that watereth is nothing; for what can be left to a man if he is brought into competition with God? Hence Scripture represents ministers as nothing in comparison with God; but when the ministry is simply treated of without any comparison with God, then, as in this passage, its efficacy is honorably made mention of, with signal encomiums. For, in that case, the question is not, what man can do of himself without God, but, on the contrary, God himself, who is the author, is conjoined with the instrument, and the Spirit’s influence with man’s labor. In other words, the question is not, what man himself accomplishes by his own power, but what God effects through his hands.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

CRITICAL NOTES

1Co. 9:1.Notice the reversed order of clauses in the better-attested reading. Free.I.c. qu man; he is always Christs bondservant; it is of his own choice that he submits to such limitations (1Co. 9:19-22) upon his liberty as, e.g., in 1Co. 8:13; or as this in question, that he should maintain himself by his manual labour, whereas he was also free to demand Church maintenance for himself if he had chosen. Apostle.He had once been the Apostle (Sheliach, the Talmudic equivalent) of the Jewish authorities at Jerusalem to the synagogue in Damascus. [In this, etymological, sense and employment of the word Barnabas is called an apostle (Act. 14:14). So the same popular, freer use derived from the Jewish practice lingers in 2Co. 8:23 (of Luke and the bearers of the collection), in Php. 2:25 (of Epaphroditus). The sense of among the apostles as including Andronicus and Junias (Rom. 16:7) is very disputable, especially if the latter name be a womans, Junia.] Now a greater High Priest had sent him forth as His messenger and representative. For this the two needful qualifications were, to have had his commission direct from Christs own lips [I send thee (Act. 26:17), putting him on an equality with those who heard Him say, Go ye therefore, etc. (Mat. 28:19-20)], and to be able, at first hand, and not merely by hearsay or report of others, to assert as a fact within his own knowledge that the Crucified Christ was risen again and was then really living [putting Paul on the footing of Peter and the rest, who could say, Act. 5:32; cf. Act. 1:22 (very explicit); cf. 1Jn. 1:1]. Important for us that the first link of the chain of historical evidence and testimony should be sound. [If indeed the uniqueness of the position of the apostles in their special selection, commission, and qualification for this testimony, out of the witnesses of 1Co. 15:6, does not make them, not merely the first link, but the strong staple, holding the first link, and itself driven into the solid rock of the facts. The Apostolic company mediated between the Great Factthe Living, Risen Christand the long succession of Christian teachers who must needs receive the truth on evidence of others (supported, indeed, by the subjective evidence of their experience of His working). My in the Lord.Observe how the second phrase guards, almost corrects, the first. [Cf. 1Co. 16:23-24 : Christs grace; my love.] No independent work; no success of his own. He has no wisdom, strength, success, except as his whole life is in Christ; and thus Christ wins the success and does the work through him. It is Christs working and power; it is only a question which of the members of the Body He shall employ for any particular part of the great task, and to which shall be credited the particular share of the great total result.

1Co. 9:2. To others.Q.d. in their opinion, and by their recognition, I am not. Notice at least, R.V. seal.As by-and-by his crown (Php. 4:1), and, then and now, his joy (ib.). At Corinth, at all events, there can be no doubt of the original validity of my commission, or whether it be still running and valid.

1Co. 9:3. Answer.Apologia, as, e.g., Act. 22:1; 2Ti. 4:16. A forensic word, like examine, as, e.g., in Act. 4:9; Act. 24:8; Act. 28:18; (1Co. 4:3-5).

1Co. 9:4. Power.In the sense of right; so in 1Co. 9:12, to eat and to drink, q.d. at the expense of the Church.

1Co. 9:5. Sister.In the Christian sense, parallel to brother (1Co. 5:11, etc.); a wife who is also a Christian sister. The brethren of the Lord.Three long-discussed, influentially sustained, theories:

(1) Children of Mary and Joseph, born after Jesus (the IIelvidian theory);

(2) Children of Joseph by a former wife (the Epiphanian);

(3) Cousins of Christ, children of Mary the sister of the Virgin, assumed also to be the wife of Alphus (Jeromes theory). Probably the data are insufficient for a sure conclusion, agreement in which would otherwise long ago have been arrived at.

(1) is unquestionably the most natural impression to be gathered from the Gospel history and from the word brethren.
(2), and in a degree
(3), no doubt originated, or found a very strong motive for their propagation and acceptance, in a desire to save the perpetual virginity of Mary.

(1) accounts best for the prominence in the Church at Jerusalem of the James of Acts 15, and of Pauls Epistles. Cephas.Mat. 8:14. [Very precarious speculation has seen another touch of Peters domestic life in 1Pe. 5:13, and yet more precariously has made his wife the elect lady of 2 John, because of 1Pe. 5:13, which is only the elected one (fem.) at Babylon.]

1Co. 9:6.Barnabas was a rich landowner in Cyprus (Acts 4), and needed neither to work for his living nor to ask the Church to maintain him. If (with Bishop Lightfoot, Gal. 2:11) we make Pauls rebuke of Barnabass vacillation occur during Act. 15:30-40, they may have started together with a soreness which made Barnabas (or both of them) tenderly irritable, and helped to the quarrel (so-called) about John Mark. This the earliest mention of Barnabas by Paul after the separation. [The spirit of even this passing mention may be paralleled by John Wesleys persistent kindness of thought and speech to and about Whitefield, after their separation over the Calvinist controversy.]

1Co. 9:7.Matters little whether the master or the employ in the vineyard, the owner or only the hired shepherd, be intended. Probably the former. As to the soldier, note the R.V.

1Co. 9:8. As a manFound in Rom. 3:5 (cf. 1Co. 6:19); 1Co. 3:3; 1Co. 9:8; 1Co. 15:32 (Gal. 1:11, plur.), 1Co. 3:15; after man, as a pattern or norm, but with varying shades of meaning. Here: According to the sense of what is right, customary amongst men. Not only does the common judgment of mankind bear him out in his contention, but God has delivered His mind also.

1Co. 9:9.Deu. 25:4, quoted also in 1Ti. 5:8, is very conspicuous for its unexpected, sudden, and momentary reference to cattle amid matter quite different (Beet). [But the whole chapter looks like a succession of legislative dicta, entered up in the statute-book with no order or connection beyond that of their succession of actual enactment as the occasion arose.] An instance carrying a far-reaching principle in regard to the interpretation of the Old Testament. If some enactments seem vague, impracticable, trivial, or even minutely vexatious, unworthy of the attention of such a Book and of God, we may say:

1. A trivial case may carry a great principle.
2. Some simple precepts have large analogical meanings when transferred to spiritual things.
3. The y prs principle applies here, as in all legislation which is affected by changing circumstances.

4. Only fair to the Bible to bring in common sense, to explain or apply, as in ordinary life. True order of thought, in this and all similar instances, is not up from the temporary, trivial case to the higher spiritual analogy, but down from this to the lower and Jesser. In this small enactment we are touching a widely applicable principle of the Divine order, in a very lowly, temporary embodiment. N. B.This law of Moses is also what God saith.

1Co. 9:10. Our sakes altogether.Not denying the early, lower intention of God, who does, in this passage, take care for oxen. Similar to I have loved Jacob, and hated Esau; or rather to I will have mercy, and not sacrifice; where evidently the negation is not absolute, but comparative, in its force. Our.Hardly to be narrowed to mean only Christian ministers. Note the change of reading, and of consequent rendering. Partaker of his hope meant, Enjoying the reward he hoped for as he laboured. This also a general principle, not specialised until 1Co. 9:11; 1Co. 9:14, but a point of Divine political economy, which should be embodied in (say) the relations between capital and labour.

1Co. 9:12.Cf. 2Co. 11:12.

1Co. 9:13.Stanley sees in this resumed argumentation, and in the reiteration in 1Co. 9:14 of what had been said in 1Co. 9:11, the probable sign of a resumption of the letter after some pause. [As perhaps a change of amanuensis, or a new mornings work. Cf. 2Co. 10:1. He presses also I wrote, in 1Co. 9:15.] Lev. 6:16; Lev. 6:26; Num. 18:8-19. See in connection with 1Co. 8:1.

1Co. 9:14. The Lord Christ hath ordained.Mat. 10:9 sq., Luk. 10:7 are quoted [not necessarily from written Gospels] as in 1Co. 7:10.

HOMILETIC ANALYSIS.1Co. 9:1-14

The Support of a Stipendiary Ministry.

I. What the minister has a right (1Co. 9:4-6) to expect from his people.Maintenance (1Co. 9:14). This right rests upon:

(1) The natural fitness and right of the case (1Co. 9:7; 1Co. 9:11-12);

(2) The Old Testament legislation (1Co. 9:8-10), definitely endorsed and adopted in

(3) The words of Christ (1Co. 9:14).

II. What the people have a claim to expect from the minister.

(1) That he have all needful credentials (1Co. 9:1-2);

(2) That he do his work; he actually preaches the Gospel (1Co. 9:14).

III. What Christ has a right to expect from His servant.That in claiming, or enforcing, or using his right he shall not hinder his Masters Gospel.

I. The central verse of this section is 1Co. 9:14. All turns around this.

1. To some ears the rights of the ministry has an ugly sound. The minister is often expected to be above such considerations, and to let nothing be heard from himself but how he feels the call of his duties press upon him. So he does, if he be a minister worthy the name. He comes into the ministry with a woe in his ears, as the penalty of any alternative course. He preaches to his peoplerich and poorthat Rights mean Duties. The poor need to have this preached to them as certainly as the rich. But Duties also mean Rights. If the call of Christ and His Church be such as to indicate that he must make the ministry the one business of his life, then he must be maintained whilst he is fulfilling his calling.

2. Paul is discussing the case of the Apostolate. It was no doubt a unique order of men, charged with a function for the Church of their own time, and for the Church of all time, which cannot be repeated by any other set of men, and never needs to be repeated. Once for all they have set Christian dogma upon the firm basis of History. (See Critical Notes.) But the analogy holds good, in this particular matter, between the case of these unique and extraordinary servants of Christ and of the Churches and the ordinary ministry. The inspired and authoritative declaration of 1Co. 9:14whether paraphrased from, e.g., Mat. 10:9, or a divinely guaranteed report of an unwritten word of Christ (similar to the case of Act. 20:35)generalises the application of the principle.

3. The ordinance of Christ foresaw, took account of, provided against, a separated ministry. The Body of Christ has simply, and from the necessity of the case,a necessity recurring in connection with every growing, enlarging, organisation whatsoever,followed the analogythe lawof all organised structures in Nature. As complexity increases, as the demands of the organisation multiply and are differentiated, so the organs which meet the demands are multiplied, and become specialised in their function and faculty. The specialisation of work and of officials in the Body began in Acts 4, when the apostles ceased to attempt to do everything in the Church, and Deacons (so-called) were told off to a special portion of what had been included in their work. A simple Church, independent of organised fellowship, of small numbers, of simple requirement, may reproduce the early simplicity of pastoral and official organisation. But as it grows, and, above all, if a system of grouped, affiliated, connexionalised, organised Churches comes to form a new Church, it becomes a matter of expedient division of labour to set apart a pastorate, who will need, and should give, a whole and undivided attention to the teaching and ruling needed by the enlarged work and community.

4. A paid ministry is a theory and a practice which may reasonably be criticised and objected to; but a sustained, supported ministry is a necessity of the case. The man must live of the Gospel; not starve or struggle upon it. His flock should do their utmost to see that the shepherd is not the worst fed of them all; they should set him free from need and care. And 1Co. 9:5 enlarges the range of this principle of necessary, suitable support. Life is not merely food, clothes, house, bed, books, cut down to a minimum of possibility. A living is not merely what will keep the man himself out of want. The apostle, or his ministerial successor, is a man, for all he has been called into, thrust into, office. In all ordinary conditions full, all-round manhood means marriage, a wife, a home, perhaps children. Celibacy like Pauls, should always be the exceptional thing, and never compulsory. It has cut off the ministry from the manhood of the Church, in regard to the sympathy which comes from, and only by, experience. It has morally been a snare to the ministry itself, and often a curse to the community. The fork of rigid ecclesiastical legislation cannot expel Nature from the man, merely because his work becomes specialised, and he himself is separated in order to do it the more effectively. The recurrence and the revolt of outraged Nature have often been disastrous, and full of disgrace, to the Christian, and the ministerial, name. The man, though made a minister by the expediency and the necessity of circumstances, has the right to lead about a wife; to have his own home, with its solace and its support. And the living covers the needful, suitable provision for this also. His right is authority. His Lord authorises him to requisition his support from his people. This right is manifestly in accord with:

(1) The fitness of things, and the analogy of ordinary human affairs. Whether he be master or servant, the vine-dresser may reasonably expect that his vineyard shall at least sustain him whilst he cultivates it; the shepherd, be he sheep-master or shepherd-man, may hardly be expected to render all his service gratuitously, or to be content that all the produce and advantage shall go to others, who have done nothing, whilst he goes unsupplied. [Cf. the (perhaps) Virgilian protest:

Sic vos non vobis nidificatis aves,
Sic vos non vobis vellera fertis oves,
Sic vos non vobis mellificatis apes,
Sic vos non vobis fertis aratra boves.
His ego versiculos feci; tulit alter honores.]

The minister can indeed never urge the claim of the Owner of the Vineyard (Isa. 5:2); the Great Shepherd of the sheep (Heb. 13:20), Whose own the sheep are (Joh. 10:12), has a claim which no under-shepherd can advance; but, though the wages theory is no satisfactory or suitable one for the money-relations between minister and people, the workman might ever claim his wages, the under-shepherd his pay, his keep. Paul and his fellow-or successor-ministers are soldiers on campaign. The war is urgent; there is no respite in the campaign. Discipline and duty, under ordinary circumstances, both forbid that the soldier should need to go foraging for his rations, or should need to combine with his soldering some other means of support. He must not be entangled with the affairs of this life (2Ti. 2:4). The side-occupations, the by-employments, to which he might have to resort, might easily impair his own spirituality, and so his efficiency; indeed, in them he might easily be tempted to do some business with the Enemy. The Enemy will be his provider readily enough, if only he can so divert him from his campaigning and soldierly duty. He looks to his Captain for his support, and his Captain bids him draw upon the Church. They must honour the Captains draft, and find the soldiers salt-money. And are they not, moreover, themselves in debt to the minister? They owe to him their spiritual things, their own selves also (Phm. 1:19). It is not repayment, it is only due acknowledgment of their indebtedness, that they should give him such carnal things as his need requires. Indeed, it is sowing and reaping. Will they begrudge, or deny, him a handful, and that of the less valuable produce, of the harvest in their lives, springing, too, from his sowing? Religion means to many, new habits, a new character, Gods blessing, which are very directly and obviously productive, even in their business career (Mat. 6:33; 1Ti. 4:8). Many a man thus indirectly owes wealth and positioncarnal thingsto the minister whose labours first sowed the seed of eternal life in his heart. How much owest thou unto thy Lord? How much owest thou to thy Paul, thy minister? If any man should see to it that the ministry is supported, it is that man who owes to the faithful, sympathetic pastor and friend his conversion; his Sabbaths of blesssing, which mean new inspiration for his best life, and multiplying, propagating, reproductive, spiritual help for the work of the weekdays; the spiritual influences in his home; the conversion of his children. Corinth at least should have felt the obligation to see to it that Paul wanted for no carnal things. All this is embodied in

(2) The Old Testament legislation. (See Critical Notes.) He will take the Jews on their own familiar ground. They did hear the Law (Gal. 4:21). Then to the Law they shall go. [No need to disparage such a style of argument, because the Rabbis to an absurd extent so targumed Old Testament passages. Their targum often employs a perfectly legitimate method, and lays bare a true, Divine, and abiding significance in the temporary or trivial enactment or story. The question is in any case one of evidence, and is not to be dismissed with a sweeping, preliminary dictum condemning all. Does Pauls targum approve itself to the spiritual judgment of the profoundestnot always, or of necessity, technically the most learnedstudents of the Word of God? An interpretation of an Old Testament passage occurring, employed, in the New Testament, is adopted, sanctioned, guided, by the Inspiring Spirit.] The great principle in the mind of the Lawgiver is found in Deu. 25:4, in a miniature, temporary, special, concrete form. De minimis curat hc lex, and for greater matters also. The oxen are not deemed unworthy of His care, indeed; but they are part of mans world, and God is caring for man, is caring for apostles; for workmen of every order and degree, but with not least solicitude for the workmen in the Church (1Co. 9:1). The temporary colour washes out of this, as out of so many more, Mosaic ordinances, and leaves us with perhaps a little, but a real, piece of a stuff made for everlasting wear. Your Apostolic, ministerial ox plods his way, and hauls along, his heavy drag week after week, year in, year out. Do not muzzle his mouth, or grudge him his mouthful! Such enactments are part of the whole Revelation of Gods mind and will.

(3) The Lord knew His Fathers mind in this, as in all else, and has put upon the old principle His own universal, generalised shapethe Teacher and Legislator as He is, for a Race and for all Timeand has put it on the Statute-book of His kingdom, that they who preach shall live, etc. His word is final. Beyond it no Church can go, nor behind, nor beside it. The ministers right is formally enacted by the King Himself.

II. But the Church has its claim in the matter also.If a manthough he be a ministerwork, he has a right to eat. If a man will not workminister or any manneither shall he eat. And the man whom the Church is asked to sustain should be unchallengeably a minister, who

1. Can produce his credentials.Paul could. Point by point he could match the letters of ordination produced by Cephas or the brethren of the Lord, or by any other teacher whatsoever. Once more (as shown in Critical Notes) it is to be remembered how exceptional were the case and the credentials of an apostle [in the strict, narrow sense of the title]. But as in the natural so in the spiritual world, no work of God is isolated. Every fact has its relations, generally its analogies, to many adjacent facts. Evolutionary science has that much of right, in its teaching that a deep, close-drawn unity of idea runs through all the works of God. Earliest and latest, simplest and most complex, lowliest and highest, are all bound together into One Work of God. The Miracle has its relations to the Ordinary; it is not a mere isolated marvel. The Apostolic office was the exceptional, the extraordinary; but it was traced upon lines which are also the foundation lines of the draft of the Ministerial Office. So far as the diversity of facts allows, the analogy holds good between both the apostolate and the ministry. The credentials of both are analogous. The minister of Christ who holds a valid commission, and who may claim support from the Church, has (a) seen the Lord, and he so preaches with the demonstration of the Spirit (1Co. 2:4) that he can appeal to a people who are his work in the Lord. (On this last point, see the Critical Notes.) He must himself have come into real, personal relations with Christ, and in the indwelling strength and wisdom of Christ he must have been successful in bringing some others into real, personal relations with Christ too. The two things hang together very closely. No man who has really received his commission from Christ, and has by a holy watchfulness kept himself from all which would sever the living, life-giving, strength-imparting connection with Christ implied in being in Him, will ever be long together without his accrediting, manifest work. On the other hand, no man will ever accomplish such work who has not first seen the Lord. He must know Christand that in the widest sense, and to the fullest content of the idea of knowing Himat first hand; hearsay will not do. He will be a theoriser, a speculator, a critic, but not a witness. Like Thomas, like Paul, he must have stood in the presence of the Risen, Glorified Christ, and seen, as by a flash of holy intuition (or rather by the demonstration of the Great Preacher of Christ, the Holy Ghost) One before Whom intellect and heart have bowed down in trustful, reverent, loving adoration, recognising, My Lord and my God! And he must often have renewed the holy vision; must often stand in the Presence of his Lord, like an ancient prophet [e.g. Jon. 1:3; or like a very angel, Luk. 1:19]. And his people will know it. (And they will know it if he has not!) He will speak with a power which their heart and conscience will recognise and will respond to. In his bearing, his words, perhaps his very face, they will see as they gather before him what will make them say, He has seen Christ Jesus the Lord! He will be unhappy, and a failure, if his ministry lack this qualification. This will give it a perpetual freshness; every other source of suggestion, every other class of topic, will soon be exhausted, and will soon cease to satisfy hungry souls in his flock. The mere graces of diction, the mental furnishing of mere literary or educational acquirements, will in the long-run do no work, certainly none such as is in the Lord. A real Church recognises such a man as a true minister. His credentials are read and known of all (2Co. 3:2). They will sustain such a man, especially will they who are his work. (b) No tie so tender, no gratitude so deep, as that between the convert and the man who led him to Christ, between the sheep who is in himself a token of the seeking, patient, watchful, helpful love and work of a real Shepherd. Unhappy the man who year after year can show no work!

2. He should be a man who does his work, that for which he was called by his Master. (For an examination of the phrase preach the Gospel, see Homiletic Suggestion on 1Co. 9:14.) The idler has no right. The Church has a claim against the man that he shall show cause for his wages, if his idleness bring down the question so low as to become one of work and pay. The work of the true minister of Christ is many-sided, of many types; hardly any line of study but may be made contributory to the cause of the Gospel. Some are set for the defence of the Gospel. The ministerial scholar, or editor, or botanist, or historical student, or tutor, or antiquary, may, if he will, consecrate his work and make it subservient to the cause of Christs Gospel. If he will,but he must. It must converge, of his set purpose, upon Christ. It is a grave question, to be decided as the several cases arise, how far subsidiary occupations of time and strength should be allowed or pursued by the man who, to the necessary basis of natural qualifications for the preacher and pastor, has also the two essential marks above analysed

(1. and 2.). In the widest sense he should wait on his ministering. The Church has that claim.

III. Abstract right may be carried to a very mischievous length of practical exposition and enforcement.The Gospel is not made for the apostle, but the apostle for the Gospel. If the claims of these should seem to clash or compete, the claim and need of the Gospel must stand first. Nothing, not even the abstract right of a Paul, must be allowed to hinder the Gospel of Christ. The very right is only given, indeed, for the sake of the furtherance of the Gospel; it is for the advantage of the Gospel, under all ordinary circumstances, that the ministry should be maintained by the Churches. But in Pauls case, as he believed, circumstance made it for the advantage of the Gospel, or at least for the obviating of disadvantage and detriment, that his right, the very ordinance of his Lord should be waived and should stand aside. To him to live was Christ,that dear Name gathered up to itself all Pauls activities, all his devotion; every motive received its impulse and its direction from that Christ. Of his own eager self-devotion, therefore, he readily chose to set his right aside. His heart and reason, the heart and reason of the true minister, would say that the Lord had the claim upon him that he should. Such a man will, e.g., uphold, or waive, his pastoral prerogatives in a meeting; he will defend himself, or let judgment go against him in silence, when he is misjudged or misrepresented; he will resist, or yield to, the opposition of unreasonable and wicked men; as, from one case to another, the interests of the Gospel of Christ may seem to require. In any case of doubtful character the balance will perhaps always be more readily given against himself. It is his debt to his Master that it should be. The Gospel of the Master deserves that consideration!

SEPARATE HOMILIES

1Co. 9:10. Hope cheering Labour.[The verse may be made the occasion of a sermon on the Rewards of Labour and the Returns of Capital.]

1. Diversity of contributors to the ultimate harvest.Some plough, do the preliminary, rough, necessary toil, in manufacturing processes, in all engineering and mechanical trades, in commerce and trade; the ploughmen may stand for the unskilled labourers. Some thresh, and bring to finished readiness for the consumers use all the product of a succession of workers and of the chemistry of nature [i.e. of God in His laboratory within the soil, where the seed is buried and dies, to live again]. The threshers may stand for the capitalist, or any (supposed) higher-grade contributors to the final result. Many must co-operate; each beginning upon the basis of the work of another order of workers; and at some point in the chain of production, the blessing and work of God coming in indispensably; if the hungry world is to have its bread.

2. There is interdependence of producers.The ploughmans work is a necessary preliminary to that of the thresher. The thresher completes the otherwise unfruitful work of the ploughman. Each man is needed. The much-abused middleman has arisen out of a need; his work, however selfishly or extortionately or tyrannically it has been used, is in itself only an instance of division of labour, necessitated by the complexity of modern life and business. The man who is not wanted, who does not justify his own place and support, will not long be supported. But the ploughman must not grudge the reward of the thresher, nor must the thresher forget what he owes to the ploughman. And must not forget to give it to him, either.

3. No man should labour, whether ploughman or thresher, without a fair reward for his labour, or without hope of being partaker of the fruits of his toil. The right apportionment of the profits, the fruits, of labour is a growingly difficult problem, [and one on which Christian men may honestly differ as to guiding principles and results; not to be discussed in a neutral Commentary like this]. Labour may be as thoroughly selfish and tyrannical in the matter, as it charges Capital with being. Some of the complexity, the perplexity, of the problem is removed whenever on either side an honest, earnest, sympathetic, painstaking endeavour is made to appreciate the view and the demand of the other. Each side also would need to cease to insist upon absolute, mechanical, doctrinaire, right. [In this noblesse oblige; whether it be the noblesse of superior station, or of better education and wider views of the complex problem; or of greater ability, financial or other, to go back from the full limit of rights; above all, if it be the noblesse of the Christian profession and character. Noblesse should lead the way in concession to prejudice, in patience with ignorance. The Christian spirit should be foremost in softening the rigour of the mere mechanical political economics, with their formulation of self-interest working against self-interest.] Logic, wages, are not the last words of discussions in times of strained relations and class-conflict. The heart is often illogical, and traverses all theories and formulas; but it rules. The heart understands, if the thresher gets close to the ploughman, and the ploughman tries to understand the thresher. Labour without hope of properly proportioned partaking, is the labour of slaves. Such labour, without hope to cheer weariness, to incite to effort, to reward diligence and real work, begets the slavish tempersullen, rebellious, dangerous. There should be no rigidly mechanical adherence to rights on either side; so much time, to a half-minute; so much labour, to a single hands-turn; so much wages, to a half-farthing. Brotherliness should rub down the hard lines of such a plan of the relations between man and man. [The lord in the Saviours story who said, Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with my own? is nevertheless a master who gave to some a whole days penny for one hours labour.] To say, There is no friendship and no religion in business, is not to utter Gospel, Christian, economics. Let capital leave the door of hope open for the labourer; let not the labourer grudge or make impossible the hope of the employer. All the political economies must adjust themselves according to this fixed, divinely sanctioned principle. [Wherever God is the Employer, He will see to it that His ploughman or thresher does realise the hope in which he laboured.]

1Co. 9:12. Note three important things as assumed here.

I. Men may hinder the Gospel.The end of human history is, no doubt, a victory for God and for Goodness, for Christ and His Gospel, and, along with this, a vindication of all the perplexing facts connected with Gods method in leading on the course of history to the goal. Yet one aspect of the ever-present problem of Evil is that the rate and extent of the progress of the Gospel is made dependent upon mans faithfulness and activity. There have seemed ages of the Church when the Church did nothing to extend, and hardly seemed to keep, the ground previously won for Christianity. No soul will ever be lost, simply and only because a Church or an individual Christian was inconsistent, a stumbling-block, or in apathetic worldliness did not do its duty to that soul. Yet are there none lost who might have been saved if the Church or the Christian had been faithful? What a power, to be able to narrow, or to divert from those dying for it, the river of the water of lifeto make the wheels of Christs chariot drive heavily, plunged in the sand or the bog of a Churchs indolence or unspirituality or unbelief! [The unbelief of the healthy people in Nazareth prevented Jesus doing all He desired for the need of the sick in Nazareth. How one man, Achan, and he no chief or prince, but only a common man, could hold all Israel in check, and really slay the six-and-thirty Israelites who lay dead in the valley before Ai! Perhaps, on the other hand, 2Pe. 3:12 may mean hastening the day of God.] [Illustrate thus: Holland is a country for the most part lying below the level of the sea; it would naturally be covered by the waters. But with long years of patient, watchful industry the inhabitants have built and kept up, around their coasts and along their canals, huge dykes, and these, with a system of gates and locks, keep out the waters. All this is the salvation of Holland. But unbelief can build its walls and barriers around itself, and around a Church, and shut out the tide of blessing which God desires to send upon the thirsty ground.]

II. Even good men may be in danger of hindering the Gospel.If, e.g., Paul had insisted too stubbornly on his right to be maintained by the Church, or lawfully to enjoy the company of a wife and the comforts of domestic happiness at the cost of the Church.

III. To hinder the Gospel is so great an evil that to avoid it, or even the danger of it, is worth any sacrifice, except of principle; to help forward the Gospel is worth any cost. Everything which will arouse conflict and bad feeling, everything which may, even incidentally and unjustifiably, cause offence, everything which is found to give place to the ever-watchful Adversary, and so to put the brake on to the wheels of progress, the Christian man will forego, lest he hinder, etc. He will give up his liberty in the matter of amusements, or recreation, lest though remotely he check the work of the Gospel in even one soul; above all, lest he should cripple his own usefulness, or dull the edge of his own spirituality, and so hinder, etc. If the work of God seems to lag, to drag, to be hindered, then Churches and individuals should begin anxiously, and with unsparing fidelity, to inquire the cause. [See the inquiry when Achans sin blocked the way of Israels conquest. No use for Joshua to be humbled on the ground in prayer: Get up! Search out the sin! (Jos. 7:10). The saying of the disciples at the supper-table: Is it I? Is it I? was better than their earlier saying, Who is it?]

1Co. 9:12. The Gospel hindered.

I. The progress of the Gospel in the world seems, and surely is, slower than the purpose of God, the desire of Christ, the aim of the Spirits work, would lead us to expect.Faithful hearts yearn for greater, wider, more rapid and sweeping conquests than are actually won. They cannot acquiesce in the actual condition of the matter; they cannot adjust their hope, or activity, to the actual rate of progress. They have a heart, an instinct, within them, which rebels against any such acquiescence and adjustment. They ask, Why is it? What doth hinder? The man who is content that the Churchor his own particular, sectional or local Churchshould do no more than work on the programme, As last year,only more so! has lost one of the first, simplest tokens of being in Christ, and therefore of being in the communion of sympathy with his Lord.

II. Replies which are not answers.1 It is of no use to fret or be anxious. God is sovereign; things are going as He wills, and as fast as He just now wills they should. The spirit of the reply of a Baptist pastor to the offer of Carey for India. Not often heard now; yet, if not explicitly taught, it is implicitly embodied in the practice of the Church. There is, always has been, a sovereignty in the measure and time of the outpouring of the Spirit. The Church has actually progressed spasmodically, by Revivals after times of inertia or unfaithfulness; and these have not always seemed given in response to a specially pleading Church. They have sometimes come upon a sleeping Church. Yet, whilst the Church says to God, Awake, awake, He says in reply to the Church, Awake, awake. (See Dr. Maclaren, Sermons, 2nd series, p. 19 sqq., Isa. 62:1; Isa. 62:6-7.) God is covenanted to hear, and to give, and to bless the world and the work of the Church, whenever the conditions are fulfilled by It. At all events, sovereignty or no sovereignty, He is in fact waiting, eager, forward, to give the success which seems hindered. We may count upon Him.

2. The seeming failures cannot mean that the Gospel has found a soil, a race, a heart, for which it has no message, or to whose needs it has no adaptation. That were to charge Him Who has made both heart and Gospel with something less than the perfection of Divine wisdom. History and age-long experiment give no support to such a supposition. On the contrary, the Gospel has conquered, saved, satisfied, sample cases in every land, century, race, temperament, social grade, mental cast, young, old, ignorant, learned, etc.
3. Nor that it has found a race or a heart which does not need it. No other religion as yet has so satisfied and possessed its votaries as that somesample cases againhave not found a longing for something else, and better, which the Christian faith has supplied. If not before, in the very presentation of this supply the heart learns to know its need.
4. But the superstitions are so inveterate, the habits of a life-time so hopelessly deep-rooted, the depravity and degradation of heart and conscience and life are such in the the adults, that we must let them goleaving them to Godand depend upon the young, the coming generation. But Pauls Gospel won its triumphs amongst adults, and from inveterate, degraded, deeply depraved heathenism. His Gospel solved the same problems which we face to-day at home or in foreign lands. The Gospel is meant, not only for those who need it, but for those also who need it most.
5. The Gospel is only to be preached for a testimony to all nations; the actual inbringing of the nations on any wide scale must come with the Thousand Years. [A large question. Mat. 24:14 is appealed to. To many this reply seems like invoking something to supply a lacking effectiveness in the Gospel; like calling upon Christ to come and do what the Spirit and Word of God have failed in accomplishing.]

6. We want more money, more organisations, a new Society, or Committee, for this or that. All good; all needed, perhaps. But the Gospel won its first triumphs, and has often triumphed since, with few or none of these helps. Evidently, historically, these are not all, or the essentials. [One-man power, consecrated, is better than all Committees and organisations, though most productive when working under control and with organisation. Money must be made no substitute for the Spirit of God.]

II. [As above, Men may hinder the Gospel.] Generally, want of the power of the Holy Ghost is underneath all slow progress. He does what is done, much or little. He would do more, if the conditions on which He co-operates with His Church were better fulfilled by it. [As with Christ at Nazareth, above.] A spiritually low condition of His Church, showing itself in little prayer for the progress of the Gospel, in lack of the spirit of consecration, and issuing in the withholding for self of money, time, family, or anything else needed to the progress and extension of the work, is the great hindrance; it grieves the Spirit. Little appreciation of the Gospel at home; therefore little zeal for its propagation, no real faith in, or concern about, its saving power and success; are sometimes hindrances. Of secondary importance, but yet real causes, may be, defective representations of the Gospel in the preaching, or in the life of individuals and Churches; it may be overlaid with ritual, or hidden beneath intellectual speculation; it may be made too much a question of philanthropic benefit rather than of redemptive purpose; may now and then be proclaimed in a shape too specially that of a Church or nation. [E.g. must not expect some English modes of working and effort to suit equally well France, or India, or China; only an encumbrance to progress to attempt to transplant methods or some peculiar ecclesiastical constitution into another type of nation and life.]Suggested in part by remarks in Homilist, v., vi.

HOMILETIC SUGGESTIONS

1Co. 9:8-10. The Law of God is

I. Reasonable.
II. Humane.
III. Comprehensive.
IV. Just.[J. L.]

Or thus:

1Co. 9:8-10. Principles of Equity.

I. Commend themselves to reason.
II. Are enforced by the Law of God.
III. Are of universal application.
IV. Contribute by their operation to the best interests of all.[J. L.]

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Appleburys Comments

Text

1Co. 9:1-12 a. Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2 If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. 3 My defence to them that examine me is this. 4 Have we no right to eat and to drink? 5 Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the apostles. and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6 Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working? 7 What soldier ever serveth at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8 Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. Is it for the oxen that God careth, 10 or saith he it assuredly for our sake? Yea, for our sake it was written: because he that ploweth ought to plow in hope, and he that thresheth, to thresh in hope of partaking. 11 If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things? 12 If others partake of this right over you, do not we yet more?

Pauls Rights as an Apostle (112a)

Commentary

Am I not free?This chapter must be read in the light of what the apostle had just written in chapter eight. A Christian had a right to eat the meats that had been sacrificed to idols because he knew the truth about idols. This righttranslated liberty in the American Standard Versionwas not to be used in such a manner as to cause the weak brother to stumble.

Paul was just as free as any other Christian to exercise his judgment about eating this kind of food, for the truth of Christ had set him free from all rules and regulations and superstitions of men. It had, indeed, set him free from the bondage of the Jewish law. It had set him free from the bondage of sin. See Joh. 8:32 and Rom. 6:22. It was for freedom that Christ had set him free, and he was not becoming entangled again in any yoke of bondage (Gal. 5:1). But what he had recommended to others about the limitation of Christian liberty, he was free to observe for himself (1Co. 8:13).

am I not an apostle?All this group of questions are so framed as to suggest affirmative answers. I am an apostle, am I not? The question of his freedom and of his apostleship could only be answered by yes. The question as to his apostleship lays the ground for his argument that he has the right to expect material support from those to whom he preached the gospela right which he was to forgo.

have I not seen Jesus Our Lord?Again, the affirmative answer is suggested. I have seen Jesus Our Lord, have I not? This was an essential qualification of an apostle. Their task was to be witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus (Act. 1:22). It is true that others of the apostles had been eyewitnesses of the things that occurred during the ministry of the Lord (Luk. 1:2;2Pe. 1:16; Heb. 2:3-4), but the essential thing was that they should be witnesses of the resurrection (Act. 2:32).

This was so important in the life and ministry of Paul that Luke who records the story of his conversion mentions it three times, twice in Pauls own words (Act. 9:3-6; Act. 22:5-11; Act. 26:12-20). In the list of appearances of Our Lord, Paul gives this humble but significant testimony: and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also (1Co. 15:8).

are not ye my work in the Lord?We can show that an affirmative answer is implied by stating in this way: You are my work in the Lord, are you not? No one of them could deny it. They had heard the gospel from the lips of the apostle. Their faith in Christ depended upon it. Their very hope of eternal life in Him was based on the gospel Paul preached. When they admitted this, they also had to admit that he was an apostle and that he was free in the Lord.

If to others I am not an apostle.Paul had his critics at Corinth, but it is doubtful if the members of the church were in the group that denied his apostleship. Some were for Cephas, some for Apollos, and some for Paul. But this seems to be a matter of leaders and not a question as to Pauls apostleship. Then who were they who were denying that he was an apostle? In all probability, the Judaizers. These, whom he calls false brethren, had disrupted the liberty of the churches of Galatia and had attempted to do so in Jerusalem (Gal. 2:4-5). Paul mentions these critics in 2Co. 10:7-11. If any man trusteth in himself that he is Christs, let him consider this again with himself, that, even as he is Christs, so also are we. For though I should glory somewhat abundantly concerning the authority (which the Lord gave for building you up, and not casting you down), I shall not be put to shame: that I may not seem as if I would terrify you by my letters. For his letters, they say, are weighty and strong; but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account. Let such a one reckon this, that, what we are in word by letters when we are absent, such are we also in dead when we are present. He speaks of them ironically as the very chiefest apostles (2Co. 11:15). He says that such are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ (2Co. 11:13).

yet at least I am with you.The Corinthians of all people could scarcely afford to deny his apostleship for they had become Christians through his preaching. This reminder also lays the ground for his claim to the right to support from them which he develops later in the chapter. He could not prove to any one that he had seen the Lord; but the Corinthians at any rate had no need of such evidence to convince them that he was an Apostle. He seems to be glancing at the rival teachers who questioned his claim to the title (Plummer, I C C, First Corinthians, p. 178)

for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.A seal stamped on a document certified that it was genuine and that it was trustworthy. The Christian life of the Corinthians was the seal that certified that Paul was a genuine apostle of Christ and that he was to be trusted. He adds, My defense to them that examine me is this. Some commentators take this statement to refer to what follows, but it makes good sense to take it with what goes before, for it really completes his statement about the defense he had made for his apostleship.

Have we no right to eat and drink?This question containing a double negative is so framed as to imply a negative answer: It isnt that we do not have a right to eat and drink, is it? Who could deny him the right to food and drink as a result of his work? Having established, at least to the Corinthians, that he was an apostle, he began a series of arguments to establish his right to support.

right to lead about a wife that is a believer.His question is about his right to be accompanied on his missionary journeys by a wife who is a Christian. This had nothing to do with whether or not he was married. See chapter seven for the discussion of this point. He is merely arguing his right to do so, not stating as a fact that he is being accompanied by a wife. This, it seems, is another of his rights which he had given up for the sake of his work in the gospel.

The word translated believer is actually sister. The misunderstanding of this text that was used by some at a later time to support the practice of entering into some kind of spiritual marriage has no support in the correct interpretation of the passage. Sister must mean that the wife was to be a Christian. His question was: It isnt that we do not have a right to be accompanied on our journeys by a Christian wife, is it? Who could deny him the right?

the rest of the apostles.Paul had the same right as the rest of the apostles to claim support for himself and a family. We have nothing in Scripture to show that any of them were married except Cephas. One of the outstanding miracles of Jesus ministry was the healing of Peters wifes mother (Luk. 4:38). But the absence of evidence does not prove that the others were not married, and Paul seems to imply that they were .

and the brethren of the Lord.When Jesus came into His own country and entered the synagogue and taught the people, they were astonished at His wisdom and said, Is not this the carpenters son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joseph, and Simon? And his sisters, are they not all with us (Mat. 13:55-56)? It would seem that those who knew the family of Jesus understood that His brethren were the children of Joseph and Mary. This is the natural thing to suppose, although some have suggested that these whom Matthew calls brothers were cousins or the children of Joseph by some former marriage. Such inventions of the imagination are not necessary in the light of the plain statement of Matthew (Mat. 1:25). After the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary reared a family who are known as the brethren of the Lord.

John records that even his brethren did not believe on him during His ministry (Joh. 7:5). But this does not indicate that they joined with the Jews who hated Him and sought to kill Him (Joh. 7:1). Some of His friends at one time thought that he was beside himself (Mar. 3:21), and came to rescue Him from the crowds that gathered about Him to the extent that they could not so much as eat bread (Mar. 3:20). It was at this time that His mother and His brethren came and standing outside the circle of the crowd sent unto Him asking Him to go home with them (Mar. 3:31).This certainly indicates that His family held Him in high esteem even though they did not at the time recognize Him as Messiah. It was not until they were compelled to do so by the force of the evidence of His resurrection that they were found in the company of believers (Act. 1:14). It is interesting to note that James, the author of he epistle that bears his name and (we suppose) the brother of Jesus, calls himself a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ (Jas. 1:1). This is one of the strongest statements of the deity of Jesus that we have. His brother had known Him as the oldest one of the family and surely as a wonderful brother, and, when all the evidence was in, they too accepted Him as their Lord. Paul mentions James the Lords brother as one of those whom he saw when he went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Gal. 1:19).

We have no record in Scripture as to the marital status of these brethren of Our Lord, but we can safely assume that Paul did know about them and that this information was generally known. His point in mentioning them in exactly the same as in mentioning the right of the apostles to receive support for their families.

and Cephas?The prominence of Cephas (Peter) justified Paul in mentioning him, although everyone knew that he was one of the apostles. His prominence led some to ascribe preeminence to Peter, something that is in no way supported in Scriptures. Paul mentions him because he must have been well known to the Corinthians (1Co. 1:12; 1Co. 3:22). His point is that he had just as much right as Cephas to receive his support from those to whom he preached the gospel.

Or I only and Barnabas.It is interesting that Paul should mention Barnabas, his associate at Antioch and companion on the first missionary journey (Act. 11:22-26; Act. 13:1-3). They had parted company over John Mark just before starting the second journey that finally led Paul to Corinth (Act. 15:2; Act. 15:25-26; Act. 15:31-41). The reference to Mark in Col. 4:10 and 2Ti. 4:11 and this one to Barnabas suggest that the sharp contention between them was a matter of policy and not a personal quarrel unbecoming to Christian brethren.

Were Paul and Barnabas, for some strange reason, to be excluded from this right to refrain from working for their living in order that their whole time might be given to the preaching of the gospel? Paul is only arguing for the right. The Corinthians were well aware of the fact that when he came to Corinth he made his own living, at least in part, by tentmaking (Act. 18:1-3). But tentmaking, it seems, was only temporary, for other churches sent support to him from time to time. Ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my need (Php. 4:15-16). Paul called the attention of the Corinthians to this later. He asked, Did I commit a sin a abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I preached to you the gospel of God for naught? I robbed other churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you; and when I was present with you and was in want, I was not a burden on any man; for the brethren, when they came from Macedonia, supplied the measure of my want; and in everything I kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself (2Co. 11:7-9).

Do I speak these things after the manner of men?In arguing his right to receive support, Paul turns to some everyday examples to prove his point. The soldier doesnt provide his own rations; the one who plants a vineyard expects to eat the fruit it produces; the one who feeds a flock expects to use the milk of the flock for food. All of these are supported by the work they do.

or saith not the law the same thing?He appealed to the higher authority of the law of Moses to further emphasize his right. The law said, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn (Deu. 25:4). It was necessary, of course, for Paul to show how this rule applied to him. He asks, is it for the oxen that God careth? While it is true that the original provision was for the protection of the oxen, Paul is suggesting that it was not only for them that God cares. Certainly God who provided that the ox should be fed from the work he was doing would have even more concern that His apostles receive support from their work of preaching His gospel. He adds, For our sakes it was written. Two more examples are used to enforce this application: The man who plows the field ought to plow in hope of having a share in the crop he is going to raise. The man who threshes ought to do so with the hope of partaking of the harvest.

If we sowed unto you spiritual things.This is the real issue: He had shared the gospel message with them; they believed the word of the cross which he preached; they believed it and got themselves baptized, and thus they were washed, they were sanctified, they were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our Lord (1Co. 6:11). These were the spiritual things they received as a result of his labors among them.

is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?The argument is clear enough. He did have an indisputable right to receive support from them. In reality, this was a small matter in comparison to the blessing they had received through his efforts in their behalf.

By carnal things he refers to material things such as food and drink. He had used the word carnal in a different sense in 1Co. 3:1-3. See notes on these verses.

Robertson, in Word Pictures, Vol. IV, page 145, assumes that Paul teaches the same lesson in Gal. 6:6. It is highly probable, however, that that passage suggests the mutual obligation of teacher and those who are taught to actually share in the good things of the gospel message.

If others partake of this right over you.This is apparently a reference to those same men who were questioning Pauls apostleship. They, in all probability, had been taking support from the Corinthians. Paul refused to do so that he might show what sort they were (2Co. 11:12).

But for the sake of argument, he contends that if others had this right the apostles were more entitled to it then they.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

Butlers Comments

SECTION 1

Recitation of Rights (1Co. 9:1-14)

9 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my workmanship in the Lord? 2If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

3 This is my defense to those who would examine me. 4Do we not have the right to our food and drink? 5Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? 7Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Who tends a flock without getting some of the milk?

8 Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law say the same? 9For it is written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop. 11If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? 12If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more?

Nevertheless, 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. 13Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? 14In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

1Co. 9:1-7 The Logic: What is freedom? Is a Christian really free? The answer to those questions depends on the meaning of the word freedom! Freedom is a state of character, not circumstances. Freedom belongs to persons and has a personal objective. Freedom is not an objective in itself. Man is not just freehe is free for some purpose. Freedom should have as its objective the production of the highest form of personality possible. Freedom should have as its purpose the production of charactergood character. The freedom (or license) that allows self-indulgence and anarchy produces bad character because mans potential has a higher goal than self-indulgence. Freedom (the opposite of bondage and enslavement) by its very nature should exist for the purpose of removing all hindrances and restraints that would keep a person from reaching the highest potential for good of which he is capable.

This is precisely what Christian freedom is all about. God, through Christ, has set the Christian free from all hindrances and restraints that would keep him from reaching the highest possibility for which he was redeemed. God, through Christ, makes everything and everyone available for the Christians development (1Co. 3:21-23). It is not our surroundings or our circumstances that keep us from our highest God-ordained possibilities. Attitudes are what enslave us and hinder us. The attitudes which hinder are: (a) guilt; (b) insecurity; (c) rebellion against our Creator and his creation; (d) rejecting the truth about what is real and enduring; (e) fear of death; (f) selfishness. If these may be conquered we will be free and reaching Gods potential for us no matter what our circumstances (even persecution and prison). The real issue is not physical liberation but spiritual liberation. Any man, anywhere, whether politically, socially or literally imprisoned or not, may be spiritually free if he trusts Gods Word concerning mans true purpose and possibility.

In other words, our true freedom depends on whether we believe Gods word about what he made us for and how he says we may attain it. God made us to produce in us and for us character of the highest goodness. He made us to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29). Truth makes man free (Joh. 8:31-32). All truth, Gods truth, wherever it is, in the Bible, in creation, in other men, we are to find it, believe it and act according to it. . . . Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom . . . And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another . . . (2Co. 3:17-18). The apostle Paul was a man free in Christ, reaching for the highest good Christ intended him to have. He explains how he used his freedom to reach that goal. He has said, in chapter eight, that he was not asking the Christians at Corinth to do anything that he was not doing.

Paul claimed every right allowed him by Gods word. He refused to let any man, by making human rules where God never made any, take away any right by which he might reach the goal Christ intended in him. One part of Christs goal for Paul was his world-wide apostle-ship. In a series of rhetorical questions, Paul sets forth the logic of his freedom and its use. His first assertion of the logic of his rights is in his question, Am I not an apostle? He not only had the rights of a Christian but also the special rights of one particularly commissioned by the Lord to take the gospel to the whole world (an apostle). He is not thinking here of his authority as an apostle, but of his right to financial support as one sent (an apostle). His second appeal to logic is in his question, Are you not my workmanship in the Lord? He claimed the right to support on the basis of their obligation to him as the one who brought them to Christ (see Rom. 15:26-27; Gal. 6:6). The Greek word sphragis is translated seal and means, to authenticate, to validate. Their conversion to Christ certainly confirmed Pauls apostleship and his right to expect them to support him.

The Greek participle anakrinousin is present indicative, not subjunctive, and indicates some of the Christians were examining or making judgments about his right, not only to expect financial support for himself as he preached the gospel, but also the right to expect support for a family. Paul apparently received financial support from the church at Antioch when he was first sent out by that church (Act. 13:1-3); he received some support from the church at Philippi (Php. 4:14-18). But from the beginning of his second missionary journey he chose to support himself by working at his trade as a tentmaker (Act. 15:40; Act. 18:1-4; 2Co. 11:7; 1Th. 2:9; 1Th. 4:11; 2Th. 3:8).

While the apostle used the Greek word eleutheros, translated free, in 1Co. 9:1, he used the word exousian, translated right, in 1Co. 9:4-6, (see comments, 1Co. 8:9 on word liberty). Paul lists Barnabas as one also set aside by the Lord and the church for a full-time ministry and as such, one who has the right to expect Christians to support him, and a family. Since Barnabas (see Act. 4:36; Act. 9:26-27; Act. 11:22-30; Act. 13:2; Act. 15:39) was not an apostle in the same sense as Paul, this is evidently a statement of the rights of all full-time Christian evangelists to be supported financially by other Christians. Pauls statement of the rights of an apostle, and an evangelist, to have a wife deals a death-blow to the Roman Catholic canon-law that popes and priests must not have wives. Paul substantiates the Gospel records that the apostle Peter was married and his wife journeyed with him in his evangelistic work. Our text clearly states that the brothers of the Lord (James, Joseph, Simon and Judas, Mat. 13:55) also had wives who accompanied them in their work. Mary, mother of Jesus was not a perpetual virgin.

Pauls third appeal to logic is in 1Co. 9:7. He uses three analogies from the common life of that time to prove his point. In 2Ti. 2:1-7 Paul has similar analogies to encourage Timothy to train a company of faithful, full-time evangelists, like himself, who will be devoting all their time to teaching others. They must not get entangled in civilian pursuits. Now, in this letter to the Corinthians, he declares that a soldier of Christ who has not entangled himself in civilian pursuits but has given full-time to the ministry of the Word has the right to expect to be supported financially by the army of the Lord, the church. Not only so, but the soldiers wife and family also.

1Co. 9:8-12 a The Law: Paul anticipates that some of the Corinthians might object that his first defense of his rights is based on human thinking. So, he asks a rhetorical question, It is true, is it not, that as a human I am speaking these things? He expects them to answer, Yes! In so doing, he is able to give impact to his introduction of the Law of Mosesthe word of Godinto the defense of his rights. He follows with a second rhetorical question, The Law of Moses, does it not say the same thing? The expected answer is, Yes! But Paul immediately supplies the answer, For it is written in the law of Moses, you shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Pauls quotation comes from Deu. 25:4. The Israelites threshed grain by having oxen pull a stone or a threshing sledge with iron wheels over the grain to separate the grain from the husks. The ox was permitted to eat of the grain as he threshed. This was demanded by God in his Law to keep men from being cruel to animals. God cares about the animals in his creation. It is Gods will that animals be cared for by those whom they serve. This regulation in Deuteronomy is contained in a series of laws about economic and social justice. But it is not for oxen only that God is concerned. Paul does not mean to say that God is not concerned for oxenhe has already established that. Surely, if God legislates that oxen serving men are to be fed by men, then men serving others in spiritual things are to be fed by those they serve. Paul applies the same Old Testament law to the support of elders who labor in preaching and teaching the Word (1Ti. 5:17-18).

The word entirely, in 1Co. 9:10, is too strong for the context. Paul does not mean the law of Deu. 25:4 was totally for man and not for oxen at all. The Greek word pantos might be translated here, by all means, doubtless, at least. The teaching of Jesus (Mat. 6:25-34) explains that while God cares for birds and lilies, he will much more care for men who love him. Paul answers his own rhetorical question of 1Co. 9:10 by stating, It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope . . . of a share in the crop. The Greek word opheilei is translated should, but carries the idea of obligation or duty; it is sometimes translated ought, owe, or bound. The plowman is duty bound to plow in hope of sharing in the product of his labor.

The plowmans right becomes an analogy by which Paul asserts the right of a spiritual sower to be supported in material (Gr. sarkika, fleshly, physical) sustenance from the hands of those who have benefited from the spiritual sowing.

Almost indignantly (1Co. 9:12 a) Paul asks, If you authorize others the right of sharing your material goods, shouldnt you acknowledge that we (Christian evangelists) have even greater right? Who are the others? Some think they are the other apostles and other evangelists who had already been given the privilege of support by the churches (1Co. 9:3-6). Some think others refers to the Judaizers (II Cor. chapters 3 and 4) who had taught them. In addition others may refer to teachers of Greek philosophy and letters. It was common practice for the peripatetic (walking-around) teachers of Greek culture and philosophy to be supported financially by the parents of their students. Whatever the case in Corinth, it is a fact of the modern world that while men and women willingly band together in cities or rural districts and pay taxes for gymnasiums, football stadiums, huge public school buildings, buses, teachers and administrators salaries for the secular education of their societies, some Christians often begrudge a minister of the gospel and his family a salary commensurate with the average of the membership of the church. Preachers and evangelists who are in the ministry primarily for the money are hirelings (Joh. 10:7-18)! But that is not what Paul is discussing here. His phrase, . . . do not we still more? signifies the right of a faithful evangelist or preacher of the gospel to expect even more (or, rather first) consideration in material support than Christians give in other areas of life.

1Co. 9:12 b14 The Lord: If Paul found it necessary to be financially supported, or to marry, to reach the goal God had for his life, then he declared himself free to do so. Not only was he free to do so, he insisted the brethren acknowledge his rights. If Paul had not insisted that others at least acknowledge his freedom or his rights, he would have allowed the truth to be perverted and, to that extent, have forfeited his freedom by compromising with falsehood.

Now Paul might surrender his use of these freedoms or rights of his own to take an even better action in order to produce the highest good. But he must not surrender his right to such freedom for that would be surrender to spiritual slavery. Our freedom in Christ must always be defended (Gal. 5:1 ff.) whether we exercise every aspect of it or not.

The very essence of freedom is choice. Freedom in its ultimate and highest sense can never be legislated or enforced. Christian freedom is the ultimate freedom. Christ fulfilled the law written in ordinances. Those who choose Christ are no longer limited by the law. Their goal of spiritual growth is not fettered by or limited by law. They may choose the highest spiritual goal of allbeing conformed to the image of Gods Sonperfection. Paul always tried to choose what he thought, guided by Gods revelation, was the highest spirituality in his own life and in the life of others.

So, here, he exercises his right to surrender what he considers a lesser right (to be financially supported by the Corinthian church) in favor of a more spiritually productive right (not to put any obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ). This was Pauls free choice for Corinth. But apparently it was not always his choice. In a different circumstance, and with a different body of believers, he chose to accept their financial support (see Php. 4:15-18), for their spiritual growth.

It appears the Corinthian church later accused Paul of being a false apostle because he did not take financial support (see 2Co. 12:13; 2Co. 12:16-17) from them. While Paul could not know ahead of time how the Corinthians would react to forfeiting his right to financial support, it must have grieved him to later be despised for an act of love he intended for their spiritual advancement. But that goes with the territory of exercising Christian freedom!

In the first covenant (the Old Testament) the Lord commanded that the priests who devoted all their life to serving in the Temple were to be sustained by sharing (Gr. summerizontai, a dividing-up, an apportioning) of all the offerings given by their Hebrew brethren to the Lord. Reviving this ordinance of the Lord was one of the first and most significant acts of Hezekiah in his attempt to bring repentance to the nation (see 2Ch. 31:4-19).

The Lord Jesus Christ ordained the same practice for the New Testament church. The Greek word dietaxe, ordained or commanded, was used in other Greek literature to describe official appointments to position of authority. The Lord did not approach the matter of support for full-time Christian servants as a suggestion but as an official edict. He commanded it. The church has no choice in the matter. The individual servant of the Lord may choose to forego this right, but the church is ordered by the Lord himself to support the faithful evangelists it sets aside to full-time service in the Gospel. The laborer is worthy of his hire (Mat. 10:10; Luk. 10:7; 1Ti. 5:17-18).

A few commentators have used the KJV translation, . . . they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel to say the Lord meant those who preach the gospel should live according to what they preach. The context makes it clear this is not the meaning. The RSV translation gives the correct meaning, . . . those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel. The Greek words are even clearer; . . . ek tou euangeliou zen. The Greek preposition ek means out of, or from; the Greek infinitive zen means to live. Those who proclaim the gospel are to live out of the gospel.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) Am I not an apostle?Better, Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? such being the order of the words in the better MSS. Thus the thought grows more naturally out of the previous chapter than it seems to do in the English version. He had mentioned his solemn resolve to give up a freedom to which he had a right in regard to eating meat. He had on another occasion, in regard to his right of maintenance by the Church, also voluntarily sacrificed his freedom, and the Jewish party had in consequence denied the existence of the rights, and questioned his apostolic dignity. He asks, with abrupt emphasis, Was it because I am not free to demand such support? My freedom in this case is as real as in that other case when you questioned it, and to which I shall now refer. Was it because I am not an Apostle?

Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?To have seen Christ was a necessary qualification for the Apostolate (Act. 1:21). From the manner in which the Apostle here asks the question, and does not answer it, it would seem that although some small minority might, for some party purpose, have at some time questioned it, yet that the fact was generally admitted and universally known that St. Paul did actually see the Lord at the time of his conversion (Act. 9:4), and on other occasions (Act. 18:9; Act. 22:17).

Are not ye my work in the Lord?This is a further proof of his Apostleship, and therefore of his right or freedom to have demanded support from the Church. (See 1Co. 4:15.)

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 9

THE UNCLAIMED PRIVILEGES ( 1Co 9:1-14 )

9:1-14 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? Even if I am not an apostle to others, I certainly am to you; you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defence to those who are trying to put me on my trial. Do you mean to say that I have not the right to eat and drink at the cost of the Church? Do you mean to say that I have not the right to take a sister about with me as wife, as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas do? Are you going to maintain that it is only I and Barnabas who have not the right to be set free from manual labour? What soldier who goes on a campaign has ever to provide his own rations? Who plants a vineyard and has no right to eat of its fruits? Who shepherds a flock and has not the right to drink of the milk of the flock? Don’t think that this is a merely human point of view. Doesn’t the law itself say this? For in the law of Moses it stands written, “You must not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it only oxen that God was thinking about? Or, was it not really for our sakes that he says this? It was for our sakes that it was written, because the ploughman ought to plough and the thresher ought to thresh in the expectation of a share of the crop. If we have sown for you things which nourish the spirit, is it a great boon if we reap from you things which nourish the body? If others share in the privileges which you provide, should we not even more? But we have not used our right to this privilege; but we have put up with all things so as not to put any hindrance in the way of the good news of Christ. Are you not aware that those who perform the Temple rites have a right to eat their share of the Temple offerings, that those who serve at the altar share things with the altar? Just so the Lord laid it down that those who proclaim the good news should get enough to live on from the good news.

At first sight this chapter seems quite disconnected from what goes before but in fact it is not. The whole point lies in this–the Corinthians who considered themselves mature Christians have been claiming that they are in such a privileged position that they are free to eat meat offered to idols if they like. Their Christian freedom gives them–as they think–a special position in which they could do things which might not be permissible to lesser men. Paul’s way of answering that argument is to set forth the many privileges which he himself had a perfect right to claim, but which he did not claim in case they should turn out to be stumbling-blocks to others and hindrances to the effectiveness of the gospel.

First, he claims to be an apostle, which immediately set him in a very special position. He uses two arguments to prove the reality of his apostleship.

(i) He has seen the Lord. Over and over again the Book of Acts makes it clear that the supreme test of an apostle is that he is a witness of the Resurrection. ( Act 1:22; Act 2:32; Act 3:15; Act 4:33). This is of intense importance. Faith, in the New Testament, is very seldom acquiescence in a creed; it is almost always trust in a person. Paul does not say, “I know what I have believed.” He says, “I know whom I have believed.” ( 2Ti 1:12). When Jesus called his disciples, he did not say to them, “I have a philosophy which I would like you to examine,” or, “I have an ethical system which I would like you to consider,” or, “I offer you a statement of belief which I would like you to discuss.” He said, “Follow me.” All Christianity begins with this personal relationship with Jesus Christ. To be a Christian is to know him personally. As Carlyle once said when a minister was being chosen, “What this Church needs is someone who knows Christ other than at second-hand.”

(ii) Paul’s second claim is that his ministry has been effective. The Corinthians themselves are the proof of that. He calls them his seal. In ancient days the seal was extremely important. When a cargo of grain or dates or the like was being sent off, the last thing done was that the containers were sealed with a seal to show that the consignment was genuinely what it claimed to be. When a will was made it was sealed with seven seals; and it was not legally valid unless it was produced with the seven seals intact. The seal was the guarantee of genuineness. The very fact of the Corinthian Church was the guarantee of Paul’s apostleship. The final proof that a man himself knows Christ is that he can bring others to him. It is said that once a young soldier, lying in pain in a hospital, said to Florence Nightingale as she bent over to tend him, “You are Christ to me.” The reality of a man’s Christianity is best proved by the fact that he helps others to be Christian.

The privilege that Paul might have claimed was support from the Church. Not only could he have claimed such support for himself but also for a wife. In fact the other apostles did receive such support. The Greeks despised manual labour; no free Greek would willingly work with his hands. Aristotle declared that all men were divided into two classes–the cultured and the hewers of wood and drawers of water who existed solely to perform the menial tasks for the others, and whom it was not only mistaken but actually wrong to seek to raise and educate. The enemies of Socrates and Plato had in fact taunted them because they took no money for teaching, and had hinted that they did so because their teaching was worth nothing. It is true that every Jewish Rabbi was supposed to teach for nothing and to have a trade whereby he earned his daily bread; but these same Rabbis took very good care to inculcate the teaching that there was no more meritorious deed than to support a Rabbi. If a man wished a comfortable place in heaven he could not better assure himself of it than by supplying all a Rabbi’s needs. On every ground Paul could have claimed the privilege of being supported by the Church.

He uses ordinary human analogies. No soldier has to provide his own rations. Why should the soldier of Christ have to do so? The man who plants a vineyard shares in the fruits. Why should the man who plants churches not do so? The shepherd of the flock gets his food from the flock. Why should not the Christian pastor do likewise? Even scripture says that the ox who works the threshing machine is not to be muzzled but is to be allowed to eat of the grain ( Deu 25:4). As any Rabbi would, Paul allegorizes that instruction and makes it apply to the Christian teacher.

The priest who serves in the Temple receives his share of the offerings. In Greek sacrifice the priest, as we have seen, received the ribs, the ham and the left side of the face. But it is worth while looking at the perquisites of the priests in the Temple at Jerusalem.

There were five main offerings. (i) The Burnt-offering. This alone was burnt entire except the stomach, the entrails and the sinew of the thigh (compare Gen 32:32). But even in this the priests received the hides, and did a flourishing trade with them. (ii) The Sin-offering. In this case only the fat was burned on the altar and the priests received all the flesh. (iii) The Trespass-offering. Again the fat alone was burned and the priests received all the flesh. (iv) The Meat-offering. This consisted of flour and wine and oil. Only a token part was offered on the altar; by far the greater part was the perquisite of the priests. (v) The Peace-offering. The fat and the entrails were burned on the altar; the priest received the breast and the right shoulder; and the rest was given back to the worshipper.

The priests enjoyed still further perquisites. (i) They received the first-fruits of the seven kinds–wheat, barley, the vine, the fig-tree, the pomegranate, the olive and honey. (ii) The Terumah ( H8641) . This was the offering of the choicest fruits of every growing thing. The priests had the right to an average of one fiftieth of any crop. (iii) The Tithe. A tithe had to be given of “everything which may be used as food and is cultivated and grows out of the earth.” This tithe belonged to the Levites; but the priests received a tithe of the tithe that the Levites received. (iv) The Challah ( H2471) . This was the offering of kneaded dough. If dough was made with wheat, barley, spelt, oats or rye, a private individual had to give to the priests one twenty-fourth part, a public baker one forty-eighth part.

All this is at the back of Paul’s refusal to accept even the basic supplies of life from the Church. He refused for two reasons: (i) The priests were a byword. While the ordinary Jewish family ate meat at the most once a week the priests suffered from an occupational disease consequent on eating too much meat. Their privileges, the luxury of their lives, their rapacity were notorious; Paul knew all about this. He knew how they used religion as a means to grow fat; and he was determined that he would go to the other extreme and take nothing. (ii) The second reason was his sheer independence. It may well be that he carried it too far, because it seems that he hurt the Corinthians by refusing all aid. But Paul was one of those independent souls who would starve rather than be beholden to anyone.

In the last analysis one thing dominated his conduct. He would do nothing that would bring discredit on the gospel or hinder it. Men judge a message by the life and character of the man who brings it; and Paul was determined that his hands would be clean. He would allow nothing in his life to contradict the message of his lips. Someone once said to a preacher, “I cannot hear what you say for listening to what you are.” No one could ever say that to Paul.

THE PRIVILEGE AND THE TASK ( 1Co 9:15-23 )

9:15-23 But I have claimed none of these rights. I am not writing this to claim that these privileges should be extended to me. I would rather die than let anyone make ineffective my boast that I take nothing for my work. If I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast about in that. I do it because necessity is laid upon me. Woe is me if I do not preach the gospel! If I do this of my own choice I do deserve a reward. But if I do it whether I like it or not, it is because I have been entrusted with this task. What then is my reward? My reward is that by my preaching I make the good news free, so that I do not use the privileges that I could claim as a preacher. For, though I am free from all men, yet I make myself a slave to all men, so that I might win more. To the Jews I became as a Jew that I might win the Jews. To those under the law I became as under the law, although I am not under the law, that I might win those under the law. To those who live without the law I became as one without the law–not without the law of God, but within the law of Christ–that I might win those who live without the law. To the weak I became weak that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, so that by any means I might save some. I do this because of the good news, that I may share it with all men.

In this passage there is a kind of outline of Paul’s whole conception of his ministry.

(i) He regarded it as a privilege. The one thing he will not do is take money for working for Christ. When a certain famous American professor retired from his chair he made a speech in which he thanked his university for paying him a salary all these years for doing work which he would gladly have paid to do. This does not mean that a man must always work for nothing; there are certain obligations that he must fulfil which he cannot fulfil for nothing; but it does mean that he should never work primarily for money. He should regard his work not as a career of accumulation but as an opportunity of service. He must regard himself as a man whose primary duty is not to help himself but whose privilege is to serve others for God’s sake.

(ii) He regarded it as a duty. Paul’s point of view was that if he had chosen to be a preacher of the gospel he might quite legitimately have demanded payment for his work; but he had not chosen the work; it had chosen him; he could no more stop doing it than he could stop breathing; and there could, therefore, be no question of payment.

Ramon Lull, the great Spanish saint and mystic, tells us how he became a missionary of Christ. He had been living a careless and pleasure-loving life. Then one day, when he was alone, Christ came carrying his Cross and saying to him, “Carry this for me.” But he refused. Again, when he was in the silence of a great cathedral, Christ came and asked him to carry his Cross; and again he refused. In a lonely moment Christ came a third time, and this time, said Ramon Lull, “He took his Cross and with a look he left it lying in my hands. What could I do but take it up and carry it on?” Paul would have said, “What can I do but tell men the good news of Christ?”

(iii) In spite of the fact that he would take no payment, Paul knew that he received daily a great reward. He had the satisfaction of bringing the gospel freely to all men who would receive it. It is a ways true that the real reward of any task is not its money payment but the satisfaction of a job well done. That is why the biggest thing in life is not to choose the job with the biggest pay but the one in which we will find the greatest satisfaction.

Albert Schweitzer describes the kind of moment which brought him the greatest happiness. Someone suffering intensely is brought into his hospital. He soothes the man by telling him that he will put him to sleep and will operate on him and all will be well. After the operation he sits beside the patient waiting for him to regain consciousness. Slowly he opens his eyes and then whispers in sheer wonderment, “I have no more pain.” That was it. There was no material reward there, but a satisfaction as deep as the depths of the heart itself.

To have mended one shattered life, to have restored one wanderer to the right way, to have healed one broken heart, to have brought one soul to Christ is not a thing whose reward can be measured in financial terms, but its joy is beyond all measurement.

(iv) Finally, Paul speaks about the method of his ministry, which was to become all things to all men. This is not a case of being hypocritically one thing to one man and another to another. It Is a matter in the modern phrase, of being able to get alongside anyone. The man who can never see anything but his own point of view and who never makes any attempt to understand the mind and heart of others, will never make a pastor or an evangelist or even a friend.

Boswell somewhere speaks of “the art of accommodating oneself to others.” That was an art which Dr. Johnson possessed in a supreme degree, for, not only was he a great talker, but he was also a great listener with a supreme ability to get alongside any man. A friend said of him that he had the art of “leading people to talk on their favourite subjects, and on what they knew best.” Once a country clergyman complained to Mrs. Thrale’s mother of the dullness of his people. “They talk of runts” (young cows), he said bitterly. “Sir,” said the old lady, “Mr. Johnson would have learned to talk of runts.” To the countryman he would have become a countryman. Robert Lynd points out how Johnson would discuss the digestive apparatus of a dog with a country parson; how he talked dancing with. a dancing master; how he talked on farm management, thatching, the process of malting, the manufacture of gunpowder, the art of tanning. He talks of Johnson’s “readiness to throw himself into the interests of other people. He was a man who would have enjoyed discussing the manufacture of spectacles with a spectacle-maker, law with a lawyer, pigs with a pig-breeder, diseases with a doctor, or ships with a ship-builder. He knew that in conversation it is only more blessed to give than to receive.”

We can never attain to any kind of evangelism or friendship without speaking the same language and thinking the same thoughts as the other man. Someone once described teaching, medicine and the ministry as “the three patronizing professions.” So long as we patronize people and make no effort to understand them, we can never get anywhere with them. Paul, the master missionary, who won more men for Christ than any other man, saw how essential it was to become all things to all men. One of our greatest necessities is to learn the art of getting alongside people; and the trouble so often is that we do not even try.

A REAL FIGHT ( 1Co 9:24-27 )

9:24-27 Are you not aware that those who run in the stadium all run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may win the prize. Now every athlete in the games practises complete self-discipline. They therefore do so to win a crown that quickly fades away; we do so to win a crown that never fades. I therefore so run as one who knows his goal; I fight, not like one who shadow-boxes; but I batter my body; I make it my slave; lest after I have preached to others I myself should fail to stand the test.

Paul takes another line. He insists to those Corinthians who wanted to take the easy way that no man will ever get anywhere without the sternest self-discipline. Paul was always fascinated by the picture of the athlete. An athlete must train with intensity if he is to win his contest; and Corinth knew how thrilling contests could be, for at Corinth the Isthmian games, second only to the Olympic games, were held. Furthermore, the athlete undergoes this self-discipline and this training to win a crown of laurel leaves that within days will be a withered chaplet. How much more should the Christian discipline himself to win the crown which is eternal life.

In this passage Paul sets out a kind of brief philosophy of life.

(i) Life is a battle. As William James put it, “If this life be not a real fight, in which something is eternally gained for the universe by success, it is not better than a game of private theatricals from which one may withdraw at will. But it feels like a fight–as if there were something really wild in the universe which we, with all our idealities and faithfulnesses, are needed to redeem.” As Coleridge had it, “So far from the world being a goddess in petticoats, it is rather a devil in a strait waistcoat.” A flabby soldier cannot win battles; a slack trainer cannot win races. We must regard ourselves always as men engaged upon a campaign, as men pressing onwards to a goal.

(ii) To win the fight and to be victorious in the race demands discipline. We have to discipline our bodies; it is one of the neglected facts of the spiritual life that very often spiritual depression springs from nothing else than physical unfitness. If a man is going to do his best work in anything he must bring to it a body as fit as he can make it. We have to discipline our minds; it is one of the tragedies of life that men may refuse to think until they become incapable of thinking. We can never solve problems by refusing to see them or by running away from them. We must discipline our souls; we can do so by facing life’s sorrows with calm endurance, its temptations with the strength God gives, its disappointments with courage.

(iii) We need to know our goal. A distressing thing is the obvious aimlessness of the lives of so many people; they are drifting anywhere instead of going somewhere. Maarten Maartens has a parable. “There was a man once, a satirist. In the natural course of time his friends slew him, and he died. And the people came and stood round about his corpse. ‘He treated the whole round world as his football,’ they said indignantly, ‘and he kicked it.’ The dead man opened one eye. ‘But,’ he said, ‘always towards the goal.”‘ Someone once drew a cartoon showing two men on Mars looking down at the people in this world scurrying here, there and everywhere. One said to the other, “What are they doing?” The other replied, “They are going.” “But,” said the first, “where are they going?” “Oh,” said the other, “they are not going anywhere; they are just going.” And to go just anywhere is the certain way to arrive nowhere.

(iv) We need to know the worth of our goal. The great appeal of Jesus was rarely based on penalty and punishment. It was based on the declaration, “Look what you are missing if you do not take my way.” The goal is life, and surely it is worth anything to win that.

(v) We cannot save others unless we master ourselves. Freud once said, “Psycho-analysis is learnt first of all on oneself, through the study of one’s own personality.” The Greeks declared that the first rule of life is, “Man know thyself.” Certainly we cannot serve others until we have mastered ourselves; we cannot teach what we do not know; we cannot bring others to Christ until we ourselves have found him.

-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)

Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible

PAUL’S FIFTH RESPONSE: TO THE QUESTION AFFECTING HIS APOSTOLICITY, 1Co 9:1 to 1Co 10:13

The intense purpose of sacrificing his own rights in regard to eating meat, expressed so vividly in the last chapter, (see note on the closing verse,) suggests to St. Paul a parallel sacrifice of his own apostolic rights which he had thus far practiced through his whole mission. Fully maintaining the right of an apostle to be maintained by the Church, he had abdicated that right in his own case, and had earned his living by the skill of his own hand and the sweat of his own brow. His Christian calumniators, so far from appreciating this magnanimity, made it the ground of a charge against him, that he did not claim his maintenance because he was conscious of not being a true apostle. He was not one of the twelve. He had never seen the living Christ. He was no brother or kinsman of Jesus. He was, therefore, a spurious apostle, and not worthy the pay he dare not claim. Paul now replies, and replies here, because this self-sacrifice of his lies in direct line with the self-sacrifice expressed at the close of the last chapter. The following is his train of self-explanation.

1 . He asserts his apostolic freedom and prerogative, 1Co 9:1-6.

2 . Maintains the minister’s right to pecuniary support from the Church by the law of compensation, 1Co 9:7-14.

3 . Declares why he renounced that right, namely, because his glory and his reward were a gratis gospel, 1Co 9:15-19. In accordance with this self-sacrifice, 4. He made himself, within the limits of right, all things to all men, in order to win them to Christ, 1Co 9:20-22.

5 . Thus to attain the final prize, like an athlete, he earnestly disciplines and subdues himself that he may not become at last a castaway, 1Co 9:23-27.

6 . Precisely in continuance with this train of thought, in the next chapter he charges the Corinthians, not in the image of an athlete, but by the example of Israel in the wilderness, to escape a like cast-away finality, 1Co 10:1-14. Then the digression being closed, (as noted in our last note on chap. 8,) he resumes the topic of idol sacrifice.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1. Assertion of his apostolical right and prerogative, 1Co 9:1-6.

1. Am I not free? By the best readings this question stands first, and forms the hinge from the previous topic to what follows. Do I thus subject myself to privation for others, even of food, because I am not truly a free man like yourselves? Nay, more, am I not an apostle? And so entitled to the apostle’s maintenance, which I decline to receive? And as his apostleship is questioned, he adds a running interrogative assertion of it.

Seen Jesus The requisite qualification for being an apostle. See our notes on Luk 1:2; Act 9:3.

Ye my work This practical proof convinced the council of Jerusalem of Paul’s apostleship, (notes on Act 15:4; Act 15:6; Act 15:12,) as Paul more fully asserts to the Galatians, Gal 2:7-9.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you, for the seal of my apostleship are you in the Lord.’

He begins by asserting his freedom. Support is something he has a right to and he would therefore be free to receive it if he wished. And the reason he has that right is because he is an Apostle, one sent forth and therefore dependent on such support (Mat 10:9-15). But because he is wholly free he can choose what he will do, and he has the right to do either.

His evidence that he is an Apostle rests first on that he has seen ‘Jesus our Lord’. He has seen Jesus, the One Who walked on earth as man, the resurrected Jesus, as now raised to Lordship. And the second that his Apostleship has been revealed by his success in establishing this new church. They are his work in the Lord. If they enjoy spiritual gifts let them remember who first brought the Spirit among them. They are the evidence, indeed the seal of his Apostleship. They are proof of his Apostolic power and authority, and therefore of his rights.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Paul Now Points Out That He Refuses To Use His Freedom In Any Way That Would Cause Young Christians To Be Led Astray. His Next Example Refers To His Not Receiving Gifts For His Ministry Among Them Which May Brand Him As Greedy, Mercenary or Merely A Paid Orator, and Thus Promote Difficulties and Tensions (9:1-18).

The last verse of the previous chapter leads on to this chapter in which Paul again refuses to use his freedom in such a way as to cause offence. This time it is with regard to his right to support. No doubt he had also been criticised about this. Once a person comes under criticism all kinds of things are dredged up so as to discredit the person being criticised. So he points out that he has a right to partake of such support, as have all the Apostles, but he refuses to use it because it might lead others to doubt him. First he asserts that he is free to do what he will in this regard, and then especially stresses his position as an Apostle, which gives him the right to support as expressed by Jesus, but then he declares that nevertheless he will not accept such support while working among them. He does not want to be seen as a chancer or as a paid professional orator.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

A Positive Example: Paul’s Carefulness Not to Offend In 1Co 9:1-27 Paul uses himself as an example of the love walk through self-denial. In this passage he illustrates in his own life as an apostle the warning he has just stated in 1Co 8:9, which says, “But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.” In other words, he was careful not to allow his liberties in the Gospel to cause the weak to stumble. Paul would not ask the Corinthians to do something that he was not willing to do himself. In this passage of Scripture he discusses four rights, or privileges that belonged to him as an apostle to the Gentiles. These rights were shown to him by revelation and the knowledge of God’s Word. Yet, he was careful in how he used them.

He explains how he has the right as an apostle of Jesus Christ to eat and drink whatever he wanted, to receive financial gifts, to marry and to cease from secular employment (1Co 9:1-14). Yet, he chose to deny himself these basic privileges in order to present the Gospel to them without costing them financially (1Co 9:15-23). He explains how he has made himself a servant to others in order that he may receive the eternal rewards from his labours and not be disqualified because of some foolish, selfish act (1Co 9:24-27).

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Paul’s Liberties 1Co 9:1-14

2. Paul’s Self-Discipline 1Co 9:15-27

Paul’s Privileges as an Apostle Discussed In 1Co 9:1-27 gives himself as an example of how not to offend the weaker brother, but rather, to walk in love. In this passage he discusses four privileges that he had the rights as an apostle to enjoy, yet he abstained from these rights.

1. Enjoyment of All Foods ( 1Co 9:4 ) – He had the privilege to eat and drink. Instead, he practiced “much fastings.” Note:

2Co 6:5, “In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings ;”

2Co 11:27, “In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often , in cold and nakedness.”

2. Material Prosperity ( 1Co 9:4 ) – He had the privilege to reap material things as offerings, yet he laboured with his own hands in employment. Note:

1Co 9:14-15, “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things : neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.”

3. Marriage ( 1Co 9:5 ) – He had the privilege to marry. Instead, he practiced celibacy. Note:

1Co 7:7, “For I would that all men were even as I myself . But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.”

4. Forbearance to Work ( 1Co 9:6 ) – He had the privilege to forbear working, yet he laboured day and night.

2Th 3:8, “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:”

Why did Paul not use these privileges; so that the Gospel of Jesus Christ would not be hindered from being received by others?

1Co 9:12, “If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.”

1Co 9:18, “What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.”

Note that this description of Paul’s rights, and how he does not use them so as not to hinder the Gospel, is his example of the point he is driving home in chapter 8, that is, “take heed lest your liberty becomes a stumbling block to others.” The key verse to understanding Paul’s main point in this passage of Scripture is in 1Co 9:19, in which he tells them to become servant to all!

1Co 9:19, “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.”

Also:

1Co 9:22, “To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.”

1Co 10:23, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”

1Co 9:1-14 Paul Explains His Apostleship Over the Corinthians In 1Co 9:1-14 Paul explains his apostolic authority over the believers a Corinth. He will follow this point by explaining how he is careful not abuse this authority (1Co 9:15-27).

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1Co 9:1 “am I not free” Scripture Reference – Note:

1Co 9:19, “For though I be free from all men , yet have made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.”

1Co 9:2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

1Co 9:2 “If I be not an apostle to others” Comments – Paul called himself an apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13).

Rom 11:13, “For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles , I magnify mine office:”

1Co 9:2 “the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord” – Word Study on “seal” – BDAG says the Greek word “seal” ( ) (G4973) means, “That which confirms, attests, or authenticates.”

Comments – Note also a similar statement in 2Co 3:2, “Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:”

1Co 9:4 Scripture Reference – Note:

Luk 10:8, “And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you:”

2Th 3:8-9, “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.”

1Co 9:5 “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife” Comments – This is a sister in Christ, a sister of the church.

1Co 9:5 “as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas” – Comments – Peter was married as seen in:

Mat 8:14, “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”

1Co 9:6 Scripture Reference – Note:

2Th 3:8, “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:”

1Co 9:9 Old Testament Quotes in the New Testament – 1Co 9:9 is quoted from Deu 25:4.

Deu 25:4, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.”

Paul quotes this Old Testament verse again in 1Ti 5:18.

1Ti 5:18, “For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.”

1Co 9:11 Scripture References – Note:

Rom 15:27, “It hath pleased them verily; and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things.”

Gal 6:6, “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.”

1Co 9:12 “power” – Or, “authority”.

1Co 9:12 “we have not used this power” – Note:

Act 20:34-35, “Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

2Co 11:9, “And when I was present with you, and wanted, I was chargeable to no man: for that which was lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied: and in all things I have kept myself from being burdensome unto you, and so will I keep myself.”

1Co 9:13 Comments – Portions of the sacrifice were given to the priest (Lev 6:16, Num 18:6-19; Num 18:31)

Lev 6:16, “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.”

Num 18:31, “And ye shall eat it in every place, ye and your households: for it is your reward for your service in the tabernacle of the congregation.”

1Co 9:14 Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

1Co 9:14 Scripture Reference – Note:

Mat 10:9-10, “Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.”

Luk 10:4, “Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.”

Luk 10:7, “And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.”

Gal 6:6, “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.”

1Ti 5:17, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.”

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Sanctification by the Holy Spirit In 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 14:40 Paul takes the greater part of this epistle to teach them about the process of sanctification by the Holy Spirit. However, the ways in which these issues are presented reflect the sanctification of man’s mind, body, and spirit, in that order. For example, Paul’s discussion on church divisions (1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21) emphasizes the sanctification of our minds so that we learn not to prefer one church member, or church leader, above another. His discussion on fornication (1Co 5:1 to 1Co 7:40) emphasizes the sanctification of our bodies, as we offer them as holy vessels to the Lord. His discussion on meats offered until idols (1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1) emphasizes the sanctification of our spirits as we learn to walk and conduct our lifestyles with a clean conscience, which is the voice of the spirit. Paul then turns his attention to issues regarding public worship (1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40). Remember in the Old Testament how the priests and Levites had to sanctify themselves before entering into the service of the Tabernacle and Temple. Therefore, Paul uses this same approach for the New Testament Church. As we allow our minds, bodies and spirits to yield to the work of sanctification by the Holy Spirit, we become vessels in which the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit can operate.

Outline – Here is a proposed outline:

1. Divisions in the Church 1Co 3:1 to 1Co 4:21

2. Fornication in the Church 1Co 5:1 to 1Co 6:20

3. Idolatry and foods offered to idols 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:34

4. Public Worship 1Co 11:2 to 1Co 14:40

The Two Issues of Fornication and Foods Offered Unto Idols Reflect Heathen Worship Note that the two major topics that are covered in this epistle of 1 Corinthians, fornication and meat offered to idols, are two of the four issues that those the Jerusalem council decided to ask of the Gentiles. Note:

Act 15:20, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

Act 15:29, “That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.”

Act 21:25, “As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”

In submission to the church apostles and elders a Jerusalem, Paul delivered these ordinances to the Corinthian church earlier while he lived there. In this epistle, Paul expands upon them:

1Co 11:2, “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.”

Note also that Jesus told the church in Pergamos in the book of Revelation that these were the two doctrines of Balaam.

Rev 2:14, “But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication .”

Therefore, the practice of feasting in idolatry and fornication appears to have been a common practice in Asia Minor among the temple worship of the Greeks. We also see in Rom 1:18-32 how idolatry was followed by fornication as God turned mankind over to a reprobate mind. Thus, these two sins are associated with one another throughout the Scriptures. However, first Paul deals with church divisions.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Idolatry and Things Offered unto Idols: Sanctification of the Spirit to Learn how to Walk with a Pure Conscience In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul dedicates his longest discussion in this epistle to the topic of idolatry and things offered unto idols, using it as an opportunity to each on being led by the spirit by walking with a good conscience, which is voice of our spirit. The word “conscience” ( ) is used 9 times in this passage of Scripture. Paul opens ( 1Co 8:7 ; 1Co 8:10; 1Co 8:12) and closes (1Co 10:25; 1Co 10:27-29) this passage with this word. This church was living in the midst of such heathen practices, and like many of us today, they were invited to attend certain functions that involved idolatry and foods offered unto idols. This is why Paul says, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go” Thus, these believers needed some guidelines to go by when confronted with such invitations. The guiding principle that Paul teaches in this passage is for the believer to be led by his conscience so that he does not offence his brother. Therefore, Paul’s concluding statement on how to deal with this issue is, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God,” (1Co 10:31).

Outline Here is a proposed outline:

1. Eating meat offered to idols 1Co 8:1-13

2. A Positive Example: Paul’s carefulness not to offend 1Co 9:1-27

3. Negative Example: The idolatry of Israel in the wilderness 1Co 10:1-14

4. A Personal Example: The Lord’s Table vs. Pagan Worship 1Co 10:15-22

5. Conclusion 1Co 10:23 to 1Co 11:1

The Conscience, the Voice of the Human Spirit In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul deals with the issue of idolatry. Keep in mind the underlying theme of this epistle, which is practical ways in which the believer is to allow the Holy Spirit to work in and through them. Thus, Paul uses the word “conscience” nine times in this section of the epistle. This is because the voice of our human spirit is our conscience. In contrast, the voice of our mind is human reason, and the voice of our body is our physical senses that we call feelings. Thus, Paul is teaching the Corinthians to be led by the Holy Spirit on this issue by being led by their conscience.

1Co 8:7, “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.”

1Co 8:10, “For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols;”

1Co 8:12, “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience , ye sin against Christ.”

1Co 10:25, “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:”

1Co 10:27, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.”

1Co 10:28, “But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof:”

1Co 10:29, “ Conscience , I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience ?”

The First Council of Jerusalem In 1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 Paul dedicates his longest discussion in this epistle to the topic of idolatry and things offered unto idols, which was an important part of this Greco-Roman culture with their temple worship. This type of heathen worship consisted of fornication and feasting upon foods that had been offered up to Greek and Roman idols.

However, the issue of meats and their association with heathen idols had long been a problem with the Jews. Wherever they had settled throughout the Empire, they established their own butcheries in order to provide for themselves “clean” meats. This issue of meats and idolatry was a part of the first confrontations of the early Church. In the first Church council in Jerusalem, recorded in Act 15:1-35, the leaders chose to send instructions to the Gentile churches on four topics. Act 15:20 reads, “But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”

Much of the meats offered in the markets were the residue of what had been sacrificed to idols. If these believers ate such meats, were they partaking of such worship? Or, if they were invited into a non-believer’s home and offered meats, should they abstain, or eat it so as not to offense the host? But if they ate it, would it not offend the weaker brothers in the church who were just coming out of such an idolatrous lifestyle and could easily fall back into it under similar conditions? All of these issues needed to be addressed. Thus, it was an important topic for Paul to deal with in the church of Corinth as well as in all the churches.

This church was living in the midst of such heathen practices, and like many of us today, they were invited to attend certain functions that involved idolatry and foods offered unto idols. This is why Paul says, “If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go” (1Co 10:27) Thus, these believers needed some guidelines to go by when attending such invitations. The key point that Paul tries to emphasize in this passage is, “Do not offend other believers.” The key words which are often repeated are “idols” and “offence”. Paul’s concluding statement on how to deal with this issue is, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God,” (1Co 10:31).

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

Paul the Free Servant of Christ.

Defending his Christian liberty:

v. 1. Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ, our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord?

v. 2. If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you; for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

v. 3. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this,

v. 4. Have we not power to eat and to drink?

v. 5. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

v. 6. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

v. 7. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who plants a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Paul had stated the guiding principle of his life to be: All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient, chap. 6:12. In accordance with this principle he had been practicing self-denial out of love to the Lord and to his brethren, he had renounced his own rights and privileges for the sake of winning souls for Christ and spreading the Gospel. And therefore he now defends his position and his Christian liberty in one of the most elevated and beautiful passages in the entire New Testament. He has the same rights as other Christians, as other apostles, and if he chooses not to exercise these rights, this fact does not deprive him of his privileges, but should rather cause the Corinthian Christians to esteem him all the more highly for his self-denial in their behalf. These were his prerogatives: He was free, he had become a partaker of the liberty wherewith Christ had made him free, and in the exercise of this liberty was accountable to no man; he was an apostle, and this in spite of the fact that some deceivers were casting suspicions on the certainty of his call, 2Co 11:13. So far as the Corinthians are concerned, his apostleship is substantiated in two ways: He has, with the eyes of the body, seen the Lord, their common Lord, Jesus Christ, Act 9:1-43, when the Lord appeared to him on the way to Damascus; the Corinthians themselves are his work, the concrete evidence of his calling, through his work the Lord had created them to be new creatures, the preaching of the Gospel had been effective in their case, what they had received was the Lord’s grace and blessing which is given through the word and work of His servants.

The apostle feels constrained to emphasize this point: If to others I am not an apostle, at any rate, most certainly, I am to you. In other congregations, where the Judaizing teachers were very strong, they might deny his apostleship, in their view or opinion his claims may not be well founded. But so far as the Corinthians were concerned, they surely cannot but acknowledge him, since the simple fact of their conversion was a constant confirmation of his contention: they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord. The Lord affixed His seal to the work of His servant by making his words powerful for the conversion of the Corinthians. See Joh 3:33. Paul had been among the believers of Corinth with the signs of an apostle, 2Co 12:12, and the Lord had given the increase in such a signally wonderful manner as to confirm Paul’s commission in the eyes of all men that were not blinded by prejudice. And this is the apology, the answer to his critics, to those that question his apostleship, that wish to investigate his claims; he simply points to the Corinthian congregation, as he needed no other defense.

Paul now vindicates other rights: Is it that we have not the right to eat and to drink? Does anyone question our claim to maintenance? Mar 6:10; Luk 10:7; Luk 22:30. He had the right to expect that the people whom he served should make proper provision for his support, that he might live at the expense of the congregation in whose interests he was laboring. Another right: Have we not power to take about with us a Christian sister as wife? He maintains his right to be married if he so chooses. It is not only a right of Christian ministers that they may enter holy wedlock, but the apostle even declares it to be a matter of Christian liberty for a traveling preacher, a missionary, to be married and to take his wife along to the various stations. For a congregation to prefer an unmarried pastor because his maintenance will not require such large amounts of money is to impose a condition which cannot be made to conform with Scriptures. The other apostles made use of their right, and their wives usually accompanied them. The brothers (step-brothers, cousins) of the Lord Jesus followed the custom of the Jews in being married, and of Peter it is expressly stated that he had a wife. Note: The expression, “brothers of the Lord,” may be taken literally. For, as one commentator has it, “the statement, ‘born of the Virgin Mary,’ is an article of the Church’s creed; but the question whether she bore children afterwards involves no point of Christian faith. ” A final right: Is it that only I and Barnabas have not the power to stop working, to give up manual labor for our own support? Barnabas, who had been associated with Paul in the early labors in Asia Minor, Act 4:36; Act 11:22; Act 13:14, had disposed of his property in Jerusalem for the benefit of the congregation and had followed the example of Paul in supporting himself, even when on missionary trips, by the labor of his hands, a fact which Paul here openly acknowledges. Incidentally, this reference to his former colleague shows that their difference of opinion, Act 15:37-38, did not result in a lasting estrangement, but that the two leaders adjusted their difficulty, even though they continued to hold their individual opinion as to their preference in the matter. Paul insists that they were not under obligation to work for their livelihood while they preached, which implied that they should not misunderstand him, but should rather realize that his intention was not to burden them, 2Co 12:16. So the three rights which Paul argues for “in fact amount to the one which Paul contends for in the sequel: he might justly have imposed his personal support, and that in the more expensive character of a married man, upon the Christian communities for which he labored, thus sparing himself the disadvantages and hardships of manual toil.”

With three parables the apostle illustrates his right and his power to receive maintenance at the expense of the congregation, the figures being taken from the camp, the vineyard, and the flock: Who ever serves in the army at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Or who acts as a shepherd to a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock? In case someone should serve as soldier at his own private charges, in case someone should go to the trouble of planting a vineyard and not use the fruit, in case a shepherd should have charge of a flock and not use the part of the milk which was his portion, he would be doing something out of the ordinary and could boast a goodness which no man demanded of him, for the rule was altogether the other way. Note that all three figures find their application in the work of a faithful minister: the valiant soldier, fighting the battles of the Lord; the indefatigable vine-dresser, busy with the plants of the Lord’s vineyard; the faithful shepherd, feeling the responsibility for every sheep and lamb of the Lord’s flock.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

EXPOSITION

1Co 9:1-27

The rights and the self denial of an apostle.

1Co 9:1-14

An apostle’s right to maintenance.

1Co 9:1

Am I not an apostle I am I not free? The order of the best manuscripts is, Am I not free? am I not an apostle? St. Paul designed in this chapter to show that he was not only giving a precept, but setting an example, He told the “strong” Corinthians, who had “knowledge,” that they should be ready to abnegate their rights for the good of others, he now wishes to show them that, in a matter which affected his whole life, he had himself abnegated his own rights. Being free and an apostle, he could, if he had chosen, have claimed, as others had done, a right to be supported by the Churches to which he preached, he had thought it more for their good to waive this claim, and therefore he had done so at the cost (as appears in many other passages: 1Co 4:12; Act 20:34; 1Th 2:9) of bitter hardship to himself. But St. Paul practically “goes off” at the word “apostle.” It was so essential for him to vindicate, against the subterranean malignity of hostile partisans, his dignity as an apostle, that in asserting that authority he almost loses sight for the time of the main object for which he had alluded to the fact. Hence much that he says is of the nature of a digressionthough an important oneuntil he resumes the main thread of his subject at 1Co 11:15. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Doubtless he mainly refers to the vision on the road to Damascus (Act 9:3, Act 9:17; 1Co 15:8), though he received other visions and revelations also (Act 18:9; Act 22:14, Act 22:18; 2Co 12:1, etc.). he had probably not seen Christ during his life on earth (see my ‘Life of St. Paul,’ 1:73-75). The words are added to remind them that those who boasted of personal knowledge and relation with Jesusperhaps the Christ partyhad no exclusive prerogative. Are not ye my work in the Lord? I am not only an apostle, but emphatically your apostle (Act 18:1-11; 1Co 4:15).

1Co 9:2

Unto others. If the emissaries from Jerusalem or the Petrine party do not choose to regard me as their apostle or an apostle at all, yet at any rate I am yours. Doubtless; rather, at least, at any rate. The seal of mine apostleship. Your conversion attests the genuineness of my claim, as a seal attests a document. Thus baptism is the seal of conversion (Eph 4:30; comp. Rom 4:11; Joh 3:33).

1Co 9:3

Mine answer; literally, my defence; the word “examine” is the word used for a legal inquiry. The Corinthians had as it were placed him on his defence at the bar of their criticism. Is this. That I was the cause of your conversion. In 2Co 12:12 he refers to other proofs of his apostolic power.

1Co 9:4

To eat and to drink. To be supported by those to whom we preach (Luk 10:7).

1Co 9:5

To lead about a sister, a wife. There can be no doubt that this represents the true reading, and that the meaning is, “We have power to lead about, that is, to travel in company with, some Christian sister to whom we are married, and who is supported at the expense of the Church.” This plain meaning, however, involving the assertion that the apostles and desposyni (“the Lord’s brethren”) were married men, was so distasteful to the morbid asceticism which held celibacy in a sort of Manichaean reverence, that the scribes of the fourth, fifth, and later centuries freely tampered with the text, in the happily fruitless attempt to get rid of this meaning. They endeavoured, by putting the word in the plural or by omitting “wife,” to suggest that the women whom the apostles travelled with were “deaconesses.” Augustine, Tertullian, Ambrose, and others explain the verse of “ministering women” (Luk 8:2, Luk 8:3). The false interpretation avenged itself on the bias which led to it. Valla adopts the wilful invention that the apostles, though married, travelled with their wives only as sisters. Such subterfuges have eaten away the heart of honest exegesis from many passages of Scripture, and originated the taunt that it is a “nose of wax,” which readers can twist as they like. It was the cause of such shameful abuses and misrepresentations that at last the practice of travelling about with unmarried women, who went under the name of “sisters,” “beloved,” “companions,” was distinctly forbidden by the third canon of the first Council of Nice. Simon Magus might unblushingly carry about with him a Tyrian woman named Helena; but apostles and true Christians would never have been guilty of any conduct which could give a handle to base suspicions. They travelled only with their wives. A sister. A Christian woman (1Co 7:15; Rom 16:1; Jas 2:15, etc.). A wife; i.e. as a wife. Other apostles. This is a positive mistranslation for “the rest of the apostles.” It might be too much to infer positively from this that every one of the apostles and desposyni were married; but there is independent evidence and tradition to show that at any rate most of them were. The brethren of the Lord. They are clearly and undeniably distinguished from the apostles. According to the Helvidian theory (to which the plain language of the Gospels seems to point), they were sons of Joseph and Mary. This is the view of St. Clement of Alexandria in ancient times, and writers so different from each other as De Wette, Neander, Osiander, Meyer, Ewald, and Alford, in modern. The theory of Jerome, that they were cousins of Jesus, being sons of Alphseus and Mary, a sister of the Virgin, is on every ground absolutely untenable, and it was half dropped even by St. Jerome himself, when it had served his controversial purpose. The theory of Epiphanius, that they were sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, is possible, but incapable of proof. It comes from a tainted sourcethe apocryphal Gospels (see my ‘Early Days of Christianity,’ 2). Cephas. St. Paul also uses the Aramaic name in Gal 2:9. Peter’s wife is mentioned in Mat 8:14 and in the tradition of her martyrdom (Clem. Alex., ‘Strom.,’ 7. 63).

1Co 9:6

And Barnabas. Like St. Paul, Barnabas was in every respect a genuine apostle, by the Divine call (Act 13:2; Gal 2:9), though not one of the twelve. He seems to have continued in his separate mission work the practice of independence which he had learnt from St. Paul. This allusion is interesting, because it is the last time that the name of Barnabas occurs, and it shows that, even after the quarrel and separation, Paul regarded him with love and esteem. To forbear working. To give up the manual labour by which we maintain ourselves without any expense to the Churches (Act 18:3; 2Th 3:8, 2Th 3:9). If, then, St. Paul toiled at the dull, mechanical, despised, and ill paid work of tent making, he did so, not because it was, in the abstract, his duty to earn his own living, but because he chose to be nobly independent, that the absolute disinterestedness of his motives might be manifest to all the world. For this reason even when he was most in need he would never receive assistance from any Church except that of Philippi, where he had at least one wealthy convert, and where he was beloved with a peculiar warmth of affection.

1Co 9:7

Who goeth a warfare, etc.? In this and the following verses he adduces six successive arguments to prove the right of a minister to be supported by his congregation.

1. From the ordinary laws of human justice (1Co 9:7).

2. By analogy, from the Law of Moses (1Co 9:8-10).

3. A fortiori, from the obligations of common gratitude (1Co 9:11).

4. From their concession of the right to others who had inferior claims (1Co 9:12).

5. From the Jewish provision for the maintenance of priests (1Co 9:13).

6. By the rule laid down by Christ himself (vers 14). Goeth a warfare. Analogy from the payment of soldiers (2Co 10:4). At his own charges. The word used for “cost” means literally rations (Luk 3:14; Rom 6:23). Planteth a vineyard. Analogy from the support of the vine dressers (Mat 9:37). Feedeth a flock. Analogy from the support of shepherds (1Pe 5:2). The two latter classes of labourers are paid in kind in the East to this day.

1Co 9:8

Say I these things as a man? Am I relying exclusively on mere human analogies? The same phrase occurs in Rom 3:5; Gal 3:13. Saith not the Law. The verbs used for “say” () and “saith” () are different: “Do I speak [general word] these things as a man? or saith [a more dignified word] not the Law,” etc.?

1Co 9:9

In the Law of Moses (Deu 25:4). He uses the same argument again in 1Ti 5:19. The mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; rather, an ox while treading out the corn. The flail was not unknown, but a common mode of threshing was to let oxen tread the corn on the threshing floor. Doth God take care for oxen? Certainly he does; and St. Paul can hardly mean to imply that he does not, seeing that tenderness for the brute creation is a distinguishing characteristic of the Mosaic legislation (Exo 23:1-33. 12, 19; Deu 22:6, Deu 22:7, Deu 22:10, etc.). If St. Paul had failed to perceive this truth, he must have learnt it at least from Psa 145:15, Psa 145:16; Joh 4:11. Even the Greeks showed by their proverb that they could pity the hunger of the poor beasts of burden starving in the midst of plenty. It is, however, a tendency of all Semitic idiom verbally to exclude or negative the inferior alternative. St. Paul did not intend to say, “God has no care for oxen;” for he knew that “his tender mercies are over all his works:” he only meant in Semitic fashion to say that the precept was much more important in its human application; and herein he consciously or unconsciously adopts the tone of Philo’s comment on the same passage (‘De Victim Offerentibus,’ 1), that, for present purposes, oxen might be left out of account. The rabbinic Midrash, which gave this turn to the passage, was happier and wiser than most specimens of their exegesis. St. Paul sets the typico allegorical interpretation above the literal in this instance, because he regards it as the more important. It is a specimen of the common Jewish exegetic method of a fortiori or minori ad magus. Luther’s curious comment is: “God cares for all things; but he does not care that anything should be written for oxen, because they cannot read”!

1Co 9:10

Altogether. It is probable that St. Paul only meant the word to be taken argumentatively, and not au pied de la lettre. This application (he says) is so obviously the right application, that the other may be set aside as far as our purpose is concerned. In the margin of the Revised Version it is rendered “Saith he it, as he doubtless doth, for our sake?” In hope. St. Paul’s large experience of life, and his insight into character, sufficed to show him that despairing work must be ineffectual work. The spring and elasticity of cheerful spirits is indispensable to success in any arduous undertaking.

“Life without hope draws nectar in a sieve,
And hope without an object cannot live.”

1Co 9:11

If we. The we is in both clauses emphatic, to show that the argument applied directly to St. Paul’s own case. Is it a great thing. An argument a fortiori. If ordinary labour is not undertaken gratuitously, is the spiritual labourer to be left to starve? St. Paul always recognized the rights of preachers and ministers, and stated them with emphasis (Gal 6:6; Rom 15:27), although from higher motives he waived all personal claim to profit by the result of his arguments.

1Co 9:12

If others. St. Paul felt a touch of natural indignation at the thought that these Corinthians submitted to the extremest and haughtiest exactions from other teachers who had been loud in the statement of their own pretensions, while his own claims were shamefully disparaged, and he was even left, with perfect indifference, to suffer real privation. We shall find the full expression of his wounded sensibilities in 2Co 11:1-15. We have not used this power. This strong climax here asserts itself before the time. It anticipates 2Co 11:15. Suffer. The same word, which also means “to contain without leaking,” is used in 1Co 13:7; 1Th 3:1, 1Th 3:5. All things. Any amount of privation and distress. Hinder the gospel of Christ. By giving any handle for malicious misrepresentations as to our being self interested. The word for “hindrance” means etymologically “cutting into,” i.e. an impediment on a path, etc.

1Co 9:13

They which minister about holy things. Jewish priests. He adds his two final argumentssince the right which he is pleading has its own intrinsic importancebefore proceeding to the example which he set in order to prevail on the strong to give up their rights and their liberty, when need was, for the sake of the weak. Live; literally, eat, or feed. The Zealots used this excuse for themselves when they broke open the temple stores in the siege of Jerusalem (Josephus, ‘Bell. Jud.,’ 1Co 5:13, 6). Of the things of the temple. They shared in the victims offered (see Num 18:8-13; Deu 18:1). Partakers with the altar. Only certain portions of certain victims were allowed them.

1Co 9:14

Hath the Lord ordained (Mat 10:10;.Luk 10:7). The reference has special interest, because it shows that St. Paul was at least orally familiar with the discourses of Christ. Indeed, there is nothing impossible or improbable in the supposition that some of these were already being circulated in manuscript. Should live of the gospel. If, that is, they desired and had need to do so. He does not say, “to live of the altar,” because Christians have no “altar” except in the metaphorical sense in which the cross is called an altar in Heb 13:10.

1Co 9:15-23

Self denying ordinance of St. Paul.

1Co 9:15

I have used none of these things. None of the forms of right which I might claim from these many sanctions. He is appealing to his own abandonment of a right to encourage them to waive, if need required, the claims of their Christian liberty. His object in waiving his plain right was that he might give no handle to any who might desire to accuse him of interested motives (1Co 9:4; Gal 6:6, etc.). Have I written; rather, do I write; the epistolary aorist. That it should be so done unto me. Do not take my argument as a hint to you that you have neglected your duty of maintaining me, and have even seen me suffer without offering me your assistance. Better for me to die. Not “to die of hunger,” as Chrysostom supposes, but generally, “I should prefer death to the loss of my independence of attitude towards my converts.” Than that any man should make my glorying void. The Greek is remarkable. Literally it is, than my ground of boastingthat any one should render it void. Another reading is, better for me to die thanno one shall render void my ground of boasting.

1Co 9:16

1 have nothing to glory of. He is desirous to remove all appearance of haughtiness from his tone. There was, he says, no merit involved in his preaching the gospel. He did so from the sense of overwhelming moral compulsion, and he would have been miserable if he had tried to resist it. Necessity is laid upon me. “We cannot but speak” (Act 4:20).

1Co 9:17

If I do this thing willingly. The word rather means “spontaneously;” “without compulsion.” He was preaching willingly, but still it was in obedience to an irresistible behest (Act 9:6, Act 9:15). I have a reward. The reward (or rather, “wage “) of such self chosen work would be the power to fulfil it (comp. Mat 6:1). Against my will; rather, involuntarily, “under Divine constraint.” A dispensation. He was appointed a “steward” or “dispenser” of the gospel, and could only regard himself at the best as “an unprofitable slave,” who had done merely what it was his bare duty to do (Luk 17:10). There is no merit in yielding to a must.

1Co 9:18

What is my reward then? The answer is that it was not such “wages” as would ordinarily be considered such, but it was the happiness of preaching the gospel without cost to any. I abuse not; rather, I use not to the full, as in 1Co 7:31. It may be said that this was a ground of boasting, not a reward. It was, however, a point to which St. Paul attached the highest importance (1Th 2:9; 2Co 11:7-12; Act 20:33, Act 20:34), and he might therefore speak of it, though almost with a touch of half unconscious irony, as his “fee.” There is no need to adopt the construction suggested by Meyer: “What is my reward? [none] that I may preach gratuitously;” or that of Afford, who finds the reward in the next verse.

1Co 9:19

For though I be free; rather, though I was free. He has voluntarily abandoned this freedom. The true rendering of the verse is, For being free from all men [Gal 1:10], I enslaved myself to all. In acting thus he obeyed his own principle of not abusing his liberty, but “by love serve one another” (Gal 5:13).

1Co 9:20

Unto the Jews I became as a Jew. When, for instance, he circumcised Timothy (Act 12:3) and probably Titus also; and he was continuing this principle of action when he took the vow of the Nazarite (Act 21:21-26), and called himself “a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” (Act 23:6). To them that are under the Law. That is, not only to Jews, but even to the most rigorous legalists among the Jews. It should be carefully observed that St. Paul is here describing the innocent concessions and compliances which arise from the harmless and generous condescension of a loving spirit. He never sank into the fear of man, which made Peter at Antioch unfaithful to his real principles. He did not allow men to form from his conduct any mistaken inference as to his essential views. He waived his personal predilections in matters of indifference which only affected “the infinitely little.”

1Co 9:21

To them that are without law, as without law. In other words, I so far became to the heathen as a heathen (Rom 2:12), that I never wilfully insulted their beliefs (Act 19:1-41 :87) nor shocked their prejudices, but on the contrary, judged them with perfect forbearance (Act 17:30) and treated them with invariable courtesy. St, Paul tried to look at every subject, so far as he could do so innocently, from ‘their point of view (Act 17:1-34.). He defended their gospel liberty, and had intercourse with Gentile converts on terms of perfect equality (Gal 2:12). Not without law to God. Not even “without law” (anomos) Much less “opposed to law” (antiheroes), though free from it as a bondage (Gal 2:19). The need for this qualification is shown by the fact that in the Clementine writings, in the spurious letter of Peter to James, St. Paul is surreptitiously calumniated as “the lawless one.” Even the Gentiles were “not without law to God” (Rom 2:14, Rom 2:15). So that St. Paul is here using language which base opponents might distort, but which the common sense of honest readers would prevent them from misinterpreting.

1Co 9:22

To the weak. His whole argument here is a plea for condescension to the infirmities of weak converts. A similar condescension to their prejudices might be necessary to win them to Christianity at all (1Co 8:13; “We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves,” Rom 15:1). St. Paul often touches on our duties to weak brethren (1Co 8:7; Rom 14:1; 1Th 5:14; Act 20:35). All things to all men. He repeats the same principle in 1Co 10:33, “I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved;” and once more, at the end of his course (2Ti 2:10). This condescension laid him open to the malicious attacks of religious enemies (Gal 1:10). But not on that account would St. Paul ever be led to abandon the fruitful aid of that universal sympathy and tolerance which is one of the best tests of Christian love. That I might by all means save some. He adds this explanation of the motive of his condescension to various scruples ) lest any should accuse him of men.pleasing, as some of his Galatian opponents had done (Gal 1:10). In his desire to win souls he acted with the wisdom and sympathy taught by experience, suppressing himself.

1Co 9:23

And this I do. The better reading is, and I do all things. For the gospel’s sake. This is a wider feeling than even “for the elect’s sakes” of 2Ti 2:10. With you. The “you” is not expressed in the original, where we only have “a fellow partaker [, Rom 11:17] of it.” But the word illustrates the deep humility of the apostle.

1Co 9:24-27

Exhortation to earnestness as a corollary from the principles here stated.

1Co 9:24

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all? They as Corinthians would well know the full bearing of every illustration derived from the triennial Isthmian games, which were the chief glory of their city, and which at this period had even thrown the Olympic games into the shade. The words “in a race,” are rather, in the stadium. The traces of the great Corinthian stadium, where the games were held and the races run, are still visible on the isthmus. This metaphor of “the race,” which has pervaded the common language of Christianity, is also found in Heb 12:1; Php 3:14; 2Ti 4:7. The prize. The bracium was the wreath given to the victor by the judges. The Christian prize is that of “the high calling of God in Jesus Christ,” towards which St. Paul himself was pressing forward.

1Co 9:25

That striveth for the mastery; rather, that strives to win in a contest. St. Paul never allows his converts to dream of the indefectibility of grace, and so to slide into antinomian security. He often reminds them of the extreme severity and continuousness of the contest (Eph 6:12 1Ti 6:12). Is temperate in all things. One good moral result which sprang from the ancient system of athleticism was the self denial and self mastery which it required. The candidate for a prize had to be pure, sober, and enduring, to obey orders, to eat sparely and simply and to bear effort and fatigue (Epict., ‘Enchir.,’ 35) for ten months before the contest. A corruptible crown. A fading garland of Isthmian pine, or Nemean parsley, or Pythian olive, or Olympian bay. An incorruptible; “unwithering” (1Pe 2:4); “amaranthine” (1Pe 5:4); “a crown of righteousness” (2Ti 4:8); “a crown of life” (Jas 1:12; Rev 2:10; comp. also 2Ti 2:5; Rev 3:11).

1Co 9:26

Not as uncertainly. My eye is fixed on a definite goal (2Ti 1:12). So fight I (Rom 7:23; Eph 6:12; 2Ti 4:7); literally, so box 1. Not as one that beateth the air; rather, as not beating the air. Not what the Greeks called “a shadow battle.” I strike forthright blows, not feints, or blows at random.

1Co 9:27

I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; literally, I bruise my body, and lead it about as a slave. The word tamely rendered “keep in subjection” means literally, I smite under the eyes. The pugilistic metaphor is kept up, and the picturesque force of the words would convey a vivid impression to Corinthians familiar with the contests of the Pancratum, in which boxing with the heavy lead-bound caestus played a prominent part. The only other place in the New Testament where the word occurs is Luk 18:5, where it seems (on the lips of the unjust judge) to have a sort of slang sense. How St. Paul “bruised his body” may be seen in 2Co 6:4, 2Co 6:5; Col 3:5; Rom 8:13. It was not by absurd and harmful self torture, but by noble labour and self denial for the good of others. When I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. “Lest”such is the meaning of the metaphor” after proclaiming to others the laws of the contest (as a herald), I should myself violate those conditions, and be not only defeated as a combatant, but ignominiously rejected from the lists and not allowed to contend at all.” The metaphor is not strictly adhered to, for the herald did not personally contend. No candidate could compete without a preliminary scrutiny, and to be “rejected” was regarded as a deadly insult The word “rejected,” “reprobate”hero rendered “a castaway”is a metaphor derived from the testing of metals, and the casting aside of those which are spurious. That Paul should see the necessity for such serious and unceasing effort shows how little he believed in the possibility of saintly “works of supererogation, over and above what is commanded.” “When the cedar of Lebanon trembles, what shall the reed by the brookside do?”

HOMILETICS

1Co 9:1-21

The leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister.

“Am I not an apostle? am I not free?” etc. Taking these verses as a whole, they illustrate some of the leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister, and I offer the following remarks:

I. The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE INDEPENDENT OF CEREMONIAL RESTRICTIONS. Paul was one of the greatest, if not the greatest, ministers of Christ that ever existed. He was an apostle, and had “seen Christ”a qualification that distinguished him as a minister from all, but eleven others, that ever lived. Besides this, his natural and acquired endowments placed him in the very first rank of reasoners, scholars, and orators. He was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, etc. But see how this great minister regarded the mere conventionalities of religious society. “Am I not an apostle? am I not free?” He refers in all probability to the preceding chapter, which treats of the eating of meat offered to idols, and concerning which he says, “if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” As if he had said, “I am free to eat that meat, and free to reject it; I am not bound by any conventional custom or ceremonial law, for I am ‘an apostle.'” Now, it may be laid down as a universal truth that, the greater a gospel minister, the more independent of ceremonies. Indeed, the greater the man, always the more independent he is of forms, fashions, customs. Hezekiah called that which his countrymen worshipped “Nehushtan”a piece of brass. Cromwell called that glittering insignia of authority on the table of the House of Commons, and at which most of the members, perhaps, trembled with awe, a “bauble.” Thomas Carlyle called all the pageantry of office and the glitter of wealth “shams.” Burns called the swaggering lordling a “coof.” How much more would a man like Paulwho possessed that spirit of Christ which gave him an insight into the heart of thingslook down, not merely with indifference, but with contempt, upon all that the world considered great and grand! The more Christly inspiration a man has, the more he will discern degradation on thrones and pauperism in mansions. A famous French preacher began his funeral address over the coffin of his sovereign with these words, “There is nothing great but God.” To the man whose soul is charged with the great ideas of God, all the distinctions amongst men are only as the distinctions existing among the various bubbles on the flowing stream. Some are a little larger than others, some are tinged by the sunbeam, and some are pallid in the shade; but all have the same common nature, and all, breaking into the abyss, are lost forever. “Am I not free?” says Paul. A grand thing this, to be free from all the conventionalities of society and the ceremonies of religion. What cared Elijah for the kings of Syria, or Israel, or Judah? Nothing. Agrippa trembled before the moral majesty of Paul, even in chains. Oh for such ministers as Paul in this age of hypocrisies and forms!

II. The greater the minister of Christ, the HIGHER THE SERVICE HE RENDERS TO SOCIETY. What high service did this great minister St. Paul render to the members of the Corinthian Church! “Are not ye my work in the Lord?… The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” Ye are, as far as ye are Christians, “my work.” I converted you; I turned you away from idols to the one true and living God, from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of Christ. No work on earth equal to this. “He that converteth a sinner from the error of his ways,” etc. This work which I effected in you “in the Lord,” or by the Lord, is a demonstration of my apostleship. What work again, I ask, approaches this in grandeur and importance? It is the work of creating men “anew in Christ Jesus;” it is the work of establishing that moral moral empire in the world, which is “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” The man who succeeds in accomplishing this work thereby demonstrates the divinity of his ministry. Hence Paul says, “Mine answer to them that do examine me is this.” Those that question or deny my apostleship I refer to the spiritual work I have accomplished; “this is my answer,” my defence. Truly it might be said of Paul, “No man can do the works that thou doest, except God be with him.” The only way by which we can prove ourselves true ministers is, not by words, but by spiritual works.

III. The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE INDEPENDENT HE IS OF THE ANIMAL ENJOYMENTS OF LIFE. “Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” Paul claims the privilege to eat and drink as he pleased, and to marry or not according to his pleasure, to be a celibate or a benedict. Perhaps some of the members of the Corinthian Church questioned Paul’s apostleship because he was not married. Those who belonged to Peter’s partywho was a married manwould be likely to say, “Paul cannot be an apostle, for Cephas, who is an apostle, has his wife, whom he takes about with him in the prosecution of his mission.” And then the “brethren of the Lord,” too, they have their wives. Paul’s reply to this is virtually, “I have the power and the right to all connubial privileges and comforts, the right to feast at banquets, and to form domestic relations; but I forego them, I am independent of them, I have higher tastes and sublimer sources of enjoyment. ‘For me to live is Christ.’ He is the all and in all of my soul.” The more brain and Christly inspiration a man has, the less carnal, and the less carnal the more independent of material enjoyments.

IV. The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE CLAIM HE HAS TO THE TEMPORAL SUPPORT OF THOSE WHOM HE SPIRITUALLY SERVES. The apostle goes on from the sixth to the fourteenth verse to say that he and Barnabas would be right if they were to forbear working for their livelihood, and claim their temporal support from those to whom they spiritually ministered. He goes on to indicate several reasons why he had a claim to their temporal support.

1. The general usage of mankind. “Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?” etc. He draws three illustrations from human life to show the equity of the principlefrom the soldier, the agriculturist, and the shepherd.

2. The principle of the Jewish Law. “Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also?” etc. On a space of hard ground called a threshing floor the oxen in Jewish times were driven to and fro over the corn thrown there, thus separating the husk from the grain. “God,” says Matthew Henry, “had therein ordered that the ox should not be muzzled while he was treading out the corn, nor hindered from eating while he was preparing the corn, for man’s use, and treading it out of the ear. But this law was not chiefly given out of God’s regard to oxen or concern for them, but to teach mankind that all due encouragement should be given to those who are employed by us or labouring for our good, that the labourers should taste of the fruit of their labours.” “Doth God take care for oxen?” Yes. He enjoined that the mouth of the working ox should not be muzzled, but should have food to eat. Is not man greater than the ox? And shall he work and be deprived of temporal supplies?

3. The principles of common equity. “If we have sown into you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” They had given to them far higher things, infinitely more important than the temporal support which they required. He who gives to his race Divine ideas gives that Which alone can secure the progress of humanity, both in temporal and spiritual good. True ideas destroy bad institutions and create good ones.

4. Other apostles and their wives were thus supported. “Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?” .. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?” This language implies that all the others who worked amongst them obtained their temporal support. Why should not we? Have we done less? Is our authority inferior?

5. The support of the Jewish priesthood. “Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and their which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar?” “The first part of the passage refers to the general principle that the priests who were engaged in the temple services were supported from the various offerings which were brought there; and the second clause more definitely alludes to the particular fact that, when a sacrifice was offered on the altar, the sacrificing priests as well as the altar had a share of the animal.”

6. The ordiniation of Christ. “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel” (see Mat 10:10). “Should live of the gospel,” not grow rich on the gospel, but have from it that which is needful for subsistence. Looking at all that Paul says on that question here, and at the immense service that a true minister renders to society, the conviction cannot be avoided that no man has a stronger claim to a temporal recompense for his labour than a true gospel minister. Albeit no claims are so universally ignored. What Churches in these modern times tender to their ministers as an acknowledgment of their service is regarded as a charity rather than a claim. Charity, indeed! Call the money you pay to your butcher, baker, lawyer, doctor, charity; but in the name of all that is just, do not call that charity which you tender to the man who consecrates his entire being and time to impart to you the elements of eternal life.

V. The greater the minister of Christ, the MORE READY TO SURRENDER HIS CLAIMS FOR THE SAKE OF USEFULNESS. Great as were the claims of Paul, he magnanimously surrenders them all in order to become more useful. He would not feast at banquets, enjoy conjugal life, or take payment for his services, lest his usefulness should be in the least impaired. “But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me; for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.” I would sooner die than be dependent on you for a livelihood. Grand man! He stood before his congregations and said, “I have coveted no man’s silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me.”

1Co 9:22, 1Co 9:23

Moral identification with others a qualification of the evangel.

These verses and the context are sometimes taken as expressive of the accommodating spirit of the apostle in his endeavours to save men. Hence he is regarded as acting in a somewhat Jesuitical way, pretending to be what he was not, coming down to the prejudices of men, and taking them as it were by guile. Such a view of the apostle is utterly untrue. From his very constitution, to say nothing of his Christianity, he could not bend to any temporizing expediency. There was nothing of the Jesuit or the diplomatist in him. All that he means, I think, by the words is that he endeavoured to put himself into the place, or rather into the views and feelings, of those whom he endeavoured to win to Christ. He transmigrated himself, so to speak, went into their souls, clothed himself with their feelings, and argued from their standpoint. Now, this way of influencing men is both right and wise. As a debater, whether in politics, philosophy, or religion, he only acts fairly and with power who endeavours to put himself into the very position of his opponent, to look at the points in dispute from the opponent’s standpoint, with the opponent’s eyes, and through the opponent’s passions. Such a man becomes mighty in debate. This is what Paul did. He made “himself all things to all men.” In arguing with the Jew he made himself a Jew in feeling, with the Greek a Greek in feeling, with a slave a slave in feeling, with a master a master in feeling. Thus he was a philosopher when he spoke to the Athenians, and a Jew when he spoke to the Jews. Now, we regard this power of moral transmigration, this power of passing into another man’s soul and taking another man’s experience, as an essential qualification for a successful evangel; and this power implies at least three things.

I. A HIGHLY IMAGINATIVE TEMPERAMENT. The phlegmatic man, whose nature is incapable of taking fire, who moves with the creeping legs of logic rather than on the wings of moral intuition, would find it all but impossible to realize another man’s experiences. He could not be a dramatist. He could not show another man to himself. No one can enter into the experience of another only on the strong warm current of social sympathy. Hence no young men should be encouraged to assume the work of the Christian ministry who have not that fervid imagination, that glowing temperament, that constitute a dramatic genius,

II. A KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN LIFE. It is necessary that we should make ourselves thoroughly acquainted, not merely with the outward circumstances of the men we seek to influence, but with their inner lifetheir moods of thought, their habits of mind, their leading passions, their strongest proclivities. This requires study of men, not as they appear in books, but as they appear in their circle; and men, not in the mass, but in their individual character and idiosyncrasies. Can an Englishman so know a Hindoo, a Chinese, or a Japanese, as to put himself into his experience? I trow not.

III. A PASSIONATE LOVE FOR SOULS. Nothing but the constraining love of Christ can invest man either with the disposition or the power for such a worka work requiring self sacrifice, patience, tenderness, invincible determination, and hallowed devotion. This is what gave Paul the power to be “made all things to all men.” “I please all men in all things,” he says, “not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”

CONCLUSION. The work of a moral redeemer is, of all works, the greatest and the most arduous. There is no work in all the departments of human labour that requires such high qualifications as the work of bringing souls to Christ.

1Co 9:24-26

The Christian race.

“Know ye not that they which run in a race, run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air.” The Christian life is a race, and we are exhorted to run that the prize may be obtained. “So run.” How?

I. Run in the PRESCRIBED COURSE. The course is marked out and measured. The starting place is at the foot of the cross, and the goal is planted in the grave.

II. Run WITHOUT INCUMBRANCE. “Lay aside every weight,” all worldly cares, and inordinate sympathetic embarrassing prejudices, and fettering habits.

III. Run WITH ALL POSSIBLE CELERITY. Shake off sloth and languor, stretch every muscle and limb, throw the whole force of your being into the effort.

IV. Run WITH UNTIRING PERSISTENCY. Pause not, nor loiter a moment until the end is obtained. “So run, that ye may obtain.”

1Co 9:27

Hell after preaching.

“But I keep,” etc. These are terrible words, and they teach at least three things.

I. THAT DELIVERANCE FROM HELL DEMANDS THE MOST EARNEST SELF DISCIPLINE. “I keep under my body.” I subdue the flesh by violent and reiterated blows. The reason for this mortification of the flesh is, “lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” Self discipline may be said to consist of two things.

1. The entire subjugation of the body to the mind. The body was intended to be the organ, the servant, and the instrument of the mind, but it has become the master. The supremacy of the body is the curse of the world and the ruin of the man.

2. The subjugation of the mind to the Spirit of Christ. Though the mind governs the body, if the mind is false, selfish, unloyal to Christ, there is no discipline. The mind must be the servant of Christ in order to be the legitimate sovereign of the body. These two things include spiritual discipline.

II. THAT THE NECESSITY OF THIS SELF DISCIPLINE CANNOT BE SUPERSEDED BY THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PREACHING. “When I have preached to others.” Paul had preached to others. He had preached to many in different lands, preached earnestly and successfully, preached so that thousands were converted by his ministry, preached so as no one else has ever preached; yet his preaching, he felt, did not do the work of self discipline. Indeed, there is much in the work of preaching that has a tendency to operate against personal spiritual culture.

1. Familiarity with sacred truths destroys for us their charm of freshness.

2. A professional handling of God’s Word interferes with its personal application.

3. The opinions of audiences, favourable or otherwise, exert an influence unfavourable to spiritual discipline. In connection with all this, Satan is especially active in opposing the growth of spiritual piety in the preacher’s tone. So that there is a terrible danger that, whilst the preacher is cultivating the vineyards of others, he is neglecting his own.

III. THE MOST SUCCESSFUL PREACHING MAY BE FOLLOWED BY ULTIMATE RUIN. “I myself should be a castaway!”rejected! Who shall fathom the meaning of this word? A successful preacher a “castaway”be rejected! The Tophet of him who has offered mercy to others which he has despised, urged truths on the credence of others that he has disbelieved, enforced laws on others which he has transgressed, will burn with severer fires and peal with more awful thunders. A magnifying glass held in a certain position by the hand of a child may convey sufficient fire through it to wrap the neighbourhood in conflagration, albeit the glass through which the fire has passed remains unheated, cold as flint. So a man may convey to others the rays of the sun of Righteousness, and yet his own heart remain cold as ice. Truly a terrible fact this.

HOMILIES BY C. LIPSCOMB

1Co 9:1-14

How St. Paul regarded his apostleship and its rights.

To induce the Corinthians to deny themselves the exercise of a liberty they had in things indifferent, St. Paul bad made the argument in the eighth chapter. Liberty was amenable to conscience, knowledge secondary to love, and love was the constructing or building up power of the new spiritual edifice. Not one of these could be spared, for they were all constituents of manhood in Christ; but they must be adjusted to one another under the supremacy of love. If one had a true reverence for his own conscience, he would reverence conscience in others. The conscience of another might be weak, and he might pity the weakness, and yet this pity, if genuine, would not allow scorn or contempt. The argument was a lesson in patience and forbearance, a lesson in self abnegation, and a lesson, furthermore, in responsibility for our example; So far as the immediate issue is concerned (meats offered to idols and participating in feasts held in heathen temples), the logic is direct and conclusive. At no moment does the apostle confine himself to individual rights on the part of such as had enlightened views as to the nothingness of idols. He looks also at community rights and discusses a special duty on the ground of general interests. Here, as in the former chapters, the community man, the community Christian, is before him; and he shows the great characteristic of a teacher in the fact that his business is to mould a body of men into unity. Of what value are minds of large endowments, in their social relations, if they stand for a narrow and cramped individualism? If a man has a finer eye than others, it is that he may see further into the needs of the race. If he has more ardent sympathies, it is for their wider outgoing. Genius is nature’s protest, not against ordinary talents, but against the littleness and selfish absorption of individuality. And so far, genius is an instinctive yearning in the direction, of a world wide appreciation and love, and is one of those innumerable parables m which Christianity lies imbedded till the human mind can be prepared to receive it. Now, St. Paul was the foremost representative, in a certain sense, of this community idea, and, unquestionably, Corinth put its strength and compass to a very severe test. At his time of life, at that era in his ministry, and from just such a mixed people, this grand sentiment of universality was destined by Providenceso we may conjectureto undergo a thorough discipline. Each truth has its own peculiar test. Some truths need a hotter furnace than others to separate the human dross and bring out the refined gold. If, then, St. Paul was experiencing a special mental and spiritual training in respect to this transcendent doctrine, we have an insight into his mode of argument, and even into the style of his illustrations and enforcement. Identified with his doctrine, he himself merging, as it were, his personality in its nature and operations, his own fortunes bound up inseparably with its fortunes,how could he avoid citing his own example to confirm the views he so fervently advocated? One paragraph, at least, must be given to his individual portraiture as a community man, a race man, intent with his whole heart on bringing a world to the Lord Jesus. And he had sprung to this high level of his own experience and history when he said in the thirteenth verse of the previous chapter, “I will eat no flesh,” etc. On that ground, remote as it was from that occupied by some of his Corinthian friends, he was perfectly at home; he knew his strength in God; he saw precisely what to say of grace and its workings in his soul, and how to say it with unanswerable forcestraightforward, vivid, incisive. The movement of thought, even for him, is uncommonly rapid. Sentences are short; the words simple, intense, and closely linked. Interrogation abounds. He is an apostle; a tree apostle; an apostle who saw not Christ in his humiliation, and never knew him after the flesh, but has seen him in his glorification, and dates his conversion from the spectacle of his Divine exaltation; and, last of all, an apostle whose success among the Corinthians (“my work in the Lord;” “the seal of mine apostleship”) has vindicated and verified his claims as Christ’s chosen servant. Self assertion becomes under some circumstances a very important duty, and, if self be surrendered to God, there is no way more effective to exemplify humility. One who can ascend to a height so lofty, and stand among the sublimities of the universe apart from self and even dead to self, is a far greater man in the moral scale than one who, on the low plain of this world, merely foregoes his selfishness and acts disinterestedly to comply with an earthly contingency. Full of the infinite and eternal, St. Paul’s thoughts are God’s thoughts finding tone and accent in his utterance. There is no faltering, no nice qualifyings, no hesitating apprehension lest self should insinuate its pretensions. But the view given of himself is large, massive, and, for its purpose, strikingly complete. Men cannot speak of themselves in such a strain unless an utter self forgetfulness be precedent. A thinker’s illustrations show what hold a thought has on him. In this instance St. Paul’s illustrations are significant as well as diversified. Soldiers in the field, husbandmen in the vineyard, shepherds with their flocks, supply his imagination with analogies to establish the right claimed by himself “to eat and to drink,” “to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles,” and “to forbear working.” On all grounds, natural and civil and religious, he maintains the right, and then advances to Old Testament authority. “Doth God take care for oxen?” Yea, not only for their sakes as animals, but for man’s benefit, the providence over the lower creation being tributary to the providence that looks to man’s welfare as the final earthly cause of all arrangements in the kingdom of nature. Yea, verily, we are in the song of the bird and the muscle of the horse and the fidelity of all domesticated creatures, as surely as in the grass and the cereals and the luscious fruits of the ground. Most true it is that

“More servants wait on man
Than he’ll take notice of; in every path
He treads down that which doth befriend him
When sickness makes him pale and wan.
Oh, mighty love! Man is one world, and hath
Another to attend him.”

The prefigurations and the wondrous homologies are all from below, so that whatever may be found by industry, by science and art, in the amplitude and beneficence of material things and of animal existence, are but so many prophecies of man’s natural position of headship. Yet what incompleteness were in all this, and what a mockery of man’s exaltation, if it were all!a vast pyramid enclosing a mummya magnificent temple, like the heathen temples, in which you walk through portico and corridor and hall to confront at last a worthless image in stone. To perfect this idea of man shadowed forth beneath him and ever advancing towards him, there must be a counterpart. The counterpart is the archetype above. It descends to man in ChristSon of man because Son of God. “For our sakes, no doubt, this is written;” and all the writings, below and above, on the earth’s strata, in the Holy Scriptures, are alike in this: “for our sakes.” It is all a unity or it is all nothing. And this power of manhood St. Paul declares to belong to him, and vested to the full in his apostleship. If, now, St. Paul had exhorted the Corinthians so urgently to obey the dictates of conscience in a matter clearly harmless, and thus avoid a wrong to the weaker brethren and a wrong to their own souls; and if he had avowed his own inflexible resolution to “eat no flesh” (the meat of which he bad been speaking) “forever;” it was a fit occasion to testify to his own self denial for the sake of the gospel. The solace of domestic life, the special tenderness of close sympathy, the offices of watchful affection, ministerial support, “carnal things” that might have lightened the burden of poverty and made his toil much easier,these were cheerfully resigned. Others allowed themselves these aids and comforts; he refused them, one and all. From the common order of apostolic life he would stand aside in his own isolated lot, and “my gospel” should have in his own career the most forcible demonstration of his glorious individuality. And then, recollecting the law of the temple service which provided for the support of the priests, he would strengthen the analogical argument already presented in favour of his rights. At every touch the individual portrait of the community and race man glows more vividly on the canvas. The contrast had cost him much. Poverty, loneliness, sorrow, had been intensified, but there it wasa contrast with the soldier, the husbandman, the shepherd, the priest, the apostlesself assumed and a perpetual obligation”lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.”L.

1Co 9:15-23

Reasons for this self denial.

The rights had been resigned, the power to use his privileges had been unused, and the obligation, self assumed, was to be perpetual. Did any one suspect otherwise? “Better for me to die” than this matter of boasting should be taken from me. No ground for boasting existed in the mere preaching of the gospel; but he could claim and did claim that, in renouncing his right to a support and making other exceptional sacrifices, he was entitled to the boast of preaching a free gospel. A woe is upon him if he preach not the gospel, a necessity he cannot evade while true to his moral nature, and yet a necessity which he will transmute and glorify by his magnanimity in serving without remuneration. Rights; what were they? Where there was such an overpowering sense of the goodness of God and the grace of Christ as had been manifested in his personal salvation and in conferring upon him the apostleship, “better die” than measure duty by mere equivalence of action. Out of the depths of gratitude the man rises, not to the attitude of an apostle, but an apostle who felt with the utmost intensity the obligations of sentiment no less than those of principle. Freely had he received, and freely would he give, so freely indeed as to part with a portion of freedom and to gain by his loss; and in this and by means of this he had his reward. Relinquishing his rights and descending to the condition of a slave, he accommodated himself to the infirmities and prejudices of others so as to save the greater number. Whenever he could evince his regard for the Jewish nation and conform to its customs and usages without compromising Christianity, he became “as a Jew unto the Jews.” Nor did he limit his concessions to his own countrymen, but he became “all things to all men,” never yielding the truth, never compromising a principle, never making conscience subservient to prudence, never finding the supreme law of action in any utility, and always resolute to concede points only indifferent and equally resolute to maintain that things indifferent involved no moral obligation. And why all this? There were two reasons for it: one was for the good of the large number, “gain the more;” and the other was the benefit to himselfa follow “partaker with you” in the blessings of the gospel. “Up to this point he has been speaking of his self denial for the sake of others; here he begins to speak of it for his own sake. It is no longer ‘that I may save some,’ but ‘that I may be a partaker of the gospel with you'” (Stanley).L.

1Co 9:24-27

Self denial urged in view of the heavenly crown.

Power is no self guiding instinct in itself. To be true power, it must be directed by something higher than its own nature. A vast fund of power is laid up within us, and of it two things may be said, viz. the amount of power abstractly considered is far greater than we can use; and, again, our available power must be held under check. As to the former, capacity in every man exceeds ability, and much of our education consists in converting capacity into actual ability. And this latency of power serves another purpose, inasmuch as it is a reserved fund held for an emergency. At times, sudden calls are made on our energies, drafts at sight, which demand extraordinary effort. Feats of physical strength are then performed which are amazing. The same is true of the mind; we witness its faculties, under some tremendous pressure, yielding a wisdom, a patience, a persistency, that surpass all expectation. On the other hand, our available power that can be brought any moment into play must be restrained, or injury results. The harm is manifold. It is pernicious to others. Power antagonizes the power of our fellow men much oftener than it conciliates, and, acting as a repellent instead of an attractive force it destroys unity, which is the great end of all existence, Nor is it less hurtful to the man himself, for, in pushing his power to extremes, he exhausts the very ability concerned in using the power. An undue use of power, therefore, overtaxes others and ourselves. And, accordingly, St. Paul takes both these facts into consideration, advancing from self denial for the sake of others to self denial for his own good, and in this way perfecting the argument. Was he not a philosopher of profound insight in this method of mental procedure? Dismiss, for an instant, the view of him as a Christian apostle, and look at him as an ethical thinker. To induce men to practise the self denial of power, he marshals all the social and sympathetic virtues to its aid; brings pity and compassion as humane instincts to its service, enlists the imagination and its sensibilities as a higher form of emotional energy, and crowns the ascending series of influences by conscience and moral affection in behalf of our fellow men. This is the first training of self denial. Thence it proceeds to its other task. It gathers up its strength and resources, and turns them to its self culture. Was this the method of Stoicism? Was not the method of Stoicism the precise opposite of this? If Seneca had observed this law of culture, would not his exile have presented a very different spectacle? If Marcus Aurelius had trained himself to discern the image of humanity in others, instead of looking into the mirror of Stoicism to see his own image, could he have been guilty, a man of such beautiful and noble virtues, of persecuting Christianity? Return to St. Paul as a Christian apostle. The true philosopher is here, but not complacently studying his own image in the glass that Stoicism held up before its disciples. What he first sees is the Christ of humanity in others, who, in a religious sense, are bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. And there is an expression of pain on the brow, and of the sorrow of the heart in his fixed eye, as he realizes that these men are not fully conscious of their relationship to Christ, and therefore very imperfect in their appreciation of others and themselves. But he comprehends them in Christ, and he can bear their infirmities since his love is no mere aesthetic sentiment. Now, then, he can show the extent of that self denial required to attain the reward of the gospel. Of course, this must be done by figurative language, images being the perfection of language and most necessary when spiritual things are to be made clear. Naturally enough, the Grecian games occurred to him; and as the pomp and splendour of these national shows passed before him, was it the gathered multitude, the high enthusiasm, the thrilling suspense, the heart of Achaia throbbing with pride and exultation, that enlisted his interest? What a sense it was to the senses, and even more than to the senses, as Greeks interpreted its meanings! The very landscape lent a charm to the contests, and conspired with the Corinthian citadel, the sloping hills, the marble seats, and the eager crowds, to perpetuate the historic memories of a vanished Greece. Even here, degenerate as the age was, moral elements were at work. A better past had not left itself without a witness in the present. Recollections of ancestry, traditions of virtue and heroism, honourable emulation, an energetic will, hard and continuous discipline for ten months, were associated with the occasion. But St. Paul’s mind was engrossed by the symbolism of the Isthmian games. The metaphor of the racecourse attracts his attention. The preparatory training, the diet, the willing temperance and moderation, the regimen of the athlete, and the studious care to observe the conditions of success, furnish a forcible illustration of what was essential to those who would run the Christian race and win an immortal crown. Between the two there is a resemblance. Between the two there is a vast dissimilarity. “They do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.” Once more, St. Paul introduces himself; he is an earnest athlete bent on victory; all his energies are in training and have long been in training; and, changing the figure at this point, the boxer is mentioned: “So fight I, not as one that beateth the air”not as one who wastes strength in random strokes, but one whose blows are delivered with skill and an achieving purpose. And now, just as one who has toiled up to some mountain summit brings back to the plain a finer light of beauty in his eye and a larger play of strength in the muscle of the heart, so St. Paul returns from the figurative to the literal with his thought enhanced in vigour. “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection””buffet the body,” “beat it,” and “bring it into bondage.” What! is the body a contestant against us? Is it an adversary to be bruised and beaten, made to know its place? So indeed St. Paul argues in respect to his own body, and the fact in his case is the fact in all cases. Ideally, the body is the soul’s helper, furnishing the soul with very many true and lofty ideas, giving it much it could never have if disembodied or in an organization less sensuous, and securing it a grandeur of development not possible otherwise. Practically, the body is so sensitive to itself, so in love with its own enjoyments, so enslaved to its lusts and appetites, that it must be kept under and brought into subjection. The law is very plain. It has to be obeyed in some measure by. every one. If the epicure is nothing but an epicure and always an epicure, nature is soon in violent revolt. To be an epicure, he must have some prudence in his indulgence, and order times and seasons into the service of his pleasures. To be students, poets, artists, philosophers, ay, to be mechanics, tradesmen, farmers, we must put the body under by asserting, in a certain degree, the inherent superiority of the mind. For the most part, however, there are reactions, fearful in some, hazardous to all. Suppose, now, that the gross forms of sensuality or even the fascinating forms of sensuousness, are held under mastery. What then? Is the Divine ideal of the body realized? Nay; the body may be made a most efficient and admirable servant to the business man, to the student, to the artist, to the philosopher, and may answer all the earthly and social ends of the intellect and the natural affections, and yet be an undeveloped human body. Only in conforming to spiritual relations, only in sharing Christ’s humanity, can it be developed. Faith, hope, love, Christian principles, Christian sentiments, Christian impulses, are just as requisite to form and shape the material body to the companionship of the redeemed spirit, as food, air, sleep, are necessary for its physical existence. The argument of St. Paul implies all this, nor could it imply less and be congruous with his purpose and aim. And, therefore, when he says, “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection,” he means to say,” I am not making my body less a part of the universe, but more a part thereof, and I am lifting this lower nature towards the higher, and developing my body in the direction of the nature and functions of the resurrection body.”L.

HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON

1Co 9:1, 1Co 9:2

Signs of apostleship.

Why should Paul, departing from his usual custom, speak here of himself and of his claims? Undoubtedly because in this Christian society at Corinth there were those, prompted by Judaizing teachers, who called in question his apostleship, his equality with those who had been the companions of Jesus in his ministry, and had received their commission before his ascension. Wishing to incite the Corinthians to self denial, Paul put himself forward as an example of this virtue. But to make this example effective, it was necessary that he should assert and vindicate his position and rights. If he had no special commission from Christ, there was no virtue in renouncing privileges which were never his. That an apostle should live as he dida life of celibacy and manual labourfor the Church’s good, was very significant. Such was Paul’s position; he sets out, therefore, by establishing his apostolic claims and position.

I. THE VISION OF THE LORD CHRIST. Not that every one who saw Jesus became an apostle; but that none became an apostle who had not seen him, who had not received the commission from his lips. In all likelihood, some of Paul’s opponents at Corinth had contrasted the past history of the apostle of the Gentiles with that of the twelve, to his disadvantage. The others, it was well known, had seen the Lord; but was it certain that Paul had been so favoured? Now, Paul would not submit to an imputation which must needs weaken the authority of all he might say or do. He had seen the Lord on the way to Damascus, had heard his voice, and had by him been then entrusted with a special commission to the Gentiles. It was not simply that Paul had seen Jesus; he had been endowed with his Spirit and with his authority. He was not preaching the gospel at the instigation of his own inclinations, but in obedience to a command laid upon him by the highest authority.

II. SUCCESS IN APOSTOLIC LABOUR. The craftsman proves his ability by the work he does; the sailor by his navigation of the vessel; the soldier by his bravery and skill in war. So the apostle acknowledges the justice of the practical test, and subjects himself thereto accordingly. There may be a shade of difference in the meaning of the words employed.

1. Paul appealed to his work. Labour is misspent when no results ensue. But this man’s labour had not been in vain in the Lord. Jews and Gentiles had been brought to the faith of Christ and to the hope of life eternal.

2. The workmanship of the apostle was also his seal, i.e. it bore the mark, impress, and witness of his own character and ability and office. A competent judge, looking to the Churches Paul had founded, would admit them to be evidence of his apostleship.

3. It is observable that the signs were manifest in the very community in which his authority was questioned. There is irony and force in the appeal made to the Corinthians, whether they themselves were not, in their own Christian position, proof of Paul’s apostleship. Whoever raised a question, whoever offered opposition, the Christians of Corinth should certainly have honoured the founder of their Church and the bearer of the gospel to their souls.T.

1Co 9:11, 1Co 9:12

Rights asserted and foregone.

No passage in Paul’s writings more reveals to us the nobility of the man’s nature than this. As we read, we feel that such a character could not fail to command the admiration and sympathy of all who were capable of appreciating it. The apostle’s abilities were great; but his moral qualities towered more loftily above those of other men, even than did his intellectual powers. Such a servant of God was well fitted to be the first and the greatest preacher of Christ to the nations; for he so shared the mind of the Master, that they who saw, heard, and knew him must have been brought by such experience very near to the Saviour whose Spirit he possessed and whose gospel he preached.

I. THE JUST RIGHTS THE APOSTLE ASSERTED. Paul claimed that, like other teachers, he had a claim upon his scholars for recompense and support.

1. He supported this by striking illustrations. The soldier has his rations provided by his country on whose behalf he fights; the vine dresser eats of the produce of the vineyard; the shepherd shares in the profit of the flock which he feeds; the husbandman who ploughs, sows, and threshes does so in the expectation that he shall eat of the corn he grows.

2. He adds an argument from Scripture. Ingeniously does he apply the principle involved in the humane regulation which forbids the ox to be muzzled when it treads out the corn. A principle which holds good even with regard to cattle is surely valid when applied to men, to Christian labourers.

3. He urges the superiority of the advantages bestowed by the teacher over those which he is justified in expecting by way of acknowledgment if not of return. They who receive spiritual things may surely yield carnal things.

4. This right Paul claims for all ministers and evangelists, himself included.

II. THE NOBILITY OF SPIRIT WITH WHICH THE APOSTLE WAS WONT DELIBERATELY TO FOREGO THESE RIGHTS.

1. Observe the fact. The apostle had acted upon this principle from the beginning. An open statement like this could not have been made had it not corresponded with the actual and well known facts of the case.

2. Consider what this purpose involved, viz. hard manual labour. Like every Jew, Paul had been taught a trade; he wove the Cilician goats’ hair into the fabric used for tents and sails, etc. It was a tax upon his energies whilst he was thinking, writing, and preaching, to spend part of the day in hard, rough toil.

3. Remember the exception; from the Macedonian Churches, for a special reason, Paul had consented to receive a liberal gift.

4. The motive which animated Paul deserves attention. It was not pride. There was a personal motive; whilst preaching was a necessity in his case, so that he could take no credit and make no boast for his ministry, he willingly gave up his right to maintenance, that he might have the pleasure of a voluntary sacrifice, a ground of lowly glorying. And there was an official motive; his design was to remove any hindrance out of the way of the progress of the gospel. It might be thought by some that he preached for gain, and such a supposition would render his hearers suspicious and unreceptive. That this should not be the case, he chose to forego his rights, that the obvious disinterestedness of his conduct might support and render effective the gospel which he proclaimed.T.

1Co 9:16

The obligation of preaching.

The sincerity of the strong emphatic language of the apostle in this passage is not to be questioned. His whole life is a proof that it was with him as he here affirmed. A law, a vow, was upon him; and there was no discharge, no intermission, until his fight was fought and his course was run.

I. THE SPECIAL OBLIGATION LAID UPON THE APOSTLE.

1. In what it originated. There is no room for doubt upon this point. Christ himself had met Paul on the way to Damascus, and at the same time that he shed Divine light upon the mind of the persecuting Pharisee Saul, he converted him into the apostle of the Gentiles, and gave him the “marching orders” upon which he was henceforth to act. “Depart: for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” The tones of that voice rang in his ears throughout the whole of the ministry which was thus inaugurated.

2. How it was fulfilled. The record makes it plain that the obligation was not only recognized, but practically fulfilled, in a spirit of cheerfulness, gratitude, confidence, and devotion. Such is the explanation of a life so different from the ordinary life of men; a life which Paul himself acknowledged to be one of toil, of privation, of suffering, and persecution. “Necessity was laid upon him.” In Asia and in Europe, to Jews and to Gentiles, he offered with warmth and cordiality the unsearchable riches of Christ.

3. The opening which this obligation left for voluntary devotion and sacrifice. Paul says plainly that he had no choice as to preaching; preach he must; woe is to him if he refrains from doing so! Yet his ardent, generous nature desired to do something over and above what was required. This was the explanation of his refusing to receive pay and maintenance from his converts. He had a right to this, even as his fellow labourers; but he put this right in abeyance; he voluntarily declined what he might have claimed, and thus left himself somewhat in which to glory.

II. THE GENERAL OBLIGATION LAID UPON THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. The acknowledgment here made by the apostle is one which may appropriately be made by the whole Church of Christ.

1. An obligation of authoritative command. The Lord Jesus, who is the Saviour of the world, is the Monarch of his Church. His order is, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” It is only open to us either to dispute his authority or to obey his direction.

2. A moral obligation of gratitude. Jesus himself has unfolded the law: “Freely ye have received; freely give.” If we have a just sense of our indebtedness, first to the love and sacrifice of Christ, and then to the self denying labours of those whom he has sent to labour for our spiritual good, we shall feel the gracious constraint leading us to such efforts as he himself has enjoined.

3. An obligation enforced by many illustrious examples of devotion. They who read of the heroic enterprises of Christian evangelists, and of the noble fortitude of Christian martyrs who have died at the hands of those they sought to save, may well gird themselves to the labours to which they are invited by the spirit of benevolence, as well as commissioned by him whose authority is ever binding and whose recompense is ever sure.T.

1Co 9:19-23

Ministerial pliancy and adaptation.

In great natures we sometimes meet with a remarkable combination of firmness and yielding. To do a great work in this world, a man needs a powerful will, a resolution not easily moved, at the same time that he displays a flexibility of disposition, and a readiness to adapt himself to different characters and to changing circumstances. Without the determination which approaches obstinacy, he will not keep the one aim before him; without the pliancy needed in dealing with men, he will not be able to secure the aim. Thus the same Apostle Paul who said, “This one thing I do,” is here found professing that it was his principle and his practice to become all things to all men.

I. INSTANCES OF MINISTERIAL ADAPTATION. Paul’s was a very varied life and ministry; he was brought into association with all sorts and conditions of men. Himself a Jew by birth, he was yet the apostle of the Gentiles, and he was equally at home with those of either race. Himself a scholar, he was prepared to deal with rabbis and with philosophers; yet he delighted to minister to the rudest barbarians. In this passage Paul mentions three instances of his pliancy.

1. To the Jews he was a Jew, i.e. he openly honoured the Divine Law given to Moses; and not only so, in certain circumstances he observed the ceremonies of his nation. This is evident in his circumcising Timothy, and in his shearing his hair and fulfilling a vow.

2. To those without the Law, outside its pale and regimen, he became as one of themselves, i.e. he was superior to many of the petty prejudices and indifferent to many of the customary observances of his fellow countrymen. How he adapted himself to the Greeks may be seen from his preaching upon the Areopagus at Athens.

3. To the weak he became as weak; e.g. in the matter treated in the preceding chapter, he had shown his consideration and condescension in refraining from eating what might possibly be ceremonially defiled.

II. THE PURPOSES SOUGHT BY THIS COURSE OF MINISTERIAL ADAPTATION. He was “free” in so far as, by refusing support from his converts, he left himself at liberty to act as he thought fit; yet he made himself “a slave” for the sake of those whose welfare he sought. The aim he set before him was one which justified the use of the means he describes.

1. He desired to gain some. Whatever he might lose, it was his hope and purpose to “win souls”a rich recompense and an abundant compensation for all his losses.

2. He desired to save some. This is a stronger expression, for it implies the peril to which the hearers of the gospel were exposed whilst they remained in unbelief, and it implies the happiness, security, and dignity to which those were brought who received the Word.

3. He did what he did for the gospel’s sake. For his own advantage he would never have submitted to all which he willingly endured because of his attachment to the truth in Christ Jesus.

4. Yet there was a personal aim before him. He hoped to be partaker himself with his converts of the blessings of the great salvation. His own interests were bound up with theirs, and it was ever his hope to share in the joys of that time when “he that soweth and he that reapeth shall rejoice together.”T.

1Co 9:24, 1Co 9:25

The Christian race.

Nothing could be more natural, more effective, than an allusion of this kind, occurring as it does in a letter to residents at Corinth. The Isthmian games, celebrated in the neighbourhood of their own city, were to the inhabitants of this famous place a matter of the greatest concern and interest. The gathering of representatives from all parts of Greece to witness the athletic contests which took place in the stadium of the isthmus, gave dignity and solemnity to the occasion. And the honours accorded to the victors were so highly coveted that there could have been but few of the ambitious young men of Achaia, indeed, of the whole of Hellas, who were not fired with a desire to distinguish themselves in these contests. No wonder that Paul should stimulate his own zeal and that of his Christian friends and disciples by reminding himself and them of the efforts and the sacrifices which were willingly undertaken for the sake of a perishable crown.

I. THE COURSE. The marble stadium of the isthmus serves as a picture to us of the course to which Christians are summoned. The Christian course is one of faith and obedience, of love and patience, of devotion to God and benevolence toward men.

II. THE SPECTATORS. It was the presence of the illustrious from every part of Greece which gave such peculiar dignity to the Olympian and the Isthmian games. In the Christian race, they who run are encompassed by a “great cloud of witnesses” the Church militant and triumphant, the glorious angels, and the Divine Lord himself looking on with the deepest interest, and perhaps justifiable anxiety.

III. THE COMBATANTS. We are not to restrict these to apostles, to preachers, to public labourers for Christ. Every disciple is a spiritual athlete, is called upon to run the race, to maintain the struggle, No room in the course for the indolent and inactive.

IV. THE DISCIPLINE AND PREPARATION. It is well known that for many months the athletes who aspired to the victor’s wreath were obliged to undergo severe discipline, under the guidance and care of a skilful trainer, who required them to deny themselves many pleasures, to endure much fatigue, hardship, and suffering. Paul reminds us of the necessity of being temperate in all things, of bringing under the bodybuffeting it with many blows. The Christian life is not one of ease and self indulgence; it is one of strenuous effort and self denial. They who strive for masteries must strive lawfully, must accept and obey the Divine conditions of the course.

V. THE EFFORT. The “one” combatant who received the prize did so as the result of great effort, strenuous and persevering. For neither apathy nor weariness were compatible with success. “So run,” says the apostle, meaning that we are to imitate, not those who fail, but him who succeeds and conquers. What need, in living unto Christ, is there of diligence, of watchfulness, and above all of endurance!

VI. THE PRIZE. At the isthmus this was a chaplet of pine leaves, which soon faded. Yet its possession was coveted, and was counted a reward for the training and the toil. How much more should the Christian be animated by the prospect of an eternal inheritance and an amaranthine crown!T.

1Co 9:25

“An incorruptible crown.”

There was an ardour of temperament, a resoluteness of purpose, in the constitution and moral life of Paul, which made the imagery of this passage peculiarly congenial to his soul. He was fired with a sacred ambition, and he sought to inspire his hearers and readers with something of his own enthusiasm. His glowing imagination could realize something of the glory gained by the successful athlete who was welcomed with honour in his native state, whose statue was shaped in marble by some illustrious sculptor, and whose praise was embalmed in verse deathless as that of Pindar. How much more must he, with his cleared moral perceptions, his elevated spiritual aims, have sympathized with the prospects which inspired all true Christian athletes, who endured an earthly strife and hoped to gain a heavenly diadem!

I. THE GIVER OF THE CROWN. Christ has himself contended, suffered, and overcome; on his head are many crowns. He is the Lord of the course and the conflict. Coming from such hands, the recompense must be infinitely precious. He sweetens the gift he bestows by words of gracious approval. He counts the crowns of his people as his own.

II. THE WEARER OF THE CROWN. He who is to partake the throne, the triumph, must first share the strife and bear the cross of Jesus. The crown of thorns comes before the crown of victory and empire. They who shall hereafter triumph are they who now and here strive and suffer, endure and hope. Their contest must be lawfully conducted and strenuously maintained. It is they who are “faithful unto death” to whom is promised the fair crown of life.

III. THE VALUE OF THE CROWN. It is a gift, and not a reward to which there is a just claim; there is no case of merit here. At the same time, it is an expression of satisfaction and approval, and coming from Christ has in consequence a peculiar value to his people. The Isthmian wreath was in itself of no worth; its value lay in the witness it bore to the wearer’s prowess. But the Christian’s crown is not only a token of Divine approbation; it is accompanied by substantial recompense, especially by promotion to rule and authority. He who is crowned is made “ruler over many things.”

IV. THE IMPERISHABLENESS OF THE CROWN. It is not a material crown, like the wreath of fading leaves. It is a crown of righteousness and of life, and is consequently in its nature immortal. It is worn in the land of incorruption and of immortality. It blooms perennially in the atmosphere of heaven.

PRACTICAL LESSONS.
1. Here is an appeal to the aspiring. Why seek earthly distinctions which must pass away, when within your reach is the unfading crown of glory?

2. Here is an inspiration and stimulus to the Christian combatant. Why grow weary in the race, why sink faint hearted in the contest, when there is stretched forth, before and above you, the Divine and imperishable crown of life?T.

HOMILIES BY E. HURNDALL

1Co 9:1-15

The support of the ministry.

Paul recognizes a ministry set apart.

I. THE RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO CLAIM ADEQUATE SUPPORT FROM THEIR PEOPLE. Enforced by:

1. Analogy.

(1) The soldier who gives his services to his country receives maintenance.

(2) The planter of a vineyard cats of its fruit.

(3) The shepherd finds the means of his support in the flock which he tends. The Christian minister is a soldier, fighting the tattles of the Lord and of his Church; a labourer in the vineyard of Christ, planting, watering, pruning, training; a shepherd, watching over the sheep and lambs of his flock, seeking the wandering, correcting the rebellious, leading, feeding, etc.

2. The Mosaic Law.

(1) The ox treading the corn was unmuzzled, that he might feed as well as toil (1Co 9:9; Deu 25:4). The apostle claims that this was commanded more with an eye to men than to oxen (1Co 9:10).

(2) The priests and Levites lived on the things of the temple. Here the parallel becomes more striking. The ministers under the old dispensation were supported out of the offerings of the people: why should not the ministers of the new be also? Moreover, this obtained amongst men generally. Even the heathen perceived its fitness.

3. Common sense. It is reasonable that those who give up their time, energies, and gifts to the service of the Church should be supported by it. This is seen more strikingly when we remember that what is received by the Church is of infinitely more value than what is given: “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” The Church is not a loser, but a great gainer. What blessings God has bestowed in the past through the channel of a faithful ministry? What may he not in the future, to ourselves, our friends, our children?

4. The express ordination of Christ. As though the preceding strong arguments were not strong enough, this the strongest and altogether unanswerable one is added. The Head of the Church commands. He sees what is fitting and best. We run counter to his mind if we do not yield prompt and willing obedience. Whatever we may think, this is what he thinks (Mat 10:10; Luk 10:8). Ministerial support:

(1) Should be rendered cheerfully. Grudging or tardy gift in such a matter is semi-disobedience to Christ, and not a little dishonouring to the givers.

(2) Should not be regarded as an equivalent for what is received. A minister is not paid for what he does. He is not in receipt of a salary. This is a degrading view of the whole matter. A minister is supported, whilst he lays himself out for the spiritual profit of those amongst whom his lot is cast.

(3) Should be sufficient. A due estimate of the advantages derived from a faithful ministry will prompt to a generous support, so that, amid many spiritual cares, temporal anxieties may not unduly press. A Church failing to adequately support its ministers, whilst possessing the ability to do so, inflicts much injury upon its ministers, but much more upon itself. Matthew Henry says,” A scandalous maintenance makes a scandalous ministry.”

II. THE RIGHT MAY PROFITABLY BE WAIVED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

1. To remove prejudice.

2. To prove disinterestedness, showing that we are not actuated by love of lucre.

3. To gain more independence, which may be desirable under certain conditions of Church life.

4. To make a strong position for one’s self when unjust charges are apprehended. The Apostle Paul would not give the least advantage to his enemies.

5. For any ether reasons which promise profit to the interests of Christ’s kingdom. If thereby we can “gain the more” (verse 19). There is nothing derogatory in a minister supporting himself. It is a pity that there should be so much absurd prejudice against it. A marvel of incongruity that the title of “Rev.” should be bestowed upon the minister who is supported by his people, and denied to the minister who follows the lead of the apostolic tent maker! that the one should be welcomed to certain associations and circles, and the other kept at arm’s length! Not that the title of “Rev.” is appropriate for any; yet if ever a man deserved such a designation, I suppose it was the very apostle, who, according to modern notions, disqualified himself for it. As to privileged societies, men of good sense need scarcely worry themselves about being excluded from those which would have blackballed the apostle of the Gentiles.H.

1Co 9:16, 1Co 9:17

Compulsory gospel preaching.

I. THE TRUE MINISTER BECOMES SUCH NOT BY MERE CHOICE OR PREDILECTION. Preaching the gospel is:

1. Not easy.

2. Often disheartening.

3. Its joys come rather after triumph over natural inclination.

4. Too responsible to be undertaken without authority.

II. THE TRUE MINISTER BECOMES SUCH BECAUSE OF:

1. God’s command. Uttered to hearta “Divine call,” corroborated by suitability, confirmed by blessing on labours

2. Claims of fellow creatures.

3. Conscientious promptings towards service.

III. THOSE CALLED TO THE MINISTRY DARE NOT REFUSE. “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” To refuse would involve:

1. God’s displeasure.

2. The blood of our fellows resting upon us.

3. The nonemployment of gifts, and the consequences of this.H.

1Co 9:22

Soul saving.

The great apostle of the Gentiles was a singular man and lived a strange life. Some looking at him pronounced him to be a fool; others, a madman. He seemed, indeed, strangely destitute of that wisdom which places self interest in the front, and incites to the pursuit of position, power, and the praise of men. When brought to a knowledge of the truth, the future apostle relinquished the course which he had mapped out, and his association with Gamaliel and the great teachers. He commenced with gigantic self sacrifice: why? He desired to save souls. He became a great travellerfrom city to city, town to town, village to village, he went on untiringly: why? To save souls. He underwent extreme sufferings (2Co 11:24-29)to save souls. He exposed himself constantly to danger and deathto save souls. With the Jew he banished from his mind all Gentile tendenciesto save the Jew. With the Gentile he severed himself from all Jewish partialitiesto save the Gentile. He was willing to be anything or nothing, to do this or that, if by any means he might “save some.” Soul saving had become a master passion of his soul. He was in the world for it. Everything must be subordinated to it.

I. WHY WAS PAUL SO DESIROUS TO SAVE SOULS? He remembered:

1. The value of the soul. Of this he had the deepest conviction. To him the soul of man was the most precious thing in the world. Whilst men were seeking to save all other things, he would seek to save this. All other gain was as loss compared to the gain of a soul.

2. The fate of the lost soul He saw the unsaved soul going down, getting further and further from God, becoming viler, ripening for hell. The fearful words of his Master rang loudly in his ears. He believed them, he did not refine them down until they meant nothing. He saw the souls “cast out;” he heard the dread “Depart;” the “weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth” sounded in his heart; and he resolved that, as an instrument in the Divine hand, he would do his utmost to “save some.”

3. The future of the saved soul.

(1) In this life. Tending upwards; becoming purified; increasing in joy, peace, usefulness; indissolubly united to God.

(2) In the next life. “With Christ.” The fulness of joy. Every soil of sin removed. All powers becoming developed. The “higher ministry” commenced and continuing.

4. The glory of Christ. This was supreme in the apostle’s mind. The Master was first. Paul was pre-eminently a “Jesus Christ’s man.” Soul saving redounded to the honour and praise of his Lord. Christ had come “to seek and to save that which was lost.” The purpose of the Master became the all absorbing desire of the servant. Paul saw that his Master was glorified by the victories of the cross. So in season and out of season the apostle preached “Jesus Christ and him crucified” that he might “save some.” He lived, laboured, suffered, for the clay when “the multitude which no man could number” should sing to the praise of Christ the sweet stanzas of the “new song.” The love of Christ constrained him.

II. NOTE SOME WAYS IN WHICH PAUL SOUGHT TO SAVE SOULS.

1. He used all means at hand.

(1) Preaching. He had a definite object in preaching.

(2) Conversation. He could preach well to a congregation of one.

(3) Writing. What a gift he had for “Epistles”! Letter writing with a view to saving souls is an excellent means, but it requires dexterous use. Paul could not “drivel,” or be “goody goody,” or “talk cant.” Many religious letter writers can. Hence the contrast between ancient and modern epistles.

(4) Prayer. He “bowed his knees.” Stiff kneed preachers often have stiff necked people.

(5) Living the truth. Here, perhaps, lay the transcendent power of Paul. He not only prayed, wrote, talked, preached,he was. Satan is more afraid of the gospel in the concrete than of the gospel in the abstract.

2. He complied with prejudice and prepossession. It we would make others like ourselves in things essential, we must first make ourselves like them in things indifferent. Paul tells us that to the Jew he became a Jewremembered Jewish feeling, looked at things from a Jewish standpoint, accorded with Jewish observances. To the Gentile he became a Gentileaccommodating his utterance, manner, form of thought, mode of presenting the truth, to Gentile predilection. You can talk to a man more easily if you stand on the same platform with him. To the weak Paul became as weak; not insisting upon his liberty or ruthlessly running counter to imperfect conceptions. In fact, he asserts that he became “all things to all men” in order to realize his supreme object. Personal predilections must be sacrificed, and unpleasant restraints submitted to, if we would do effectively the greatest work under heaven. An unbending preacher will preach to unbroken hearts. An insistence upon our rights and privileges is a short method, often adopted, of ruining all hopes. A spirit of holy compliance, a disposition to stand just alongside the one we would gain,these are potent. We often bar and bolt the very door that we are trying to unfasten. Often we forget that we are speaking to very imperfect men, and that we are very imperfect ourselves. Compliance must, of course, not be unlimited.

(1) We must exercise discretion. We must abide in the realm of “the lawful,” and select what will be truly “expedient.” Sound judgment need be exercised. We must look to probable results.

(2) We must never sacrifice the right. Paul was most compliant in things indifferent, but most unyielding in things essential. When he yielded he not only confined himself to things indifferent, but made it to be understood that the things were indifferent. When they were regarded as essential he refused to comply. This is strikingly illustrated in his permitting the circumcision of Timothy, but resisting that of Titus.

3. He practised great self sacrifice. He did not think of himself, but of those he sought to gain. We have seen how willing he was to sacrifice his personal predilections. He went further.

(1) In some instances he sacrificed his maintenance, supporting himself by the labour of his own hands.

(2) He sacrificed his personal ease and comfort.

(3) He sacrificed much of his freedomhe made himself “servant unto all” (verse 19). A man who is prepared for illimitable self sacrifice can do much. No sacrifice is too great for the attainment of Paul’s life object. Christ laid down his life for it. He who bore the great cross spoke of crosses for his followers. His ministers often have heavy ones, but it is worth while to carry them, if by doing so we become instrumental in saving souls. Souls saved will be our “joy and crown” at last. What vast possibilities life presents, when we think that in it we may be the means of saving souls! This applies to all Christians. Every saint should toil for the salvation of men. All the sorrows endured and sacrifices made will seem like “the dust of the balance” when we see our spiritual children welcomed home.H.

1Co 9:24-27

Spiritual athletics.

Paul compares the Christian life to a foot race and to a boxing contest. These were familiar to the Corinthians, being conspicuous features of the celebrated Isthmian games. A wise teacher speaks through things known of things unknown. Christ spoke in parables. Passing events may be made the vehicles of abiding truths. The secular may often illustrate the sacred. There is no loss of dignity or impropriety in such modes of instruction. Some people are shocked by references to everyday life; but such people ought to be shocked. Homely garb sometimes wins the readier admittance. Note some points of resemblance.

I. CHRISTIAN LIFE IS A PASSAGEFROM SIN TO HOLINESS, FROM EARTH TO HEAVEN. It is a daily movement. We need beware of stumbling blocks, of straying from the right course, of indulgence which may hinder, of violation of laws, of loitering, since the time is short.

II. CHRISTIAN LIFE IS A CONTEST WITH ENEMIES. The “race” does not fully illustrate it. We have opponents, many and resolute. We have a trinity against us as well as for usthe world, the flesh, and the devil. We have not only to “run,” but to “fight.”

III. FOR SUCCESS ARE NEEDED:

1. Preparation. For athletic contests how much “training” has to be undergone, often very painful and wearying! Our preparation for Christian life is arduous and long, but it does not commence before we enter upon Christian life, but as we enter, and continues until the close. We “train” as we ran and as we fight.

2. Earnestness. No indifferent competitor was likely to win in ancient races or boxing contests. Indifference kills Christian lift,. The half hearted go not far from the starting point. Many have only enough earnestness to “enter” for the race and fight; as soon as they have “entered,” they think all is done.

3. Striving. To be amongst the runners is not enough; we must exert our powers; we must call into activity all our energies. We must not be as those who “beat the air,” but as those who boat their enemies. Christian life is real, with issues of infinite importance. It is not for exhibition of skill, but for stern work. “Strive [agonize] to enter in at the strait gate.” Paul would have each Christian to be as the winner, who “spent himself” in snatching the victory (1Co 9:24). We do not hinder others from attaining, and for this we may be not a little thankful; but we each need to use the utmost effort.

4. Patience. Christian life is not soon over. At first we may do well, but when difficulties arise we shall be tested. Some who run fastest at first run slowest at last. Our all wise Master spoke of “enduring to the end.”

5. Watchfulness. Lest we trip. Lest our enemy gets an advantage. The great Preacher’s text was often “Watch!”

6. Resolution. If we are to endure to the end, we shall need stern resolve. Fixedness of purpose is an essential for Christian life. We should determine in God’s strength to go on, whatever may lie in our path: to fight on, no matter what enemies confront us. Christian life demands courage and fortitude; we must not be too easily frightened.

7. Concentration. “This one thing I do.” The “whole man” must be given to religion. Some professors are “called off” from the race, and lose it. They lower their guard, for their hands must be about earthly things, and then their enemy overthrows them.

8. Continuity. This tries many. If religion were spasmodic, they could be religious. There are many “now and then” Christians. People like to be pious at intervals.

9. Mortification of the flesh. Ancient athletes knew, as their modern brethren do, what this means. The victor was “temperate in all things.” A pampered body meant disappointment, disgrace, loss. Paul said, “I keep under [I buffet, I bruise] my body.” Our lower nature must be dealt severely with. Indulgence is disaster; we must practise self control, self denial, sob sacrifice.

10. Confidence, but not excess of confidence. Confidence that will prompt to exertion, not confidence which kills effort. “Lest… I myself should be a castaway.”

IV. SUCCESS MEETS WITH REWARD. Contrast the crowns of earth with the crown of heaven. Many do so much for a corruptible crown, and we so little for an incorruptible one. A garland of leaves and a day’s popularity: paradise and life eternal.

V. MANY SPECTATORS WITNESS THE CONTEST. The eyes of the ungodly are upon us. Fellow Christians watch us closely. The angels behold us, and are “ministering spirits” to us. Perhaps victors of the past, perhaps those who have failed in race and fight, watch us. The King sees usthe Judgehe who holds “the crown of righteousness” for those who have “fought a good fight” and “finished the course.” “Wherefore seeing,” etc. (Heb 12:1, Heb 12:2). When we think of the race and fight, we should ponder Php 4:13, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”H.

HOMILIES BY E. BREMNER

1Co 9:1-3

The marks of apostleship.

This chapter grows out of the noble utterance of self denial with which the previous one closes. The apostle illustrates and enforces the duty of curtailing our liberty in things indifferent for the sake of weaker brethren, by a reference to his own example in foregoing the right of maintenance by the Church. Was he not free? Had he not all the rights belonging to Christians, unfettered by obligations to men? Nay, more, was he not an apostle? At Corinth, as elsewhere, there were some who questioned the full apostolic authority of Paul, on the ground that he was not one of the twelve; and his self denial seems to have been turned into an argument against him. It was insinuated that he refrained from asking the support of his converts, as the other apostles were in the habit of doing, because he was conscious of his inferiority. It is apparently for this reason that he here presents the marks of his apostleship.

I. HE HAD SEEN JESUS THE LORD. There is no evidence that he had seen Jesus in the days of his flesh, but the reference is mainly to the appearance near Damascus (Act 9:4-6). On that occasion the Lord met him and gave him his commission as an apostle; and this was regarded as an essential mark of apostleship in the highest sense, as we see from the election of Matthias. In this respect the apostles can have no successors. The office was a special and temporary one, needful for the planting and organizing of the Church, and was intended to expire with the men who held it. Having set the house in order, they were to deliver the keys to the ordinary servants who were left in charge. Still, every one whom Christ sends forth to do his work must first have had the sight of him that faith gives. Only when we have beheld him in his glory, invested with “all authority in heaven and on earth,” and heard from his lips the cult to go forth, shall we feel ourselves clothed with power as his ambassadors (comp. Isa 6:1-13.; Mat 28:18, Mat 28:19).

II. THE CORINTHIAN CHRISTIANS WERE THE SEAL OF HIS APOSTLESHIP. Whatever reason others might have for questioning his standing, they at least had none; for as the instrument of their conversion, he could point to them as “his work in the Lord.” The power which accompanied his preaching, and which had wrought so mighty a change in them, was a proof that he had not run unsent. This of itself did not prove apostleship in the high sense in which Paul claimed it, but it proved that the Lord was with him. This kind of evidence requires to be adduced with caution, inasmuch as it is difficult for us to estimate the real success of a ministry; but where there are unmistakable proofs of the conversion of sinners and the edification of saints, we are warranted in viewing these as the seals of our mission. In seeking these high ends, we are doing truly apostolic work. Happy the minister who can say to his congregation, “Ye are my work in the Lord”!B.

1Co 9:4-18

Ministerial support.

Having vindicated his claim to be reckoned among the apostles of Christ, Paul proceeds to assert his right to a temporal maintenance at the hands of those to whom he ministered. The other apostles received support, not only for themselves, but also for their wives: why should he not make the same claim? Though he was unmarried, and though he had hitherto supported himself by the labour of his own hands, this did not invalidate his right. Consider

I. THE RIGHT OF MINISTERS TO A SUITABLE MAINTENANCE. This is upheld by various arguments and analogies,

1. The labourer is worthy of his reward. Three instances are adduced in illustration (1Co 9:7).

(1) The soldier. The duty of fighting for his country throws the burden of his support upon others. Why should it be otherwise with the Christian soldier (2Ti 2:4)?

(2) The husbandman. His labour is rewarded by the fruit. The minister of the gospel is also a husbandman (1Co 3:6-9).

(3) The shepherd. Does he not receive the milk of the flock, partly for food and partly for exchange? Why should not the Christian pastor, who tends the flock of Christ, have a similar return (1Pe 5:2)? The principle in these instances is that every occupation in common life yields support to the worker, and that he does not require to go beyond it for daily sustenance. In like manner, the minister of the gospel is entitled to an adequate maintenance without having to resort to secular work to supply his wants.

2. The teaching of the Mosaic Law. “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox,” etc.. What was the meaning of this injunction? It shows, indeed, the care of the Lawgiver for the brute creation, but it is only a particular application of a great principle. The Law has regard for oxen, not for their own sake, but for the sake of him to whom they are in subjection. And if even the labouring ox was to be fed, how much more should the plougher and the thresher work in hope of partaking! The Law of Moses thus confirms the teaching of natural analogy, that the labourer is to be maintained by his work.

3. The fairness of the claim. “If we sowed unto you spiritual things,” etc. (1Co 9:11). In every case the sower expects to reap; but there is more than this in the apostle’s argument. The preacher of the gospel sows spiritual thingsthose great truths that minister to the spirit: is it a great matter if he looks for carnal things in returnthose things that minister only to the flesh? If he is the instrument, in God’s hand, of saving the souls of his hearers, what amount of gold can be an adequate recognition of the service rendered?

4. Analogy of the Jewish priesthood. (1Co 9:13.) The rule was that they who served at the altar should receive a portion of the sacrifices and other gifts that were constantly brought to the temple. A sufficient support was thus secured; and the Divine sanction implied in that ancient rule applies equally to the case of the Christian ministry.

5. The express ordinance of the Lord Christ. (1Co 9:14.) When he sent forth his apostles to preach, he said, “Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; for the labourer is worthy of his food” (Mat 10:9, Mat 10:10). This was their marching order. They were to depend on the offerings of the people among whom they laboured; and the reference here shows that this was no temporary arrangement, but that it was intended to be the New Testament rule for preachers of the gospel. Instead of having to turn aside to secular pursuits, they are to be free to give themselves wholly to their work. By these various arguments the apostle establishes the right of ministers to claim support at the hands of the Christian people, and the corresponding duty of the people to contribute that support. Both the right and the duty have been but imperfectly recognized by the Church. This will appear if we consider:

(1) The average rate of ministerial support. Compare this with the incomes of men in the other learned professions or in mercantile pursuits.

(2) The manner in which giving to the cause of Christ is frequently regarded. How many either give with a grudge or do not give at all! The evil resulting is twofoldspiritual loss to the individual, and a crippling of the Church in her work. Not until all the tithes are brought into the storehouse will the Lord open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing (Mal 3:8-10).

II. THE RENUNCIATION OF THIS SIGHT. (1Co 9:15-18.) Strongly as Paul insists upon his right to temporal maintenance, it is not with a view to urge his claim upon the Corinthians, but to bring into clearer relief his renunciation of it. That he preached the gospel free of charge was to him a matter of boasting which he would rather die than be deprived of. It was no glory to him that he was a preacher; for, as a steward put in trust with the gospel, this was his simple duty. But it was no part of his stewardship to labour without support; and this, accordingly, was a proof of his sincerity in which he was entitled to boast. In this act of self denial he had a reward in making the gospel entirely free, and in securing that on this ground no hindrance should be put in its way (1Co 9:12). Here some practical considerations emerge.

1. How a minister of the gospel should bear himself towards pecuniary support. There are cases in which he may forego his right, especially where he sees that this renunciation will tend to the advancement of the gospel. Usually, however, it is his duty to accept a stipend at the hands of the Christian people, and that for the reason which led Paul to decline it. To receive a reasonable maintenance is to be in the best position for devoting one’s self entirely to the ministry of the Word. But at all times it should be manifest that the servant of Christ does not act from mercenary motives. The shepherd is not to tend the flock for the sake of the fleece. “Not yours, but you,” should be his motto (2Co 12:14).

2. The obligation to preach the gospel. “Necessity is laid upon me.” There is a Divine must in the case of every true preacher, as there was in the case of Jesus. The love of Christ, not less than the command of Christ, constrains him. It is with him as with the prophet: “Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his Name. But his word was in mine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay” (Jer 20:9).

3. The doctrine of reward. The apostle’s statement regarding the reward he expected for his optional renunciation of support has been adduced by popish divines in support of their doctrine of supererogation; but it will not bear such an application. The distinction he makes is between what was plainly a part of his bounden duty as a steward, and what seemed best for the furtherance of the gospel in his peculiar circumstances. In one sense it was a matter for his own choice whether he should accept a temporal maintenance, but this is not the sense required by the Romish argument. Whatever promises to conduce to the furtherance of Christ’s kingdom, becomes thereby a duty to the apostle; for “to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (Jas 4:17). There is no act which is not included under love to God and love to man. There is no self denial to which the love of Christ should not prompt us. The gospel doctrine of reward does not rest on any theory of supererogation, but rather on the principle that God is pleased to recognize the fidelity of his servants.B.

1Co 9:19-23

The principle of accommodation.

Paul’s resolve to preach the gospel without charge was but one instance of the general rule which guided his life. Though under obligation to none, he yet became the servant of all”all things to all men.” He accommodated himself to the Jews (1Co 9:20), as when he circumcised Timothy (Act 16:3) and purified himself in the temple (Act 21:26). He accommodated himself to the Gentiles (1Co 9:21), by refusing to impose the Law of Moses (Gal 2:5) and by meeting them on their own ground (Act 17:22-31). He accommodated himself to the weak (1Co 9:22), as when he abstained from meat because of their scruples (1Co 8:13). Consider

I. ACCOMMODATION AS A RULE OF MINISTERIAL PRACTICE. There is a high sense in which every minister of Christ is called to become “all things to all men.” We are to adapt ourselves to the circumstances, modes of thought, and even the harmless prejudices of those among whom we labour. In dealing with human souls, we must not stand upon points of etiquette, but be ready when occasion requires to sacrifice our preferences and sometimes our rights. This principle will cover matters of dress and modes of living, as also our choice of recreation and amusement. William Burns, missionary to China, adopted the Chinese dress that he might the more easily gain access to the people. On the same ground we shall present the truth in language which our hearers understand, whether they are children or adults. This happy faculty of adaptation has frequently proved of great service to the gospel.

II. LIMITS TO BE OBSERVED IN FOLLOWING THIS RULE. The highest things may frequently be mistaken for the lowest. Christian accommodation may be confounded with time serving, but nothing is more unlike. The man whose principles are flexible, who trims and carves to serve his purpose, who is a devout Christian in this company and a railing scoffer in that, may be said to be “all things to all men;” but such a man is a mere jelly fish character, a mass of moral pulp. For such accommodation as Paul practised there is needed the highest principle, the strongest consistency; and in order to this, certain limits are to be observed.

1. It must not lead us to do or tolerate that which is sinful. This limit is transgressed by Jesuit missionaries when they suffer their converts to retain part of their old idolatrous worship.

2. It must not lead us to keep back any essential truth because it is unpopular. This were cowardice and infidelity to cur trust.

3. It must not lead us to do anything which would compromise the Christian name. “Let not your good be evil spoken of” (Rom 14:16).

III. MOTIVES THAT PROMPT US TO FOLLOW THIS RULE. These are:

1. A desire to save others. It is not a wish to please men, but a desire to remove every hindrance to the reception of the gospel. With this end in view, we shall not find it difficult to become “all things to all men.” A human soul is not too dearly won at the cost of a little self sacrifice. In this aspect the rule we are considering is but a faint copy of the great accommodationthe incarnation and work of Jesus Christ.

2. A regard to our personal salvations. (1Co 9:23.) Paul connects his work “for the gospel’s sake” with his being a “joint partaker” of its blessings. In work for the good of others we must not be unmindful of our own good; and there is nothing more conducive to our spiritual benefit than faithful, self denying service for Christ. “Continue in these things; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee” (1Ti 4:16).B.

1Co 9:24-27

The race for the prize.

The thought introduced in 1Co 9:23, that Paul’s self denial had a reference to his own salvation as well as the salvation of others, is here carried on and applied generally to all Christians. The imagery is derived from the Isthmian games celebrated in the neighbourhood of Corinth, and therefore well known to his readers. These games occupied a place in the national life of Greece corresponding to that occupied by the great yearly festivals in the life of Israel There is no reference to them in the Gospels, as they were unknown in Palestine, but more than once they are used in the Epistles as a metaphorical representation of the Christian life (comp. Php 3:14; 2Ti 4:7, 2Ti 4:8; Heb 12:1). Consider

I. THE RACE. The stadium presented an animating spectacle. At this end stand the competing athletes, awaiting the signal to start; at the other end is the judge, holding in his hand the prize; whilst all around, rising tier upon tier, are the seats crowded with spectators. The Christian life is a race for the great prize offered by God to the successful runner. At conversion we take our place in the racecourse and have our names proclaimed by the herald. The leading ideas in the figure are:

1. Progress. “Forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on,” etc. (Php 3:13).

2. Earnestness. The Christian life is one of strenuous effortevery muscle strung, every faculty called into exercise. No place for lukewarmness or indifference here.

3. Concentration. “One thing! do.” The runner, with eye on the goal and all else out of view, bends his whole strength to this single effort. Dissipation of energy, the multa rather than the multum, is a source of weakness in spiritual life. “One thing is needful.”

4. Endurance. “Let us run with patience” (Heb 12:1). To faint or fall is to lose the prize. The cross must be borne to the end. Nothing but “patient continuance in well doing” will conduct us to the goal (comp. Jas 1:12).

II. CONDITIONS OF SUCCESS IN THE RACE. To run well we must run as the successful racer. The end in view must be clear: we must know what we are running for (“not uncertainly”). Here specially emphasize the preparatory conditionself restraint. The athlete under training was required to avoid excess in eating and drinking, and every form of fleshly indulgence. The Christian athlete must practise a like temperance if he would run his course with success. In this point of view the body is the antagonist with which we contend, and which must be buffeted and bruised rather than suffered to gain the mastery over us. How many Christians are hindered in their spiritual course by lack of self restraint! The worship of comfort, the love of luxury, not to speak of such indulgences as are clearly sinful, cause many to lag in the race. An intemperate use of, or affection for, things in themselves good, is a most insidious snare in the path of spiritual advancement. Bodily mortification is not spirituality, but it is often helpful towards its attainment. The Christian runner must lay aside every weight as well as every sin (Heb 12:1).

II. THE PRIZE. This consisted of a chaplet of leavesolive, parsley, pine. In addition, the name of the victor was celebrated in a triumphal ode and a statue was erected to his memory. It was a great honourone of the greatest in a land where the gymnastic art was so highly appreciated; and even Roman emperors (Nero, e.g.) did not hesitate to enter the lists. But at best it was, like all earthly honours, corruptible. These crowns would quickly fade, that applause would soon cease. The prize for which the Christian contends is an incorruptible crown. It is the “crown of righteousness” (2Ti 4:8), the “crown of life” (Jas 1:12; Rev 2:10), the “crown of glory” (1Pe 5:4). To have righteousness and life in perfection is our true glory, and this is the very crown of cur being. A crown composed of such materials cannot fade away. All the trees in that country are evergreen. What an object to fill the eye and fire the soul! A proud moment when the successful runner had the chaplet of leaves put on his brow! A grandee moment for the Christian athlete when the pierced hand of Jesus places on his head the crown of glory! And if men endure so much and strive so earnestly for the corruptible, how much more should we endure and strive in order to obtain the incorruptible!

REMARKS.
1. The human side of the Christian life is strongly emphasized in the figure of the race; but along with this we must take the other side of the truth. Without the grace of God we cannot run. Mark the striking combination in Php 2:12, Php 2:13.

2. Notice the apostle’s self distrust. He is not ashamed to confess that he brings his body into subjection, “lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.” Compare such outbursts of confident assurance as Rom 8:38, Rom 8:39, and 2Ti 1:12, and regard the one as the complement of the other. Self diffidence goes hand in hand with genuine assurance. A lesson for all Christians, and especially for all preachers.B.

HOMILIES BY J. WAITE

1Co 9:16

Compulsory service.

The apostle here affords us a passing glimpse of his own state of mind in reference to his high calling as a “preacher of the gospel.” The revelation of the secret workings of an earnest human spirit must needs be deeply interesting to us, and most of all in the case of a man of such noble nature as Paul, and in reference to a matter of such supreme moment. We could scarcely have a finer view of the ministry of the Word, a finer model of right thought and feeling about it, than is presented in these simple but lofty words. Chiefly three elements of feeling are here expressed.

I. A SENSE OF THE DIGNITY OF THE PREACHER‘S OFFICE. The preaching of the Word is evidently regarded here as a fixed and permanent institution of the Church, a work to which men are divinely called to consecrate themselves, and from which they may draw the necessary support of their life (1Co 9:14). And the fact that Paul disavows all self glorying on account of it, implies that there is that in the office which might lead a man unduly to exalt himself. But what is the real nature of its dignity? It is very different from that which belongs to social rank or any kind of worldly distinction. Much mischief springs from losing sight of this difference. Ever since the time when a halo of worldly glory began to be thrown around the witness for Christ, and the ideas of social elevation, priestly supremacy, large emolument, luxurious ease, came to be associated with it, it has been degraded by the intrusion of false motive, and by being made the prize of a purely carnal ambition. The dignity Paul recognizes in it is that which is inherent in all high and holy service; the honour he would have paid to it is that which is due to a faithful discharge of sacred responsibility. The dignity of the preacher’s function lies in such facts as these:

1. It brings a man, more than any other office does, into habitual contact with the mind of God and with the realities of the invisible world. Not that he who sustains it has in this respect a privilege denied to others. Every path of human life may be thus gilded and gladdened by the heavenly glory. But it is his special business, by habits of thought and prayer, to become mere deeply conversant than other men with the revelations of God and the things unseen and eternal. And the fact that his work demands that mind and heart should be ever dwelling in such a high spiritual region, imparts a greatness and dignity to it surpassing that of all others.

2. It brings him into a purely spiritual relationship with his fellow men. Other human relations are more superficial. The world recognizes no bonds of union but such as grow out of the passing interests and experiences of this present life. To the preacher of the gospel, as such, the secular aspect of the position men occupy is nothing as compared with the spiritual. He “knows no man after the flesh.” He has to do with the nobler, the immortal part of them, “to watch for their souls as one that must give account.”

3. It leads on to eternal issues. All the grandeur of the endless futurity overshadows it. None of our earthly businesses have reference merely to the issues of time. Lines of moral influence are connected with them that stretch out into the great hereafter. But this is specially the case with the work of the Christian teacher, It must have infinite developments. It is the seed sewing for an eternal harvest. It is to every man “none other than the savour of life unto life, or of death unto death.”

II. THE SENSE OF PERSONAL UNWORTHINESS. “Though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of.” The conscious dignity of his office is coupled with deep humility. “Who is sufficient for these things?” (2Co 2:16). Paul’s humility, indeed, was not that of the man who is always doubting his right to the position he occupies, and fitness for the work he is doing. He knew that he bore the stamp and seal of a Divine commission.. And every true preacher of the Word must in a measure share this feeling. If a man has no conscious or acknowledged fitness for the work, he has no business to undertake it. But it must needs be that, in hours of calm reflection, in the solitude and silence of the night, he will often lie

“Contemplating his own unworthiness.”

Many things will serve to humble him.

1. The thought that he is but an instrument in the hands of God (1Co 3:5-7).

2. The fact that, in proclaiming the mercy of God to sinners, he has to look upon himself as the foremost of those who need that mercy (1Ti 1:15, 1Ti 1:16).

3. The light the Word he preaches continually sheds on the evils of his own heart and life.

4. The sense of the subtle spiritual dangers that beset his sacred calling.

5. The fear “lest that by any means, having preached to others, he himself should be a castaway” (1Co 9:27).

III. A SENSE OF MORAL CONSTRAINT. “Necessity is laid upon me,” etc. The apostle felt that he had been invested by the risen Lord with a very solemn stewardship, and That he dared not be unfaithful to it. The heaviest of all “woes,” the woe of a remorseful conscience, the woe of a spirit that has fallen from the height of a glory that might have been its own forever, would fall upon him if he did. His would be the misery of being basely untrue to himself as well as to iris Divine Master. There are two kinds of moral “necessity”the necessity of an external force and that of an internal: the necessity of an outward law, backed by some form of outward penalty; and the necessity of an inward impulse, backed by the sacred fear of inward shame and loss. It was this latter kind of necessity of which he was supremely conscious. It was consistent with perfect moral freedom, because it was of the nature of a resistless force in the depths of his own soul, the decision of his own will, the impulse of his own heart. The will of God had imposed this stewardship, this “dispensation of the gospel,” upon him. he had been separated unto it from his very birth (Rom 1:1; Gal 1:15). And God’s will had become his will, God’s purpose his purpose. The manifested love of Christ had become a constraining power within him, leading his whole being into captivity, drawing forth every energy of his nature in a holy and joyous service. This kind of “necessity” is the loftiest principle by which any human spirit can be actuated. Never is a man so great, so free, so royal, so divinely blessed, as when he is intelligently conscious of it. This is the true inspiration of gospel ministry. The harvest is great. May the Lord of the harvest “send forth labourers” thus inwardly constrained to serve him!W.

1Co 9:22

“By all means save some.”

Two points present themselves for our consideration here

(1) The end the apostle had in view;

(2) the method by which he sought to secure it.

I. THE END. “To save some.” What does he mean by this? What to him was the salvation of men?

1. It certainly means deliverance from a dread future calamity. “The wrath to come,” “the perdition of ungodly men,” was to St. Paul no dream, but an awful reality. It was worth all possible effort and self sacrifice to save men from it. If he had no other impulse than that of mere human sympathy to move him, we have here a sufficient explanation of the enthusiasm of his zeal. It is often said that if Christian people really believed the future that is before multitudes of their fellow creatures to be so dark and dreadful as they say it is, they could never rest as they do m their own natural or spiritual satisfactions. They would rather be beside themselves with a frantic agony of sympathetic sorrow and desire to save. There is truth in this. The easy indifference with which too many of us regard the condition and prospects of the godless world around us, belies the reality of our faith. Our conceptions of what the solemn issues of the future shall be may differ. Some, after anxious and earnest thought, may have arrived at the conclusion that to forecast the nature or the duration of the penalty that will then fall on the transgressor is beyond our province, and that we can only take the language of Scripture as it stands, without attempting to penetrate the haze of dreadful mystery that hangs around it. But the broad and certain facts of the case are such as may well affect us far more deeply than they do, and bring forth in us far richer and more abundant fruits of practical beneficence. It is to be feared that doctrinal controversy about the future tends to weaken rather than deepen and strengthen our impressions. We lose in speculation and debate the practical earnestness the subject itself might be expected to awaken. St. Paul lived in the clear light of the future. His soul was thrilled by the sense of its tremendous reality. And though its issues probably were no more distinct and definite to his apprehension than they are to ours, yet his faith in their certainty was such as to stir up all the noble energies of his being in the endeavour to save his fellow men.

2. But the foresight of the future was far from being the only thing that moved him; it was a present deliverance from a present calamity that he had in view. To save men now from the evil that enthralled and cursed them, ruining their Godlike nature, darkening all the glory of their life,this was the end he sought. He was no visionary. It was no object of remote and uncertain utility, but one of most practical and immediate urgency at which he aimed. Whatever its bearing on the future may be, the influence of the gospel on the present passing life of men is so benign and blessed that our utmost zeal in diffusing it is fully justified. If we think of nothing more than the superficial social changes that Christianity has introduced, how it is at this very hour the prolific root of all social progress in every land, we see here an ample reward for all the sacrifices that have ever been made for its extension. But beneath all this there lies the fact that, as sin is the ruining, destroying power in man’s nature and life, it must needs be a Godlike purpose that seeks to deliver him from it (Mat 1:21; Act 3:26). “That I may by all means save some.” He could not hope for all, but if “some” only yielded to his persuasive word, it would be a blessed recompense. This is the inspiring hope of every true preacher and worker for Christ. The net is cast, the arrow is shot at a venture; the issue is not now made manifest. But a seemingly profitless work may be linked indirectly with results that are very great and glorious. Waves of spiritual influence, from a narrow circle, travel out where none can follow them. While there are those who shall find at last that the “great and wonderful things” they supposed they had done in the name of Christ are little recognized, there are others who will be amazed to discover that their lowly endeavours have yielded fruits of which they never dreamed. And to “save some,” to be able to lay some trophies at the Master’s feet, will be a blessed reward.

II. THE METHOD. “I am become all things to all men.” It is remarkable that words which express the highest nobleness of an apostolic spirit should have come to be used by us in familiar discourse as descriptive of a type of character and mode of conduct that is mean and despicable. It is suggestive of the behaviour of one who has no steadfast principle, no honest outspokenness; the mere obsequious time server, full of smiles and gilded insincerities; who, to serve his own ends, can pat on any face that suits the occasion;

“A man
Versed in the world as pilot in his compass,
The needle pointing ever to that interest
Which is his lode star, and who spreads his sails
With vantage to the gale of others’ passion.”

There was nothing of this sort in Paul. Nothing could be more abhorrent to his spirit than a time serving policy or a habit of smiling, plausible deceit. These words from his lips simply indicate that his strong desire to save men and win them to Christ led him to enter as much as possible into their circumstances, to place himself on their level. Thus would he disarm their prejudices and bring his heart into sympathetic contact with theirs. Thus would he commend to them the love of him who “was made under the Law that he might redeem them that were under the Law;” “who for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be made rich.” (Examples: Act 16:3; Act 17:22-31; Act 21:26.) The lesson for all Christian preachers and workers is this: Cultivate a broad and generous human sympathy. In dealing with men in various conditionsdoubt, error, poverty, sorrow, temptation, subjection to the power of evilput yourself as much as possible in their place, if you would hope to guide, or comfort, or save them.W.

1Co 9:24-27

Running and fighting.

The crown of eternal life is here set forth as the issue of successful conflict with difficulties and foes. It would seem as if all Divine excellence must needs present itself to our minds as the negation of opposite forms of evil. We cannot think of God but as the “Light” that contends with our darkness, the “Fire” that consumes our corruption. God’s Law is but the Divine restraint of our wayward propensities, the Divine rebuke of our trangressions. The Divine life in the soul is an energy that reveals itself in ceaseless struggle with forces that would otherwise destroy it, a perpetual battle with the powers of death. Heaven is victory, the rising up of the soul out of the region of trial and strife and suffering to its true destiny and inheritance in the glorious presence of God. Look at this passage as suggesting certain conditions of success in this spiritual conflict.

I. CONCENTRATION OF THOUGHT ON THE PRIZE AS A MATTER OF INTENSE PERSONAL INTEREST. “All run, but one receiveth,” etc. The analogy here instituted is not complete, inasmuch as in the Christian race all who “run with patience” will attain. But it serves to enforce the need of great fixedness of thought and purpose, as if each runner felt that only one could win, and he would be that one. There is nothing narrow, envious, selfish, in this. A great difference ties here between the heavenly and the earthly striving. He must be a man of very elevated spirit who is able to rise entirely above the narrowing influence of secular rivalry. In urging his way to success along the crowded thoroughfares of the world, a man almost inevitably thrusts some one else aside. The gigantic system of commercial competition means this. And it is an important problem of social life to determine how one may claim as he ought that personal inheritance in the world that God has placed within his reach, and yet not fall into the sin of a selfish violation of the rights of others. There is no room, however, for anything of this kind in the spiritual race and warfare. Mutual emulation is mutual profit. The success of each one is to the advantage and the joy of all. Strive to win the heavenly crown as if you alone could wear it, and the more intensely earnest you are in your striving, the more does your example inspire your fellow combatant, the more do you become a fount of healthful influence, a source of enrichment and blessing to all around you.

II. SELF RESTRAINT AND SELF DISCIPLINE. The severe physical discipline to which the athletes subjected themselves was gladly borne for the sake of the “corruptible crown” they sought to win. Not that the perishable wreath of wild olive encircling the victor’s brow was in itself the thing he cared for. It was but the symbol of something else. To be conscious of the mastery, to have his name proclaimed by the herald before the assembled multitude as one who had conferred honour and renown on his family, his tribe, his country,that was his reward. So that the very ephemeral character of the crown made it the more striking witness to the nobility of man’s nature, to the truth that he can never find his satisfactions in the region of sense; they belong, after all, to the super sensible, the ideal world. Every form of ambition greater than the apparent object will account for or warrant, is proof of this. The enthusiasm that magnifies its objects beyond their real dimensions, and invests them with a fictitious charm, is always a significant memorial of man’s relation to a higher and a better world. At the same time, this striving for the corruptible crown reminds us how vain often are the rewards of earthly ambition, and how the price men pay often for their successes is a very costly one. They surrender that which is far more precious than the thing they gain. They “spend their money for that which is not bread, and their labour for that which satisfieth not.” In “seeking to save their life, they lose it.” The law of the heavenly race is the reverse of this. As the unsubstantial, the delusive, the perishable, is relinquished, the soul wins for itself the “inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” You lose the lower life to gain the higher. “Temperate in all things.” Let not the word “temperance” have to our minds a limited and exclusive meaning, one which, however important, does not cover the whole field of the Scripture applications. The Christian is called to be temperate alike in all his thoughts, emotions, words, and ways; in his joys and sorrows, his schemes and activities, his personal indulgences and personal mortifications; in his worldly ambitions, and even in the zeal of his religious life. But “the flesh” must needs be the chief occasion for the exercise of this self regulating grace. “I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage.” Nothing could be more expressive of that subjugation of our lower nature by which we can alone win the crown of the spirit. Not that there is any essential virtue in mere physical austerities and mortifications.

“Pride may be pampered while the flesh grows lean.”

Asceticism is no natural outgrowth of Christianity, but rather of its unnatural alliance with that pagan philosophy which regarded matter and spirit as essentially antagonistic principles. Christ teaches us to honour the body that God’s wonder working hand has framed, and that he makes the temple of his Spirit. But then do we most honour the body when we make it most thoroughly the submissive servant of the soul’s diviner purposes, confronting it, meeting it full in the face, as it were, with the swift violence of our holy purpose, when it dares to obstruct the spirit in its path to the heavenly crown.

III. THE CONFIDENCE THAT SPRINGS FROM FAITH. “Not as uncertainly, not as beating the air.” Vivid realization, unwavering assurance,this was the secret of Paul’s strength. The prize of his high calling stood out clear and luminous to his view. He had no misgivings as to the reality of it. It filled the whole field of his vision with its glory, and the whole energy of his nature was consecrated to its pursuit. We must rise above the chilling, paralyzing mists of doubt, and see the heavenly crown clearly before us, if we would have there to be any real vigour in our spiritual striving. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”W.

HOMILIES BY D. FRASER

1Co 9:26, 1Co 9:27

A good servant of Jesus Christ.

It was quite in St. Paul’s manner to support his exhortations to Christian service by adducing his own example and experience. Those who were not acquainted with him might misconstrue such references and set them down to a vain glorious spirit, but no one could do so who knew how fully and fervently this apostle ascribed all that he was and did as a Christian to the grace of Jesus Christ. “Not I, but the grace of God which was with me.” “Not I, but Christ liveth in me.”

I. ILLUSTRATIONS OF CHRISTIAN SERVICE.

1. St. Paul was as a runner in the Isthmian games, and so ran “not uncertainly.” Suppose one to attempt that course without his mind made up as to the reason why or the goal to which he should run, moving without spirit or purpose, looking to this side and to that; he could take no prize. One must have a clear course and a definite aim in the race which is set before the servants of Christ.

2. St. Paul was as a boxer in the arena, and fought not as one “beating the air.” The poet Virgil has the same expression in describing a boxer who missed his antagonist: “Vires in ventum effudit” (‘Aeneid,’ bk. 5:446). To do so is to waste force. He fights well who plants his blows skilfully and makes them tell. The apostle was a man of peace, but he needed boldness and firmness, as well as love and patience, for his hard service. He had journeys to make, trials to bear, testimonies to raise, controversies to conduct, difficulties to adjust, calumnies to refute, sorrows to assuagea great and arduous career; and, by the grace of God, he put all his force into it, ran his race of duty with ardour, fought his fight of faith with resolution.

II. TRAINING AND DISCIPLINE FOR SUCH SERVICE. “I buffet my body, and bring it into subjection.” He who would subdue evil in others must suppress it in himself. Now, the apostle found that the gospel was hindered, not so much by intellectual objection, as by moral depravity. The flesh lusted against the spirit. He had felt this in himself, and knew that the flesh prevailed by fastening on the organs of the body and inducing indulgence or excess. So he brought himself into good training for active Christian work by bruising the body and “mortifying its deeds.” He would not surfeit or pamper it, lest he should stupefy the soul. This is something quite different from that “neglect of the body” which St. Paul elsewhere mentions among the superstitions of a delusive piety. To deprive the body of necessary food and sleep is to disable the powers of the mind in hope of purifying the soul. Such has been the practice of men and women in the ascetic life, and at one time it took the form of a frenzy, when the Flagellants traversed a considerable part of Europe in long processions, with covered faces, chanting penitential hymns, and continually applying the scourge to one another’s naked backs. Those fanatics meant well, and, indeed, supposed that they were following the Apostle Paul. But to such foolish and cruel actions few of us are prone at the present day. Our danger lies on the opposite side. We do not hold the body sufficiently under control. We give it ease and luxury and ornament; we allow dangerous scope to those cravings and passions which have a physical basis, and so our spiritual life languishes, and we can put no glow of feeling or strength of purpose into the service of Christ. Corinth was a city notorious for profligacy. The Christians there must have known that, if a young athlete did not hold himself apart from the vices of the place, he could win no distinction in the public games. Every such competitor had to resist indulgence, and bring his frame to a firmness of muscle and a full strength of vitality which would enable it to bear the fatigue and strain of the Isthmian contests. In like manner St. Paul, for a higher purpose, restrained and governed himself, cultivated simplicity in the tastes and habits of his outward life, studied to keep himself in spiritual health and vigour, that he might run well and fight well for his heavenly Master.

III. AN EYE TO CONSEQUENCES. To sustain his purpose, St. Paul kept in view the prize of success and the disgrace of failure.

1. The prize would be an incorruptible crown. In desiring this, the good servant is not open to any charge of selfishness or vain glory. He thought of no prize, conceived of no praise or glory for himself which was not wrapped up in the praise and glory of Jesus. He had no desire to sit by himself on a high seat, with a chaplet or garland on his brow, drinking in his own praises. To see the people who had been converted to Christ through his labours safe in the kingdom would be to him a crown of rejoicing. And to see Christ praised and magnified would be to the good servant a great recompense of reward.

2. The disgrace of failure would be the Master’s disapproval. How mortifying for one who had been a herald to others to be excluded at last as unworthy of a prize! Paul had preached to others, and called them to the Christian race, like the herald at the public games of Greece, who proclaimed the rules and conditions of the contest, and summoned runners or combatants to the lists. Alas for him if, through self indulgence or want of thoroughness in his ministry, he should be disapproved by the great Judge at the close of the day! It is quite a mistake to infer from this that St. Paul was still uncertain about his ultimate salvation, and afraid of being cast away in his sins. That would, indeed, be strange and perplexing in the face of his strong expressions to the contrary in such passages as Rom 8:38, Rom 8:39; 2Ti 1:12. The question here is not of a sinner’s salvation, but of a believer’s service of doing well or ill in ministry; and fear of failure was and always is the obverse side of the desire of success. St. Paul was a very favoured servant of Christ, but it was none the less necessary for him to remember the need of diligence and self government in view of the day when the Master will call all his servants to account, and either reward or disapprove them at his coming. Indeed, the remembrance of this is needful for all of us as a caution against presumptuous and careless living. If the doctrine of salvation by grace be taught alone, men are apt to abuse it, and become spiritually conceited and morally heedless. The corrective is the call to service. “If a man serve me, him will my Father honour.” Be not half hearted. So run as to attain: so fight as to overcome. Be not faint hearted. Pray as you run: pray as you fight. “They that wait on the Lord shall renew their strength.”F.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK

1Co 9:1, 1Co 9:2

The rights of apostleship.

One of St. Paul’s chief difficulties arose from the efforts of his enemies to disprove his claims to apostleship. There does not seem to have been in the early Church a common understanding as to what constituted an apostle, and it was readily observed that the grounds of St. Paul’s claim differed from the grounds on which the older apostles claimed. This, indeed, was but a surface appearance of difference, and did not reach the heart of the matter; but it sufficed to give the enemies of St. Paul an opportunity of questioning his authority, and even of asserting that, in the extravagance of his self esteem, he had assumed a position and office which in no sense belonged to him. It will be seen from his letters that he was very jealous of his position as an apostle, and persisted in claiming the rights which belonged to the office. We may, therefore, recall to mind the general grounds on which he believed himself to be an apostle, and the more special signs of his apostleship which ought to have commended his claim to the Corinthians. St. Peter, on the occasion of filling the betrayer’s place, had declared a condition of apostleship for which he gives no kind of authority. According to his idea (Act 1:21, Act 1:22), “Of the men therefore 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 the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.” Probably St. Peter was led to this idea by our Lord’s appointment of the apostles as his witnesses, and he conceived that an apostle must have a complete knowledge to be a true witness. But the essential condition of apostleship is rather to be found in the direct pershnal call to the office by the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Each one of the first twelve our Lord personally called. St. Paul he directly and personally called. No man can claim the office. The number can never be increased, unless Christ should be pleased to make himself manifest again, and call men to the office. St. Paul saw the Son of man, and heard his voice, and received his direct call, when smitten by the light near Damascus. Where there had been this direct personal call of Christ, there would surely be a seal of the call in a Divine endowment of miraculous power. This the first twelve apostles had, and this it is certain St. Paul also had. This, then, was the general ground of his claim; but he further urges upon the Corinthians that they had special reasons for accepting him as an apostle. The power of Christ which had come to them through him carried its own testimony. “The seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.” God had witnessed to him by crowning his labours with success; and the Corinthians had felt his apostolic power. Now St. Paul had to vindicate his personal dignity and liberty and right as an apostle. He had persisted in working for his own living at the trade of the tent maker, in which he had been brought up, and his malicious enemies argued that he did so because he felt that he could not press his claim to maintenance, as did the other apostles. “The followers of St. Peter, with malicious ingenious logic, argued from this practice of St. Paul that his dignity and authority were thereby proved to be somewhat inferior to that of St. Peter and the Lord’s brethren, who were supported by the Christian Church.” In this chapter St. Paul declares his apostolic liberty and rights, especially in three matters.

I. HIS SIGHT OF ENTERING INTO SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS. St. Peter had a wife. Other apostles were married men. And St. Paul might have been had he chosen to be. If he voluntarily refrained from entering into this social relation, because of the limitations which its responsibilities would entail on him, and because of the itinerant character of his labours, no one need assume that he abandoned his rights or failed to recognize them. Had he so minded, he could have made both wife and family chargeable to the Churches, and the burden those who loved him would gladly have borne. Voluntary abstention from the pressing of a man’s rights ought never to be construed as the surrender of those rights. So St. Paul lays down the true and only principle upon which the celibacy of the clergy can be recognized. Every clergyman has the right to “lead about a sister, a wife,” but any clergyman may refuse to exercise his right, and may voluntarily set his own liberty in bonds, if he thinks that he may thus gain a higher power in the service of his Divine Lord. The principle is equally applicable in the life of the ordinary Christian. Abridgments of liberty are oftentimes necessary, and yet more often advisable, but they never involve abandonments of rights. Constantly the Christian man says, “I may, but I will notI will not for Christ’s sake.”

II. HIS RIGHT OF WORKING FOR INDEPENDENT MAINTENANCE. This was certainly a peculiarity in St. Paul, and no doubt other teachers felt it to be a kind of reproach upon them. But St. Paul never argues that it was a necessary duty for others. Any other man might feel it a duty, just as he did; but he had no intention of making his conduct in this respect even an example. He was placed in peculiar circumstances; he was of a singularly sensitive temperament; he laboured among all classes, and was anxious to keep away everything that might be made a reproach of the gospel; he was determined to make his motives quite clear, and so he would receive from the Churches no maintenance, only, in times of necessity, some kindly and helpful gifts. Now, we need not even say that St. Paul was right in this. He had an unquestioned ministerial claim to support in carnal things. We can only say he had a right also to exercise his liberty, and work for his own living, if he chose so to do. Those who work for their living may serve Christ in the preaching of his gospel; and those who preach his gospel may work for their living, if they prefer so to do.

III. HIS RIGHT OF CLAIMING THE DUE REWARDS OF HIS WORK. (Verse 7.) This is urged by three figures: the support of the soldier in war; the partaking of the fruitage of his vineyard by the vine dresser; and the sharing of the milk, given by the cattle, by him who has them in charge. The true rewards of Christian service for others are

(1) their loving confidence and esteem;

(2) the expressions of that love in their holy lives and labours; and

(3) the more personal expressions of their love in gifts and care and kindly concern for the temporal well being of their teachers.R.T.

1Co 9:7-12

The duty of supporting the ministry.

The separation of certain members of the Christian Church to the specific work of the pastor, the teacher, or the missionary, may be said to have begun at the election of the “seven,” commonly called “deacons,” which is narrated in Act 6:1-6. Then certain persons gave themselves up to the study and ministry of the Word and to prayer. The question how they were to be fed and supported was at once met by the members of the Church, who, in response to a natural and reasonable demand, and in full accordance with the principles and practices of the Mosaic dispensation, made provision for their material necessities. Our Lord, in sending out his disciples on their trim mission, had laid down the principle that they should not supply their own material wants, because “the labourer is worthy of his hire.” Much has been said in recent times against an organized Christian ministry, dependent on the good will of the several Churches they may serve; but the Scripture cannot be read with unprejudiced mind, and the reader fail to perceive that “they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” In the verses now before us St. Paul urges the duty of supporting the ministry by three lines of argument and illustration.

I. BY COMMON WORLDLY ILLUSTRATION.

1. The soldier, who, if he fights the battles of his country, reasonably expects his country to provide for his maintenance and his comfort.

2. The vine dresser, who expects to reap in fruitage the reward of his labours in the vineyard.

3. And the keeper of a flock, who day by day lives upon the milk of the flock. These illustrations only touch the general principle that the worker has a claim to a portion at least of the results of his labour. The illustration of the soldier is the one most to St. Paul’s point, because, while doing a special kind of work for us, he looks for our care of his temporal necessities. So the minister, in doing a spiritual work for us, commits to us the care of his “carnal things.”

II. BY SCRIPTURE RULES. (Act 6:9.) The law is taken from Deu 25:4. The figure is that of the oxen, who were driven to and fro over a hard space of ground, called a threshing floor, on which the cornstalks were spread, so that by their “treadings” the grain might be separated from the husk. Those oxen were engaged in doing work for the good of others, and it was only fitting that they should be provided for while they laboured.

III. BY THE RITUAL LAWS OF THE OLDER MOSAISM. (Deu 25:13.) Priests and Levites had special maintenance, and this almost entirely by the offerings and good will of the people. They had certain towns allotted for their residence, certain portions of the sacrifices for their food, and certain tithes for the supply of their other necessities, and such a regulation could in no sense be regarded as an unreasonable burden. St. Paul even declares, upon his apostolic authority, that “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” When we have sufficiently proved that the material support of a spiritual ministry is one of the first duties of the Christian professor, we are prepared to argue and to illustrate further that a generous, liberal, hearty, and even self denying provision is comely and noble; and that in securing such generous provision our thankful love may find a most fitting expression.R.T.

1Co 9:15-23

St. Paul an exception.

He wishes it to be understood that he does precisely what he thinks to be right, but does not wish the peculiarity of his conduct to be made a model for others. There are things in life concerning which each man must make his own individual stand, upon which he may find himself compelled to take an individual and exceptional line. And he may do this without opposition to others, without making himself in any way objectionable. St. Paul found sufficient reason for the adoption of a singular course of conduct in relation to his apostleship or ministry. He would receive nothing in a way of payment or reward from the Churches among whom he laboured. His reasons probably were:

1. That the older apostles never quite approved of his work, and he found it better to act in an independent way, and make no one responsible for his modes of work, or the advanced truths which were given him to teach.

2. That he was, throughout his missionary labours, keenly watched by active and bitter enemies, who were ever ready to misrepresent his conduct, and fashion accusations against him. He well knew how promptly they would seize on his receiving payments, and declare that he was mercenary, and only preached for selfish ends.

3. That he had, in his hands, a kind of skillthat of tent makingwhich he could readily turn to account wherever he went. Probably it was the second of these reasons that more particularly influenced him. It was most important that he should give his enemies no opportunities or advantages against him; and he would even refuse some of his rights and privileges, if the assertion of them could be made into a hindrance of his work. The point to be considered from his exceptional conduct is the force of the double law that must rule a Christian life. We must ask both what is lawful and what is expedient, both what is necessary and what is becoming. We must beware of forcing our rights, as they may stand by the rule and by the law; and we should see that our personal and individual conduct must be ordered so that the impressions which others receive from it shall be helpful to them and to the Church. We must watch against even unintentionally causing offence and hindering Christ’s work.R.T.

1Co 9:20, 1Co 9:21

Under the Law and without Law, both to be one for Christ.

The apostle is illustrating what we may call the “Christian law of accommodation,” and is urging

(1) the objects for which such accommodation may be permitted; and

(2) the careful limitations under which such accommodation must be put.

There can be no accommodation of Christian principle and truth. The sphere for it is

(1) the expression of principle in adaptation to persons and circumstances; and

(2) things indifferent, such as the wearing of Chinese dress by English missionaries in China, which might seem to have the appearance of disguise, but may be advisable in order not to shock the conservative prejudices of the race. Still, in application to modern life, accommodation, with full preservation of principle, is demanded, and is the secret of gracious and kindly relations in the family, in society, and in the Church. So St. Paul submitted to “take vows,” “and be at charges,” in accordance with Jewish regulations; and so he accommodated himself to Greek notions, as at Athens, by references to philosophy and poetry. For some illustrations of his method of action, see Act 16:3; Act 18:18; Act 21:26; Act 23:6; Act 26:4, Act 26:5, Act 26:6, Act 26:22, Act 26:27; and also Gal 2:3, Gal 2:12, Gal 2:14. In the verses, observe the explanatory parenthesis in Gal 2:21, which is a kind of apology for the use of the term “without Law.” See St. Paul’s argument in Rom 2:14, Rom 2:15. Gentiles might be so regarded by the Jews, who were under well recognized Mosaic rules, but they were really under the living law of Christ, to whom they had yielded heart and life. We notice that

I. MEN ARE CLASSED BY THEIR RELATIONS TO LAW. The term “law” may be applied to:

1. The natural conditions under which God has created us and set us. These are known, more or less distinctly, to every man.

2. Particular laws, directly revealed to certain nations of men. Reference here is to the particular revelation of law made to the Jews, which was rendered necessary,

(1) to secure their isolation from other nations; and

(2) to aid them in holding fast the special trust of two truthsthe unity and the spirituality of God which had been committed to their charge. That Law given to the Jews was

(1) civil,

(2) ceremonial,

(3) moral.

The moral law alone was of permanent obligation; and it was precisely the same moral law that was, in other forms and terms, revealed to the entire human race. The civil and ceremonial laws of Mosaism were but a fence around the moral law, and an aid to keeping it. St. Paul recognized no permanent obligation in it. But seeing he had to do with men who exaggerated the importance of this formal law, he would stand with them on their level, and hope to raise them up to his. The secret of all good teaching, and of all high spiritual influence, is condescending to the level of those whom we would uplift and bless.

II. MEN REGARDED AS INDEPENDENT OF LAW. That is, of particular and ceremonial law. The mass of mankind never came under the shadow of Mosaism. Yet they too were “God’s offspring,” for whom he surely cared, and to whom, in wise and gracious ways, he had also revealed his will. Such men came under

(1) natural law, written in the conscience;

(2) under social laws, tabulated by rulers and governors; and,

(3) when they became Christians, they voluntarily put themselves under Christ’s living rule, which is the everlasting law of God, finding present daily adaptations precisely to us. To these St. Paul brought the gospel, and he persisted in dealing with them just as they were. He would not require them to come under Jewish yokes in order to gain a Christian standing through Mosaism.

III. MEN DEALT WITH ON THEIR COMMON STANDING GROUND. The gospel knows nothing of such peculiarities as “under Law” or “without Law.” It recognizes only two standings of men before God.

1. Sinners. And to men, as such, it brings a message of forgiveness and eternal life.

2. In Christ. And to them it brings its varied unfoldings of Christian duty and of Christian privilege. Impress the limits of the adaptations made by the Christian worker.R.T.

1Co 9:24-27

The laws of the Christian race.

The illustration used in these verses is one which St. Paul frequently employs, and we cannot but think that he must have actually seen some of these games, for the impression made by them on his mind is that which comes from personal observation and impression rather than from knowledge through books. There is special force in his allusions to the games in writing to the Corinthians, because the set of games known as the Isthmian were held in the isthmus on which Corinth stood. For details of the games, reference may be made to the exegetical portion of this Commentary, and to the articles in classical and Biblical cyclopaedias. They cannot be precisely compared with anything that we have in modern times, because they were regarded by the Greeks as great national and religious festivals. Dean Stanley, writing of these Isthmian games, says, “This was one of the festivals which exercised so great an influence over the Grecian mind, which were, in fact, to their imaginations what the temple was to the Jews and the triumph to the Romans.” St. Paul refers to the game in order to enforce his exhortation to self restraint, and we may find three great practical laws commended by him.

I. THE LAW OF TRAINING. “For thirty days previous to the conflicts the candidates had to attend the exercises of the gymnasium, and only after the fulfilment of these conditions were they allowed, when the time arrived, to contend in the sight of assembled Greece.” The training was very severe, conducted upon carefully prescribed rules, and designed to nourish vigorous physical power and precise skill for the kind of contest in which the man was to engage. We are to apply the illustration to moral and religious culture. Observing:

1. How God applies the law of training in the preparation of his servants for their work; as by sending Joseph into bondage; Moses to the Egyptian court and the Horeb desert; David into the wilderness of Judah; our Lord into the scenes of temptation; and St. Paul into Arabia. The providential dealings with men are meant to afford opportunities of training for their life work.

2. How men are required to meet the “law of training” by making personal efforts to secure fitness for the work to which they are called, such training taking the general form of soul culture, and the specific forms of adaptation to work. Anything that is worth our doing is worth our preparing to do well.

II. THE LAW OF TEMPERATENESS. (Verse 25.) We are wont to associate this law only with drinking. It applies to all the passions of the body, indulgences of the appetite, and relationships of the life. The Grecian philosopher says, “Wouldest thou conquer at the games? Thou must be orderly, spare in food, must abstain from confections, exercise at a fixed hour whether in heat or cold, and drink not cold water nor wine.” Applied to moral and religious life, the law requires us

(1) to avoid the haste and hurry that plucks from us rest, and quiet, and calmness, and meditative moods;

(2) to keep from those religious excitements which are characteristic of our times, but unfriendly to real spiritual growth;

(3) to take up Christian work with a seriousness that will ensure “patient continuance in well doing;”

(4) to keep Christian habits, of reading, visiting, etc., under judicious control, so that we may not be brought under the power of any. Everything is at our service and for our use, within careful limits, and these limits no rules can fix, only our own good judgment decides them.

III. THE LAW OF SELF MASTERY. (Verse 27.) This reminds us that training means trial, and temperateness means severe and painful dealings with sell. “The Christian career is not merely a race, but a conflict; and a conflict, not only with others, but with one’s self. St. Paul had to contend with the fleshly lusts of the body, the love especially of ease, the indisposition to hardship and toil so natural to humanity.” The contest of life is between the regenerate will and the enslaved and corrupt body with its inclinations and motions (see Rom 7:1-25.). St. Paul says that the renewed will must hold the body in subjection and service. But such complete self mastery is the product of long struggle. He who fully gains it has won the moral race, and may receive the “incorruptible crown.”R.T.

1Co 9:27

The relation of personal consistency to public labors.

The expression used by the apostle here, and translated, “I keep under my body,” is literally, “I strike under the eve; I beat black and blue” (comp. Luk 18:5). Mastery of the body, repression of the lusts and indulgences and evil inclinations of the body, a strong hand upon the “self,” are necessary to ensure “consistency;” yet what is the worth of a Christian teacher whose life tells one story and his lips another? St. Paul contemplates with horror the possibility of his preaching the gospel to others, and, by reason of his personal inconsistencies, proving at last a “castaway.” No amount of religious profession, no fervent in religious work, no mere utterance of religious sentiment, can avail without personal and practical consistency of life. On this point we dwell further.

I. THE SENSES IN WHICH PERSONAL CONSISTENCY AND PUBLIC LABOR ARE DISTINCT THINGS. It may be urged that the question is one of gifts for a particular work, and not of personal character. It may be said that we do work with the skill and power entrusted to us, and the good. workman may be personally of good or bad character. However true that may be in common lifeand we should be prepared to contest its truth even thereit cannot possibly be true in the religious spheres, because all Christian work is the impress of the man himself, is inseparable from the force which his character gives to it. Exactly what we ask for in religious spheres is not mere truth, but truth with some stamp of personal conviction upon it; not mere duty, but duty pressed on us by the force of some holy example. The true preacher is the man who bears in on us the force of his own life and feeling. The true teacher is the man who can win our confidence in himself. The true visitor benefits and blesses the poor and the sick by the restings and comfortings of his own quick sympathies, that come from sanctified character. So in the religious spheres there can be no separation between holy character and faithful labour. Show that, just here, serious mistake is made, and much seeming service is unacceptable to God and of no real value to men.

II. THE POSSIBILITY OF THE INCONSISTENT MAN DOING GOOD WORK. In view of what has been said in the previous division, it would seem to be an impossibility, but those remarks may be limited to the higher forms of Christian work and the exertion of spiritual influence. Scripture teaches us, by its examples, that God. claims the service of even ungodly men, and deigns to work by them. Of Cyrus God says, “I girded thee, though thou hast not known me,” etc. But perhaps there is no distress in life like that which we feel on finding that those who have helped us in our religious life fail morally. When such distress comes to us, we are almost ready to make shipwreck of our faith.

III. THE FORCE ADDED TO ALL GOOD WORK BY THE CONSISTENT CHARACTER OF THE WORKER. Reviewing the influences for good which have rested upon our life, we can but feel that the holiest and mightiest and best have come from consistent and holy men and women, who bore upon us the force of saintly character, and whose memories still keep us true and faithful. When McCheyne died, a note was found unopened on his study table. It was from some one who had recently been brought to God through his preaching, but the note said it was not so much the truth that had impressed, as the sincerity and holy fervour of the preacher. It is the great secret of the highest work. What a man is tells more for the honour of God and. the blessing of men than merely what a man does. So we may be warned by the apostle, and take heed lest, while working for others, we ourselves should prove “castaways.”R.T.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

1Co 9:1. St. Paul had preached the Gospel at Corinth about two years, in all which time he had taken nothing of them, 2Co 11:7-9. This, by some of the opposite faction, and particularly, as we may suppose, by their leader, was made use of to call in question his apostleship. For why, if he were an Apostle, should he not use the power of an Apostle, to demand maintenance where he preached? In this chapter St. Paul vindicates his apostleship; and in answer to theseinquiries gives the reason why, though he had a right to maintenance, yet he preached gratis to the Corinthians. “My answer, says he, to these inquisitors, is, that though, as being an Apostle, I know that I have a right to maintenance, as well as Peter, or any other of the Apostles, who all have a right, as is evident from reason and from Scripture;yet I neither have used, nor shall make use of my privilege among you, for fear lest, if it cost you any thing, that should hinder the effect of my preaching. I would neglect nothing that might promote the Gospel. I do not content myself with doing barely what is my duty, for by my extraordinary call and commission it is now incumbent on me to preach the Gospel; but I endeavour to excel in my ministry, and not to execute my commission in a manner just enough to serve the turn. For if those who are in the Agonistic games, aiming at victory to obtain only a corruptible crown, deny themselves in eating and drinking, and other pleasures; how much more does the eternal crown of glory deserve that we should do our utmost to obtain it? To be as careful in not indulging our bodies, in denying our pleasures, in doing every thing that we can in order to get it, as if there were but one that should have it? Wonder not therefore, if I, having this in view, neglect my body, and those outward conveniences which, as an Apostle sent to preach the Gospel, I might claim, and make use of: wonder not that I prefer the propagating of the Gospel, and making of converts, to all care and regard of myself.” This seems the design of the Apostle, and will throw light on the following chapter. See Locke.

Am I not free? “Am I not at liberty, as much as any other of the Apostles, to make use of the privileges due to that office?””Am I not an Apostle?” It was necessary, in order to St. Paul’s being an Apostle, and a witness of the resurrection, that he should have seen Jesus Christ. See Act 22:14-15; Act 26:16. 1Co 15:8.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

1Co 9:1 . The first two questions bring out the fact that he was seemingly exalted far above any such consideration and renunciation on his own part as he had announced in 1Co 8:13 ; the third question corroborates the full purport of the second; and the fourth places him in probative relation to his readers, whom Paul , Theodoret.

] free , dependent upon no man. Comp 1Co 9:19 .

] Observe the solemnity of the phrase; his readers knew what was implied in it on his lips. The reference here is not to his having seen Christ in His earthly life , which would have had nothing to do with his apostleship, and which, moreover, cannot be proved to have taken place in the case of Paul at all, certainly not from 2Co 5:16 , but to the sight of the glorified Jesus , which was first vouchsafed near Damascus to call him to be an apostle (Act 9:17 ; Act 22:14 f., Act 26:16 ; Act 15:8 ), and was often repeated afterwards, although in different forms (Act 18:9 ; Act 22:17 f.; 2Co 12:1 ). [1394] It is an arbitrary thing to exclude those later appearances (Estius, Flatt, Billroth, Olshausen, Osiander, Hofmann), since they, too, were granted to the apostle as such, and in connection with his apostolic relation to Christ ; they could only serve to confirm his position of equality in the apostleship, and in this bearing were doubtless familiar to his readers from Paul’s own lips.

] does not belong to ; just as little does it to (Pott), or to alone (Rckert), but is meant to bring out the Christian character of the whole . . For out of Christ, in whom (as the object of faith) the Christian lives and moves, outside of this element of the new life and standing, the Corinthians, who owed their Christian existence to the apostle, were not his work. The rendering: by the help of the Lord , is arbitrary, and does not suit the context. Some of those who adopt it understand of God (Beza, Piscator, Flatt, Rckert, al [1395] , following Chrysostom and Theophylact). Comp 1Co 4:15 .

[1394] Baur takes advantage of this stress laid on the fact of having seen Christ, to support his hypothesis as to the close connection of the Petrine and the Christ-party. See against this Rbiger, p. 128 f. According to Schenkel, the allusion is to the visions of the Christ-party (the existence of which he has first of all to assume). The true view is, that Paul is here indicating how, in respect of this point also, he stands in no whit behind the original apostles. , , , Theodoret. And it is no lower thing to have seen Christ in His glory than to have seen Him in His humiliation upon the earth. Comp. Calvin. As against the interpretations which make this a visionary beholding of Christ (Baur, Holstein, al. ), see Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 220 f. How very distinctly Paul himself describes, especially in Act 22:14 , a bodily appearance! See also Gal 1:1 , comp. with ver. 15. Nothing contrary to this can be proved from the words and (1Co 15:8 ), since these do not determine the kind of seeing and appearing. Comp. e.g. the use of the latter term in Act 7:26 of a bodily appearing.

[1395] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

B. An Illustration of Self-denial drawn from the Apostles Life, in the Renunciation of his own Rights and Liberties for the Good of others

1Co 9:1-23

1. Statement of his own rights as an Apostle

1Co 9:1-14

1Am I not an apostle? am I not free? [Am I not free?1 am I not an apostle?] have I not seen Jesus Christ [om.Christ2 ] our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? 2If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine3 apostleship are ye in the Lord. 3Mine answer to them that do examine 4me is this:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink? 5Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 6Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?5 7Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit6 thereof? or7 [om. or] who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 8Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?8 9For it is written in the law of Moses,9 Thou shalt not muzzle10 the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is [was] written: that [because] he that plougheth should plough in hope; and that [om. that] he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope11 [in hope of partaking]. 11If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap12 your carnal things? 12If others be partakers of this power over you,13 are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used [did not use] this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder, the gospel of Christ. 13Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait14 at the altar are partakers with the altar? 14Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Co 9:1-3. The fundamental principle and purpose of his, having been briefly stated in 1Co 8:13, he now proceeds to enlarge upon it, by showing how he had, in fact, been practising self-denial out of love to the Lord and his brethren, and how he had, in a far higher manner than he had demanded of them, renounced his own rights and prerogatives for the sake of winning souls and spreading the Gospel,[This whole passage, thus incidentally introduced, is one of the most elevated, heavenly, and beautiful discussions in the New Testament, and contains one of the most ennobling descriptions of the virtue of self-denial, and of the principles which should actuate the Christian ministry, any where to be found. All classic writings, and all records of antiquity, would be searched in vain for an instance of such pure and elevated principle as is presented in this chapter. Barnes].He begins with four questions [abruptly introduced, which bring to view the position from which he acted, and answer any objections they might be inclined to make against his appealing to his own conduct. It would almost appear as if he had properly concluded the subject at 1Co 8:13, and then returned to it from this new point of view on the arrival of fresh tidings from Corinth, informing him of the imputations which he now proceeds to dispel. Stanley]. In the first question [see critical notes] the asserts his independence,a circumstance which might appear to exempt him from the need of such circumspection as he above speaks of; in the second, his high function as an Apostle, which fully warranted this independence, and rendered him responsible to Christ alone, whose ambassador he was; in the third, the grounds of his Apostleship in respect of the Lord; and in the fourth, the seal of his office in the Corinthian Church itself, and in his labors there. He thus takes ground from which naturally to pass over and speak of his own right to supporta right, however, of which he had made no use out of regard to higher interests. [And this is the point in his example which he wished to enforce as a lesson upon his readers].Am I not free?i. e., independent, [not in a moral sense, as having knowledge, and thus emancipated from foolish prejudices; but in a civil or legal sense, as at liberty to act as he chose, without being accountable to any man]. This point is resumed again in 1Co 9:19; and the fact that it is not discussed until after the full statement of his Apostolic rights, might have occasioned the transposition of the two questions in the Rec. [The order here followed is not only that of the most ancient MSS., but is also in conformity with the sense. His freedom, and not his Apostleship, was uppermost in his thoughts, and was the special occasion of the digression. Stanley.But still more.Am I not an Apostle?and so, placed even in a position of authority over others]? But, because this fact was disputed by his opponents, he is disposed to linger here a little; and, by way of proof, asks still further,Have I not seen the Lord?He here implies that his Apostleship rested on the same foundation as that of the other Apostles, viz., the immediate call of Christ and the eye-witness of His glorified life. In this respect, therefore, he was their equal. The sight of Christ he speaks of refers primarily to that first manifestation of the Lord to him which effected his conversion (1Co 15:3; Act 9:22-26); yet not exclusive of the later revelations mentioned in Act 22:17; Act 18:9, by which he was confirmed in his labors at Corinth. In no case are we to suppose any reference to his having seen Christ during his earthly life; this would have no significance whatever for the Apostleship of a Paul. That he says this with an eye to the Christ-party, as one that laid great stress on having visions, so that this were an argumentum ad hominem, is a very doubtful assumption. In opposition to Rckert, who supposes that Paul here alludes to his ecstatic vision in the temple, Neander says: It is impossible that such a vision should legitimate Apostleship.Are not ye my work in the Lord?The designation, in the Lord, does not qualify merely my work, [q. d., ye are the Lords work, not mine (Chrys.)], but it belongs to the whole question. They were his work as an Apostle, and were introduced by him into their new life, and constituted a Church of God, in the Lord, i. e., by virtue of his fellowship in the Lord. The phrase designates the element in which he wrought (comp. 1Co 3:5 ff., and 1Co 4:15). This thought he further expands.If I be not an apostle to others.By the others he means those coming into the church from abroad, it may be emissaries from Palestine who sought to mislead the Corinthians in regard to his Apostleship. is the Dative of judgment: in their view or opinion. expresses the fact as it was; hence, , not .Yet, doubtless, I am to you.The strengthens : yet, at least, or yet surely. More in full: Ye certainly cannot but acknowledge me as an Apostle; for ye yourselves, by the simple fact of your conversion, serve to confirm my claim There is no allusion here to the miracles of the Apostle (Chrys.). These were wrought also by those not Apostles. But that his preaching produced such results as could only be ascribed to the power of Christ, this was the proof of his assertion that he was Christs ambassador (comp. 2Co 3:2).for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord., seal, that wherewith one concludes, designates, and confirms any thing; then, confirmation, witness, original testimony. The words in the Lord belong here, also, to the whole clause, and imply that the fact asserted was of the Lord, inasmuch as it was He that had vouchsafed to the Apostle so glorious a result in setting up a church so richly endowed in one of the chief seats of heathenism. [This, although valid evidence, and as such adduced by the Apostle, is very liable to be abused. First, because much which passes for evidence is spurious; and, secondly, because the evidence of success is often urged in behalf of the errors of preachers, when that success is due to the truth they preach; thirdly, because small real success may be taken as evidence for more than it will fairly warrant. Still, there are cases when the success is of such a character, so undeniable and so great, as to supersede the necessity of any other evidence of a divine call. Such was the case with the Apostles, with the reformers, and with many of our modern missionaries. Hodge].These suggestions he concludes with 1Co 9:3.This is my answer to them who examine me.Here the words stand first by way of emphasis, just as come last for the same reason. The phraseology is that of the courts,, apology, defence, followed by the dative expressing the parties to whom it is made (2Co 12:19)., to judge, investigate, as magistrates at a trial, and here, for the purpose of opposition [a direct allusion to his antagonists. Stanley]. , this, is the subject and not the predicate of the sentence (as in Joh 1:19; Joh 17:3), and relates to the fact expressed just before, viz., the seal. To connect this sentence with what follows, [Chrys. and the E. V.], as introductory to it, is inconsistent with the contents there found; [for what follows is no answer to those who called his Apostleship in question. Hodge].

1Co 9:4-6. He comes now to the first point touched, viz., to his power, his civil rights which he had voluntarily renounced. The indisputableness of these he indicates by employing the form of a questionHave we not power to eat and drink?, taken together, expresses one idea (comp. 1Co 11:22, Rom 10:18); [so that asks the question, and is the thing in question; lit. Is it so that we have not power? Alford]. He here passes over into the plural, because he now takes into view his associates also, or because he desires to be regarded, not in his private capacity, but in that official position which he had in common with all the apostles and servants of God. [This, however, is doubted by Alford, who says that, at all events, it will not apply to 1Co 9:12, where the emphatic is personal.] In the matter of eating or drinking, he has no reference to the Jewish laws respecting food [as though he were claiming exemption from them (as Billr. and Olsh.)], since this would be remote from the context; nor yet to the flesh offered in sacrifices (as Schrader); but, as is shown in what follows, to his right to live at the expense of the Church, a right which was grounded on his apostolic office. The same principle is applied to his journeying officially in company with a Christian wife; for this is what he means when he saysHave we not power to lead about (with us) a sister wife? ( ).The allusion here is not to a serving matron [whose business it should be to minister out of her substance to the wants of the apostle as he went from place to place, according to the interpretation of Aug., Jerome, and most of the early fathers, and as is still maintained by the Romish commentators in the interest of celibacyan interpretation which very early gave rise to great abuses], for the subsequent reference to Peter forbids this (Mat 8:14), and it is inconsistent also with the qualifying term (comp. Osiander). Nor is it the right of marriage which is here in debate, for this is simply presupposed. The point made is Pauls right to have a companion in travel at the cost of the Church, and for this he refers to the precedent set by the rest of the apostles,as also the other Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas.The allusion here is general, and we are not to conclude from it that all these parties were married. But does he here use the word Apostles in its broader or strict sense? Osiander infers the former from the mention made of the brethren of our Lord in a way which seems to assert for them a higher position. These did, indeed, occupy a very comprehensive sphere of mission labor and important responsibility (as James, Gal 1:19); but there is no reason to believe that they stood higher than the twelve. But who are these brethren of the Lord? A prevailing dislike, existing even among evangelical churches, of regarding the mother of our Lord, who was conceived in her by the power of the Holy Ghost, as the mother of other children also, born in lawful wedlock, has led to the supposition, either that they were only brothers in a broader sense, being the cousins of Jesus on the mothers side (since such cases occurred among the Apostles, though never with this designation, see Luk 6:15 ff. and the parables in Matthew 10 and Mark 3), or that they were the sons of Joseph by an earlier marriage. The statement, born of the Virgin Mary, is an article in the Churchs creed; but the question, whether she bore children afterwards involves no point of Christian faith.Burger. Both the intimation given in Mat 1:25, as also the repeated association of these brethren with Mary by the evangelists, which points to a closer relationship with her than that of step-sons (comp. Act 1:14; Mat 12:46; Mat 13:55), render it probable that they were, in a literal sense, the sons of Mary, who at first followed in the train of Jesus with their mother (Joh 2:12), and later became estranged from Him (Joh 2:3 ff.; comp. Mar 3:21); but, finally, having rid themselves of their prejudices and unbelief by reason of His resurrection, entered the circle of His disciples (see Act 1:14, where they are expressly distinguished from the twelve).15 Among this number James stood preeminent. Him our Lord deemed worthy of a special manifestation of Himself after He was risen (1Co 15:7); and he was highly esteemed, and exercised great authority in the Church of Jewish converts (comp. Act 15:13; Act 21:18; Gal 1:19; Gal 2:9; also see Osiander and Meyer). By referring to the authority of James (in which his brethren shared according to their measure), Paul here puts them next to the Apostles in order to establish his own apostolic rights upon the matter in question more firmly against the opposition of the Judaizers. Osianders inference, therefore, in regard to the rest of the Apostles is untenable. In further self-justification, he adduces more particularly the example of Peterand Cephaswho occupied so high a position in the apostolic college (Neander) among the Jewish Christians. The assumption of a climax here, which makes Peter out to be the first of the Apostles (Cath.), is contradicted by 1Co 9:6Or I only and BarnabasPaul here associates with himself his early co-laborer, a man of high apostolic consideration (Act 4:36; Act 11:22 ff; Act 13:14). [This is the only mention of him in conjunction with St. Paul since the date of the quarrel, in Act 15:39. Stanley. It is not improbable that after his separation from our apostle he may have maintained the same self-denying practice of abstaining from receiving sustenance by those to whom he preached, which he had learned from Paul at the first. Alford. Observe his humility of mind, and his soul purified from all envy, how he takes care not to conceal him whom he knew to be a partaker with himself in this perfection. Chrys.]Have we not power to forbear working?The power or right () which he here speaks of is not distinct from those above mentioned, but is a consequence of the denial of them, apagogically introduced, q. d. In that case, then, it would appear that Barnabas and I are not at liberty to forbear working. By working () he means laboring for support (1Co 4:12; 2Th 3:8; Act 18:5); hence the sense is: are we alone under obligation to work for our livelihood while we preach? The Vulgate, by omitting the , translates hoc operandi, i. e., according to the Latin expositors, faciendi quod ceteri faciunt, according to Ambrose, of giving instruction for the sake of support at the cost of the churches)!

1Co 9:7-14. He next passes to establish the right claimed; and, first, from the analogy of secular laborers who are, at the same time, striking illustrations of the nature of apostolic labor (1Co 3:6; 2Ti 2:4). (1). The soldier.Who ever goes to war?, means, to march to the field, and is used alike of generals and soldiers, the same as in the active voice. Here it denotes the service of a private (Passow II., p. 1562).at his own charges? , the Dative of ways and means; i. e., so that he bears his own expenses. , rations, cost, stipend (Luk 3:14; Rom 6:23), [pr. whatever is bought to be eaten with bread. Hired soldiers were at first paid partly in rations of meat, grain, fruit. Rob. Lex.]. Paul here is arguing on the ground of natural right. Neander.(2). The husbandman.who planteth a vineyard, and eats not its fruit. , the accusative, instead of genitive after the , to eat, is to be taken as the simple objective (Khner, II. p. 181)]. (3). The shepherd.who feeds a flock, and eats not of the milk of the flock. , of the milk [Jelf, 621, 3, 1]. The wages of the shepherd in the East is, even to this day, a portion of the milk. [And this is partly converted into other articles of food, and also partly sold to obtain other commodities. Hence the case of the prep, , with the gen. (Alford)].From the analogy of human relations and usages, he passes to Scripture for proof, thus sustaining his position by a positive Divine ordinance.Say I these things as a man? , in a different sense from that in 1Co 3:3; here it stands in contrast with the Law of God, [and means, according to the modes of talking and acting prevalent among men]. Paul here puts an argument derived from human customs, and one taken from the Law over against each other. Neander.Or does the Law, too, () not speak these things? introduces the higher instance as something additional. , or stands apagogically as in 1Co 9:6 (Meyer), q. d., I would not appeal to human analogies had not the Law also spoken in the matter. On account of the , which would otherwise be superfluous, it were better to treat this as a question antithetic to the foregoing one, and specifying something in advance= () . But this would put first, as the object on which the emphasis lies, as the Rec., making a correct gloss here. and [the former used by the Apostle of himself, and the latter, of the Law] are to be distinguished as say and speak, the latter having special reference to the contents (comp. Rom 3:19), (Meyer). [ expresses the general idea of talking, whether reasonably or otherwise, implies speaking in a rational, intelligent manner. W. Webster, Syn. of the Gr. Test. This discriminating use of terms, is an incidental evidence not only of Pauls accuracy of language, but also of his delicate humility].The legal statute referred to is introduced with .For in the Law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox which treads out the corn.This law is found in Deu 25:4. The same allusion occurs in 1Ti 5:18, [from which passage the reading probably came. Alford].Is it for oxen that God is concerned? or does he say this altogether () on our account?The most direct and natural reason of this command, viz., kindness to brutes, is here left out of view by the Apostle, since he disavows for the great Lawgiver (God) a special care for oxen in this provision, and applies it, not as an inference from the less to the greater, or by way of accommodation, but directly to teachers, as to persons engaged in a higher kind of service, viz., the preparation of spiritual nutriment for the people (not, as Philo does, to men in general, as creatures endowed with reason). This interpretation of the Law rests on the correct presumption that the Law has a typical character, and that its enactments provide for higher relations, of which those specified are but the shadow (Col 2:17). In the rapid reasoning of the Apostle the intermediate thoughts are not brought out; but the higher intent of the words is directly exhibited, to the entire omission of the more obvious one, which here seems to be denied, as though God did not care for oxen. The attempt to modify the language by supplying the word only, is arbitrary. We are not to press this language too far. Taken literally, it would appear as if Paul denied a general providence in contradiction to what our Lord says. All ho intends here is to obtain from the particular Mosaic statute a more general ethical principle, applicable to the relations existing between man and man; and in doing this he does not separate between the interpretation and the application. Neander. And so Meyer says: This class of creatures were not the object of the Divine solicitude in this statute; that which expresses care for oxen was said not for their sakes, but on our account. [Every duty of humanity has for its ultimate ground, not the mere welfare of the animal concerned, but its welfare in that system of which man is the head, and therefore mans welfare. The good done to mans immortal spirit by acts of humanity and justice, infinitely outweighs the mere physical comfort of a brute which perishes. Alford].Presupposing an assent to the second question, he proceeds to argue in its favor by explaining the statute in its higher sense.For on our account was it written.[The , for, gives the reason for the assertion implied in the previous question].that,, is neither to be rendered because [as, Alford, Hodge, Stanley], since what follows cannot possibly be construed as a possible reason; neither is it intended to introduce a supposed quotation [as Rckert, who finds here the language of the Apocrypha]; but it is merely explicative, as pointing to the practical result.he that plougheth should plough in hope, and he that threshes, in the hope of partaking.[See Critical notes]. The designations plougher and sower, are not to be taken literally, as denoting either the oxen themselves, or the persons who engage in husbandry, since we are now in the higher range of thought; but they are to be interpreted spiritually, as exhibiting typically the labors of Christian teachers in accordance with the language of the statute and under the forms of agriculture. The emphasis here lies on the words in hope, [which accordingly in the Gr. come first]. The obligation to plough rests on hope, viz., the hope of enjoying the products of the field (comp. 2Ti 2:6). And so in the matter of threshing. [The language here is elliptical]. As in the first clause we must supply to the word hope what is mentioned in the second, viz., of partaking; so in the second we must supply the verb to thresh, or should thresh, as suggested by the first. From ignoring this, persons have been betrayed into attempts at alteration, as is shown in the various readings in different MSS. (comp. Osiander). The meaning is: that the teacher is bound to his office in hope of enjoying its compensations (Meyer); or, to express it more generally: the obligation to laborious efforts in our calling as laborers in the field of God (1Co 3:9), rests upon the hope, etc.In 1Co 9:11 he applies what has been said to the particular relation which he and his fellow-laborers sustained to the Corinthian Church in respect of their rights.If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?A like antithesis occurs in Rom 15:27. There is no reason for including Barnabas under the strongly prominent , we since nothing is known of his labors in Corinth. We may say with Meyer, that Paul, though speaking categorically, means in fact himself alone. The corresponding collocation in we to youwe yours, is emphatic. But the justification of his claim appears all the stronger, from the fact that the recompense to which the laborers are entitled, involves something far inferior to the blessings they have conferred. Spiritual things are the blessings which proceed from the Holy Spirit, the doctrines of revelation through which the germs of a Divine life are implanted in the heart which unfold themselves in knowledge, faith, love and hope; carnal things are such as belong to the lower natural life. In the figures of sowing and reaping, it is implied that the obtaining of the lower good is a natural sequence upon the bestowment of the higher, even as the harvest follows upon seed-time. The question: is it a great thing? points, however, to the disproportion which exists between the one and the other, q. d., It is a very small thing.The subj. () after , occurs commonly both in the more ancient Greek (Homer and the lyric poets), and in the later impure style. According to Osiander, it denotes something midway between definiteness and indefiniteness; a definite assertion of the right, with an indefiniteness in regard to its application.

Having thus established his claim to recompense on the ground of having imparted to them an incomparably higher good, he proceeds to set forth his case in still stronger light by comparing himself in this respect with other teachers who, with far less cause, still used their right to support.If others.The allusion here is not to false teachers precisely, (as in 2Co 11:12-20), since he is treating of a veritable right; but only to those whose title to their help stood far below his ().be partakers of this power over you.( ) is the objective genitive as in Mat 10:1; Joh 17:2, power of you, for power over you, viz: in reference to the reaping of carnal things, 1Co 9:11.are not we rather.The ellipsis is easily filled up from the preceding clause.After this strong assertion and maintenance of his right, he states what his course had actually been, and the reason of his conduct.nevertheless we did not use this power,[not because he dared not, as some might suppose, and thus infer a consciousness on his part of lacking apostolical authority].but we bear all things., as also in 1Co 13:7, and 1Th 3:1, lit. to cover, to protect, so that nothing shall penetrate, [used of vessels containing and holding without breaking], hence, to hold off, to hold out, to forbear, to endure in silence. (Passow II. e. p. 1526,)in order that we may not present any hinderance,, a cutting into the path, hence, impediment, hinderance. This would arise from charges of covetousness and self-seeking in the work of the ministry, which his independence of them would obviate.to the Gospel of Christ,[a prominent statement of that whose claim overrides every other, and in behalf of which it is fitting that one should do, and endure all things].After this preliminary statement of how he had renounced his own rights, he adds yet another proof of his title, taken from the analogy presented by the Jewish priesthood. Observe, not heathen priests, for there would be no fitness in appealing to the usages of those in support of his position, since they, were not divinely instituted. And to the usages of the Levitical priesthood he refers, as to a matter already familiar to his readers.Do ye not know, that those performing the things of the temple. , so the priests are first designated.This may imply the care and ministration of offerings, as often occurs in this sense among classic writers; or the performance of temple services in general. The latter is to be preferred, because the second designation points definitely to the duties at the altar.live of the temple,, lit. eat, i. e., obtain support from the temple, from the tithes, first-fruits, shew-bread, and other gifts brought hither [Comp. the speech of the Zealots in Jos. B. J. V. 1Co 13:6, , Stanley].those waiting at the altar. comp. 1Co 7:35. The reference of the first of these designations in this verse to the Levites and the second to the priests, is untenable. Both relate to the latter alone, and these only are analogous in their office to the Christian teachers.share with the altar. indicates that they received a portion of the sacrifices, and so partook with the altar of what was offered.even so,points to 1Co 9:13. (Pareus on the contrary: In consistency with all that has hitherto been said).the Lordi. e., Christ, whose language in Mat 10:10; and Luk 10:7 the Apostle has in mind. Here we meet with a citation from the sayings of our Lord, which affords fresh proof that Paul must have already had a collection of our Lords discourses. Neander.also,, in addition to the precepts of the old covenant to which this of our Lords corresponds. Were = it would have read: (Meyer).commanded those preaching the Gospel.[It was a command to ministers themselves not to seek their support from secular occupations, but,to live of the Gospel,as the priests lived of the temple. This law of Christ is obligatory on ministers and people; on the latter to give, and on the former to seek a support from the church, and not for worldly avocations. There are circumstances, as the case of Paul shows, under which this command ceased to be binding upon preachers. These are exceptions, to be justified, each on its own merits; the rule, as a rule, remains in force.Hodge. To defraud ministers of their due is to rob God.Wordsworth]. . i. e., the Gospel should be to them the means of support:[Observe, that here the Apostle is establishing an analogy between the rights of the sacrificing priests of the law, and of the preachers of the Gospel. Had those preachers been likewise themselves sacrificing priests, is it possible that all allusion to them in such a character should have been here omitted? But as all such allusion is here omitted, we may fairly infer that no such character of the Christian minister was then known. As Bengel remarks on 1Co 9:13 :If the mass were a sacrifice Paul would certainly have shaped to it the conclusion in the following verse.Alford.].

2. Testimony to his own self-denial in relation to his rights and powers

1Co 9:15-23

15But I have [om. have] used16 none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my [cause for] glorying void.17 16For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, [for18 ]woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!19 17For if I do this thing willingly, [of my own accord] I have a reward; but if against my will, [obligatorily] a dispensation [stewardship] of the Gospel is committed unto me. 18What is my20 reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ21 without charge, that I abuse not 19[use not to the full] my power in the Gospel. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. 20And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, [ins. although I myself am not under the law]22 that I might gain them that are under the law; 21To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God,23 but under the law to Christ8),that I might gain8 them that are without law. 22To the weak became I as [om. as24 ]weak, that I might gain the weak: 23I am made all things25 to all men, that. I might by all means save some. And this [all things26]I do for the gospels sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Co 9:15-18. After again reminding his readers that he had not made use of his rights, so clearly established, he goes on to protest, in the most positive manner, against the suspicion that he designed to avail himself of these arguments in the future.But I used none of these thingsi. e., not the proofs adduced (Chrys.), but (comp. 1Co 9:12) the right itself in its several particulars (1Co 9:4-5).And I wrote not these things in order that it might be so done,i. e., as I have written, or after the examples I have alleged,in me, , as in Mat 17:12, in my case, and this he confirms with great emphasis.for good were it for me,, suitable, reputable, honorable.rather to die. There is no need of interpreting to mean death by hunger [as Chrys., Estius, Billr]. In what follows, the text is much disputed. If, with Lachmann (who, instead of , supposes , comp. 1Co 15:31), and with Meyer, we read (according to B. D.27 [Cod. Sin.], then there is no need of punctuating, as Lachmann, ; but it were better to assume, with Meyer (2d ed.), an aposiopesis,* so that after we are to supply something like , or (which it was incompatible with his feelings to express). Then upon this a new independent sentence would follow. The whole would then be rendered thus: Good were it for me rather to die than (to use this my right, or to receive my reward); my cause for boasting no one shall make void, matter for glorying, not the act of glorying itself; and this, as appears from the context, was the preaching of the Gospel without compensation. Paul can here mean only a glorying in the presence of men. BurgerFrom a failure to perceive the aposiopesis above asserted there have arisen various attempts at amending the text. Because did not suit, has been adopted (by others ), to which a still appeared requisite, making it read: than that any one, etc.; and finally the fut. ind. has been changed into the aor. subj. This is the received text. In behalf of we have the authority of [Cod. Sin. and] A., which read . But if the aposiopesis is not allowed, then we must decide for reading of B. : than that any one shall make void. Meyer, in Ed. 3. regards the aposiopesis too bold, and takes as=or, on the other hand, in the sense of, otherwise, in the opposite case. He would then translate: Better for me to die, i. e., rather than suffer myself to be supported, I will prefer to die; or, on the other hand, if such a thing need not occur, my boasting none shall make void. But this understanding of the passage appears so forced, that we are still disposed to prefer the aposiopesis. [Alford adopts the reading , and translates: than that any one should make void my (matter of) boasting. Wordsworth the same, with the exception of for . Stanley puts a colon after . and makes , a separate clause, rendering the whole thus: It were better for me to die than my boasting: no one shall make it void.].

In 1Co 9:16, ff. he assigns the reason for putting so great a stress on discharging his office gratuitously.For if I preach the Gospel there is for me no matter of boasting. 1Co 9:6, (materies gloriandi). He means, the mere proclamation of the Gospel was not, in and of itself, anything in which he could boast, in contrast with his opponents. His advantage lay in renouncing his right and preaching without recompense. To interpret to mean: if I take a reward for preaching, is, at all events, contrary to the New Testament usage, and inconsistent with the use of the word in the context.Why the mere fact of preaching was no ground of boasting he goes on to explain. It was a duty imposed on him, from which he could not escape.For a necessity is laid upon me.[It was a moral necessity, put upon him by the call and commission of Jesus, and by the immeasurable obligations he was under to His pardoning grace]; and how imperative this necessity was he shows by pointing to the effects which his refusal to submit to it would draw down upon him.For woe is unto me if I should not preach the Gospel., properly an interj. is here to be taken substantially, and to be supplied. It refers to the Divine judgments which would fall on him if he ventured to disobey the heavenly call. Hence the fearful nature of the necessity, originating primarily in the Divine will, demanding a punctilious obedience, and also the impossibility of any boast in fulfilling it. In this necessity Neander thinks he discovers something which distinguishes Paul from the other Apostles. The others had joined themselves to Christ of their own accord; while he had been, as it were, constrained to enter the service. Accordingly, we discern in this word the sense which Paul had of the overwhelming urgency of his calling.This last statement (and so also the preceding ones, whether the first or the second, but these not primarily) he illustrates and confirms by a denial of the opposite.For if I do this voluntarily, i. e., on my own motion, of my own accord, without having been obliged theretoI have a reward,i. e., from God,but if involuntarily [i. e., obligatorily, having been called to it by another, whom I could not disobey],with a stewardship have I been entrusted,my position is that of a steward, who, when he has done all that he could, has no more than discharged his obligations, and so has no title to a reward, (comp, Luk 17:10). The first of the above cases, he means to say, does not suit his case [a hypothetical statement, de Wette says]; since he was constrained to preach by the obligations put on him by a higher will; hence he was in the condition of a steward, who was absolutely dependent on the will of his master, and who, while expecting no reward for the faithful discharge of duties, might yet look for punishment in case he failed. [Stewards, it must be remembered, were usually selected from among the slaves of the establishment, as was Eleazar by Abraham, and Joseph by Potiphar]. This interpretation of Meyer, and in part that of Osiander [adopted also by Hodge, Alford, de Wette] fully satisfies the words and the context.28 To translate the words and , willingly and unwillingly would hardly suit, if we are to understand the last clause as describing Pauls case, since we can in no wise predicate reluctance or unwillingness of him in the discharge of his ministry.But if we unite . in one clause, rendering it: but if I am unwillingly entrusted with the stewardship, then the word stewardship loses its significance for the argument; and it would be the same if we put: I am entrusted with a stewardship, in a parenthesis; and to supply the ellipsis of, if unwillingly with the words, I do this is in any case simpler than to make an apodosis by the addition of I have no reward. But to take the words following as the apodosis would be inadmissible on account of the , then.The meaning would be entirely changed if overleaping the two clauses: woe is me, etc., and: a necessity is laid upon me, we find here the confirmation or explanation of the beginning of 1Co 9:16, so that the idea of gratuitousness (gratis) is involved in , and that of the opposite in , and in the phrase: I have a reward, we understand him to speak of his matter of boasting. [Billroth, Bloomfield]. The would then indicate that he was managing the thing as his own affair, and was omitting nothing which would serve to further it, and produce results happy and honorable for himself, in which he would have his reward; but would mean that he was discharging his direct obligations, only so far as to escape the penalty of neglect, and so was acting as a steward, i. e., a slave charged with the domestic economy, so that all reward or boasting would be out of the question. But in such an interpretation there would be 1, a foisting into the words and as well as into . of something foreign to them; and 2, he would, in what follows, be designating that as his reward, which, a little before, appears to be the ground of his having a reward.

After having substituted the term reward for that of boasting, in 1Co 9:17, he retains the expression, and referring back to 1Co 9:15 (to ,29 he askswhat then is my reward?To take this question as implying a negative answer (Meyer) in immediate connection with what precedesas though the meaning were: since I am a steward, not acting at my option, no reward can avail me, in order that (in accordance with the end appointed by God) I may preach unsupported (which, as lying beyond my obligation now really merits a reward)is, on the one hand, somewhat forced, and, on the other, leads to that which Dr. Baur (Tub., Theol., Jahrb.) objects to Meyers interpretation, that it involves the germ of the doctrine of supererogation, in entire contradiction with Pauls whole mode of thought, since if Paul regarded the gratuitous proclamation of the Gospel as conducive to its success, he must have recognized such a course as obligatory upon him. As Burger says: not according to the rights belonging to him, but in accordance with his estimate of his own personal relation to his high office (1Co 15:8-9; Eph 3:8; 1Ti 1:15-16), did Paul consider himself bound to do what was not incumbent on the other apostles, and in order that he might demonstrate through his whole life the earnestness and depth of his gratitude for the salvation so undeservedly conferred on him, and the office entrusted to his charge.[If, however, we regard the first of the two previous clauses as expressing Pauls casethat in declining support he was showing how freely he accepted the obligation, he was thus rising above the condition of a steward, who was merely discharging his office from necessity, and so was having some occasion for boastingsome reason to look for a reward, we must here regard Paul as proceeding to state what reward he was looking for]. The answer to this question [is variously found; it either] lies in the following words, beginning with [and which may be rendered as in the E. V.],That when I preach I shall make the Gospel without charge.This was to him remuneration enough, that the Gospel which he proclaimed should prove no burden to the Church, [that he could enjoy the satisfaction of offering salvation without money and without price to all whom he addressed]. The would then introduce the object had in view: Wherein then does my reward consist? Why, in this, that I make, etc. Thus the original signification of is preserved, , fut. indic., which elsewhere accompanies (yet oftener ) when some continuous act is spoken of. [Or we may, with Alford, consider these words as simply continuing the question and stating the circumstances in which he is looking for his reward.What then is my reward, that I while preaching shall render the Gospel without charge?, like in classical Greek, with a fut. indic. points to the actual realization of the purpose with more precision than when followed by the subjunctive. The question in other words would be: What reward have I in prospect that induces me to preach gratuitously? The answer to the question would in this case be found in the next verse.].unto the end that, ( ).This may denote either the design in view (in order that), or the simple result (so that I shall not, etc.).Either would consist with the use of language.I shall not use my power.K [not as in the E. V. abuse, for this would yield no fit sense here], but as in 1Co 7:31, to use to the full.in the Gospel,i. e., in proclaiming the Gospel; [or, still better, conferred upon me by preaching the Gospel.Stanley].

1Co 9:19-23. For being free from all, I enslaved myself to all.The for indicates a connection between this and the previous words: that I may not use my power. This connection may be understood, either as implying only a remote relation between the expressions power and free, and introducing proof of that self-denial, which prompted him to renounce his right, as shown in other respects (so de Wette; in like manner, Osiander: With an easy transition from the matter of his self-denial hitherto discussed, he passes rapidly on to show how he had exhibited the same in another and indeed the highest degree); or, in a stricter manner, as though by the expression my power, he designated his Apostolic prerogative in general, and the freedom he here speaks of were included under it (1Co 9:4); (so Meyer). At all events the connection is moderated by the thought that it was, with him, a fundamental principle, to make no use of his right,only to give and not to take; and so also to devote himself to others instead of subjecting them to himself or making himself dependent on them, rather than make them dependent on him. [Stanley gives yet another view: In the first instance, the idea of enslavement to all is suggested by the servile labor he had undertaken, as distinct from the free independence which he might have enjoyed as an Apostle; but he rapidly passes from this to his accommodation to the various feelings of all his converts, in the hope that of this mass he might gain the greater part to the cause of Christ. For the same transition from the idea of servile labor to that of serving generally, comp. Php 2:7 (). Alford here finds the answer to the question: What is my reward? For (q. d., the reward must have been great and glorious in prospect) being free from, etc.].

This principle of his he exhibits more fully in connection with the purpose he had in view, wherein at the same time his matter of boasting () in this respect may be seen. First, he mentions in general, how, for the sake of a higher object, he surrendered his independence, since, though as Christs Apostle, he was dependent on no man, he had made himself dependent on all, had accommodated himself to their customs and prejudices, and in the plenitude of his Apostolic power, had, for their sakes, descended to the low condition of a slave.that I might gain, is explained by the concluding (1Co 9:22). It means a winning for Christ or for Gods kingdom by conversion (comp. 1Pe 3:1; Mat 18:15). This was ever deemed by Paul a reward, a cause for boasting [1Th 2:19-20], although the word in this context is not to be referred precisely to this thought. [Bengel, on the contrary, finely says: , I may gain, this word well suits with the consideration of a reward. But Alford adds: This is not enough; it is actually the answer to the question: What is my reward? and it is for this reason that , is three times repeated].the greater number. , as in 1Co 10:5, the larger portion of this company (not: the more [as in the E. V.]; nor: as many as possible; not yet, because, of the , with Olsh.: those ordained unto salvation by God). [Alford says: the largest number of any: that hereafter Pauls converts might be found to be , the more numerous. This certainly accords with the ambition of Paul].The following details point in part to diversities conditioned upon the ante-Christian position of the parties mentioned (Jews, Heathen, 1Co 9:20 ff.), and in part to weaknesses existing in the pale of the Church, that required consideration (1Co 9:22), wherein he more nearly approaches his main theme. But because the same purpose is expressed here also as in what precedes, this, too, must be referred to the ante-Christian state, but not to the exclusion, however, of all allusion to that spoken of in the whole paragraph.and I became to the Jews as a Jew, in order that I might gain Jews.To interpret to mean Jewish converts, and the subsequent designation: those under the law, of the stricter Pharisaic class among them, is inconsistent with the object in view, viz., that he might gain them, for such were already in a measure gained; and also with the contrast in 1Co 9:21. [Examples of how he became a Jew may be found in Act 16:3; Act 21:26].to those under the law.This is only another designation for Jews, describing them according to their peculiar characteristic (Rom 6:14; Gal 3:13; Gal 4:21); and it denotes neither Jews of the stricter Pharisaic class, nor proselytes of righteousness, nor Samaritans, nor Sadducees, who only held to the Pentateuch.as under the law.The word as denotes only a conformity in respect to customs, modes of life, and methods of instruction. That he preserved his independence in circumstances where Judaism was insisted upon as the condition of salvation, is evident from Gal 2:3 ff. Besides he asserts the maintenance of his own personal freedom from the law in the following participial clause not parenthetical [which does not appear in the Rec.].not being myself under the law. , etc. Here denies the thing as a matter of consciousness, [it being the subjective negative]. That he hereby intended to repel a charge of capricious self-exemption from the law to which he was properly bound, is a doubtful assumption.to those without law.By these are not meant proselytes of the gate, as persons who were bound by the law only in part; nor yet such parties as would no more submit themselves to the laws control; but heathen, properly speaking (comp. Rom 2:12-14), and so designated in contrast with the Jews, since they were not bound by the Mosaic law, and in which respect he conformed to them.as without law,in so far as he cast of Jewish ordinances in his intercourse with them (comp. Act 11:3; Act 11:7), and presented the truth to them, not in Jewish, but in Hellenic forms of instruction (comp. Act 17:28; [1Co 8:1-7; 1Co 9:24-27]). [The word by which he here describes himself () is the expression used to designate him in the forged Epistle of Peter to James (1 Corinthians 2.) in the Clementines; and seems, therefore, to have been a well-known term of reproach against him among the Judaizers. Stanley]. For the purpose [therefore] of guarding against all mis-application of the term, as well as under the impulses of pious feeling [being unwilling to appear, even for a moment, independent of God], he repels all thought of any heathenish lawlessness () being here intended, and asserts that, so far as this law had been revealed in its perfection through Christ, he both lived and moved in it.being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ. comp. Gal 6:2; Joh 13:34. and are genitives of relation and dependence (Without legal dependence on God, legally dependent on Christ. Meyer). To be under law to Christ, is different from being under the law, inasmuch as the consciousness of obligation in one who has become justified in Christ in order to walk worthy of Christ, and to imitate Him in doing the will of God is different from servitude to the law as the means of justification before God (comp. Rom 10:5; Gal. 10:10ff.). [Here again the subjective nature of the assertion as indicated by instead of must be noted. Being conscious of not being,remembering well in the midst of my lawlessness () that I was not. Alford. Paulus non fuit anomus, nedum antinomus. Bengel].to the weak.Under this term he includes those previously mentioned (1Co 9:20-21), persons Who, lacking the higher power of Christs spirit, require considerate treatmentwhen Jews, a mode of intercourse suiting with their law; when heathen, a freedom from the law [So Stanley. But Alford, on the contrary: The here can hardly be the weak Christians of 1 Corinthians 8. and Romans 14., who were already won, but those who had not strength to believe and receive the Gospel (Rom 5:6). To this Hodge well replies; The word means merely, to win over, to bring to proper views, and therefore may be used in reference to weak and superstitious believers as well as of unconverted Jews and Gentiles.]I became weak,i.e., I entered into their condition in one way and another. This condescension to their peculiarities was, in appearance, a weakness; but, in truth, it was indicative of the highest moral power. If, with de Wette, we understand by the term weak, a lack of ability to apprehend the higher moral truths, then the expression, I became weak, would denote an accommodation on Pauls part in the methods of his instruction of them; but this has little in its favor.Summing up all he concludesTo all(i.e., to those just mentioned. Osiander; to the generality of men with whom I had to do. Meyer).I became all things.Omnibus omnia factus est compassione misericordi, non simulatione fallaci, non mentientis astu, sed compatientis affectu. Augustine. It was an all-sided adaptation of himself to others,within the limits of truth, of course, and in those things which were morally indifferent, according to the rule and direction of a love that was intent upon the salvation of souls. [There are two things to be carefully observed in all cases of concession to the opinions and practices of others: first, that the point conceded be a matter of indifference; for Paul never yielded in the smallest measure to any thing that was in itself wrong. In this his conduct was directly the opposite to that of those who accommodate themselves to the sins of men, or to the superstitious observances of false religions. And secondly, that the concession does not involve any admission that what is in fact indifferent, is a matter of moral obligation. Pauls conduct in relation to Timothy and Titus shows the principle on which he acted. The former he circumcised because it was regarded as a concession. The latter he refused to circumcise, because it was demanded as a matter of necessity. Hodge].in order that by all means I might save some.[ omnino, or as Meyer, in all ways. Stanley says: by all means, with the double meaning as in English].and all things I do. [see Critical notes]. The all things do not refer exclusively to what have just been spoken of,as would be the case with the feebly supported reading thisalthough these are not to be excluded. The meaning is: all things which I do, I do, etc. [St. Paul did not become totally and at once, but severally and singly, not absolutely, but respectively, all things to all men. Wordsworth].The object of thison account of the Gospel.( ). It is a question whether we have here an independent thought, or whether it is only a more general expression for that which is stated more fully in the following objective clause,that I may be a fellow partaker of it (with you).In the latter case, is either taken=to further, i.e., an active participation in the work of spreading the Gospel (which, however, does not accord with usage, and would only be a repetition of what has just been said, while by the connective a progress of thought is indicated); or as denoting a participation in the salvation offered by the Gospela thought hinted at in the previous clause. In the former case . must be construed as expressing the object aimed at in spreading the Gospel: in behalf of the Gospel, for its honor and glory; but interpreted as expressing the further aim of his doing all things on account of the Gospel, the clause must be taken in the sense of becoming a fellow-participant in the salvation of the Gospel. But here again we have the exceptionable repetition (in .); hence the assumption of an epexegesis, with the above correct rendering of . deserves the preference. The meaning then is, that all he did aim at was to become a partaker with them in the salvation of the Gospel. At the same time, the objective end of that concerning which he had just spoken, is not excluded; but he only brings out now the other side, in order to let them see in his own example how his solicitude for his own salvation in fellowship with others, is something which must lie very near the heart of the Christian in all he does; and that this, in all his varied activity, is not a matter to be presumed upon, but must be striven for with the utmost earnestness.In this thought we find the point of transition to the subsequent exposition, in which by pointing to his own example he presses on the Corinthians the importance of greater solicitude for their own salvation, and of sparing no pains or sacrifices in the attainment of this end (1Co 9:24 ff.). [Here a new thought is introduced. Up to this point he has been speaking of his self-denial for the sake of others; here he begins to speak of it as for his own sake. It is no longer that I may save some, but that I may be partaker of the Gospel with you. Do not think that I do not require this for myself. In order to do good we must be good. To extend our Christian liberty to the utmost verge, is dangerous not only for others, but for ourselves also. This argument he proceeds to support first from his own example and secondly by the warning of Israelitish history. Stanley].

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The Ministryits claims and its obligations. The regular and professional ministration of Gods Word, requiring the expenditure of time and strength, in providing stated spiritual nutriment for a congregation and in the cure of souls; and in qualifying himself for which a person has spent his property either entirely or in part, founds a claim to the support both of himself and his family, in a manner suited to the position he occupies. This is an ordinance of the Lord himself, who has said: The laborer is worthy of his hire. It is a rule, moreover, which reaches down to the lowest grades of animal labor performed for man, and runs through all departments of human society, and must be binding in proportion as the work done is excellent. It must, therefore, be most of all in force in that sphere where the relation of that which is given to that which is received is that of the spiritual to the carnal.

On the other hand, it becomes a workman on this holy soil to show himself, in accordance with our Lords example, to be one to whom it is more blessed to give than to receive; so that he shall not only discharge his more general obligations, the neglect of which would subject him to rebukenot only perform what he is paid for, but shall also be ready to offer all manner of aid at the cost of time and strength, even in cases where no legal obligation binds him so as in this respect to fulfil the Scripture: Freely ye have received, freely give. He must appear, not as one dealing in temporal affairs, looking ever for his equivalents, but as one carrying in himself a large liberal spirit, free from ambition and avarice, and all forms of selfishness. By his whole attitude and conduct, by word and deed, he must let it be seen what a joy it is to take that which has freely flowed in upon him, especially that which a partial love has conferred, and let it flow out again in all manner of gracious bestowments, relieving the afflicted, the sick and the needy, and helping on the work of the Gospel, both at home and abroad, promoting the enlightenment and the salvation of mankind at large, of every kind and degree, both within the limits of Christendom and in the regions beyond.
2. Accommodation in the Ministry. Self-denying love is exercised, not only in the renunciation of ones own rights to support, and in unrewarded toils and sacrifices for others welfare, but also in condescending from the heights of superior knowledge and liberty to enter into the narrownesses and weaknesses of others, to accommodate oneself to their spiritual defects and necessities, to freely conform to their ways so as to infuse in them confidence as towards one of their own kind, to speak with them in their own languagewith children in a childlike manner, and with adults according to their several powers of apprehension, and so to become all things to all men. And this will be done so genially that those with whom we converse shall not feel it to be a condescension. On the contrary, our whole speech and deportment will seem natural, through the blending power of a sympathizing love. Thus will love fit itself to every variety of forms and customs and habits, and to all spheres of life, doing whatever may be requisite for kindly intercourse, and avoiding or removing whatever hinders it, and holding itself ever ready to enter into all hearts, and win them towards the highest good.And all this will be done for Christs sake, and in accordance with the example of Him who, out of His own Divine love, entered into human nature, stooping to its lowest bent of infirmities, in order to redeem sinners, and lift them up to a life in God.

But as in Christ there is truth, and nothing but truth, so must this conformity be kept within the limits of truth. As in Him there was no self-seeking, no selfish fear of men, or vain desire to please men, so will it be with a proper accommodation. It will be unwarped by such faults. That were a false, immoral compliance, to adapt oneself to the ways of others, especially their religious rites and customs, either for the sake of avoiding persecutions, or of courting favor, or of gaining coveted emoluments and applause, just as did the Jesuits in their missionary labors, as many Christians have done in their intercourse with the heathen, and as Evangelicals did towards the Romanists during the Interim. It is also an exceptionable accommodation when a preacher or teacher, for the sake of maintaining his position, or of obtaining one with a view to subsistence, comes down from the height of his lofty views and clear conceptions, to profess his faith in, and inculcate opinions which are objectionable and degrading, because untrue and superstitious. Equally unworthy and immoral is it also to gesticulate or speak as a worshipper in presence of, or in company with others who believe in a personal God, who can be approached in prayer, although one is a stranger to that faith, and considers such practices as follies, belonging to a lower grade of conceptions; and the more reprehensible is such conduct in proportion as the motives which prompt to it are low and selfish, (comp. Heubner).
[3. The doctrine of supererogation. The Romish divines, as is well known, adduce the 16th verse in support of their doctrine, which teaches the special meritoriousness of works, which, under the promptings of love, exceed the scope of the command enjoined. The reward which Paul here looked for, according to the annotations in the Rhemish version, was the reward of supererogation, which is given to them, that out of aboundant charitie do more in the service of God than they be commanded, as St. Augustine expoundeth it. The fallacy hero consists in making specific precepts, which are mainly relative and prudential, the absolute rule of duty. Determined by the highest and most universal law, every good that it is possible for man to do, is a matter of obligation. He that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. Thou shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, etc. If Paul therefore knew that by renouncing his right to support he would avoid the appearance of selfishness, remove a stumbling-block in the way of the Gospel, and strengthen his influence, he was bound to renounce his right; and in so doing he obtained only the reward which belongs to all works done in lovethe reward of grace. His self-denial was a work of supererogation only in relation to man, but not in relation to God. See Calvin Inst. B. III. 1 Corinthians 14, 14 ff; B. IV. 1 Corinthians 13, 12 ff].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[In this chapter we have a self-drawn portrait of the great Apostlea portrait which vividly represents to us the man, not only through the particular features described, but also in the free, courageous style in which the sketch is made. The object in thus bringing himself to view is to enforce the precepts contained in the previous chapter by his own example, and to prove his right to teach as he did, by his own practice. Accordingly we observe here: 1. Pauls position a. as a manfree, bound by no legal obligations to any, and capable of taking care of himself; b. as an office-beareran Apostle, holding the very highest authority in the church, as proved by his having seen the Lord, and having had the seal of the Spirit put to his ministry (1Co 9:1-2); c. in his rights, first to domestic solaces (1Co 9:5), and secondly to maintenance, as proved, a. in accordance with the principle of compensation for work (1Co 9:7), by the law of Moses (1Co 9:8-9), by the analogy of the Levitical priesthood (1Co 9:13), 6. by the command of Christ (1Co 9:14). 2. His conduct, a. abnegation of legal claims to support (1Co 9:12; 1Co 9:14); b. endurance of privations and toil (1Co 9:12); c. condescension even to the position of a servant (1Co 9:19); d. kind accommodation to the weaknesses and prejudices of others. 3. His purpose. He designed to continue this course of self-denial at all cost, and rather die than abandon it (1Co 9:15). 4. His motivethe desire of the reward which belongs to the workman who counts duty a privilege, and exceeds the limits of legal obligation in the excess of his love (1Co 9:18), and which comes from gaining the larger number of souls to Christ (1Co 9:19), and which is found in the more certain enjoyment of the Gospel, in fellowship with those for whom he labored (1Co 9:23).

The traits which here shine conspicuous are: consciousness of perfect integrity; a sense of personal dignity as a man and an Apostle; frankness; courage; love in its highest forms of self-sacrifice, condescension and zeal; and wise prudence in the methods chosen for gaining the highest ends.
In all this we have: 1. an instructive picture of a true minister of Jesus Christ; 2. an illustration of the power obtained for the enforcement of precept by appealing to ones own example; 3. an exhibition of the might and majesty which resides in a self-denying spirit].

Starke.

1Co 9:1.Faithful ministers find their best support in their calling and office, in their good conscience and Christian walk; and their best apology in their deeds and not in their words.

1Co 9:2 : There are bad preachers who are praised, and good preachers who are blamed; look at the fruits: if these are good then the tree is good also.

1Co 9:7 : Avarice and ingratitude are alike great sins,the former in ministers, if they labor only as hirelings for a reward; and the latter in the people if they let their ministers suffer.A three-fold illustration of a right-minded minister (1Co 9:7): the first (that of a warrior) tells of valor and unshaken courage in overturning the kingdom of darkness by the right use of spiritual weapons (1Co 9:25; 2Co 10:4-5); the second (that of a vintner) tells of unwearied labor; the third, (that of a shepherd) tells of constraining love and official fidelity (Ezekiel 34; John 10.).

1Co 9:11 :The blessings conferred through the ministry are more precious than can be adequately requited by temporal good. Ye hearers, be rich in love; ye ministers, rich in contentment (1 Tim. 4:18; Php 4:11);

1Co 9:13 ff: A faithful worker is worthy of his reward; but lazy, reluctant, luxurious ministers deserve not the good they enjoy.

1Co 9:16 : Preachers must preach; and hearers hear. There is no escape from this. On these things hang life and death.

1Co 9:17 : It is the sure sign of a faithful minister that he discharges his office with such yearnings of affection toward Christ and toward his hearers, as admit neither of indifference, nor idleness, nor reluctance (1Pe 5:2; 1Th 2:8).Fidelity in office is no special merit (Luk 17:10); yet a faithful servant may look for a reward of grace from Christ (Mat 25:23).Not ministers only, but all Christians equally should endeavor to remove whatever obstructs the cause of Christ.

1Co 9:19 : The servants of Christ, while exercising Christian love and kindness, and gentleness towards all, must, at the same time, take care to preserve a good conscience, and in no way prejudice their abiding in Christ.Let those who rule consider themselves as the servants of all (Mar 10:43); and so in matters indifferent let them overlook, yield and suffer much, in order to win those under them, and promote their improvement. This is the method of true love.

1Co 9:20 : A blessed sort of men-pleasing, when it is without sin, unto edification! (Rom 15:2).

1Co 9:21 : Those who associate with the godless for their good, must be careful to abide by the law of Christ; otherwise they will deteriorate rather than improve.

1Co 9:23 : A minister who does not labor himself to become a partaker of the Gospel will never properly labor to make others partake of it.

Berlenbubger Bible.

1Co 9:10 : We must not abide by the shell of Scripture; but break into the kernel. The shell reads oxen; but the inner sense means us, patient, laborious ministers, who plough the field of the church, labor in the fear of God, take firm steps in the Divine ways, and spare not but trample on the flesh, in order that the hidden kernel of the spirit may burst the hull, and move men to repentance and the mortification of their earthly affections. And such should be enabled to enjoy the fruits of their spiritual labor in the tokens of gratitude.

1Co 9:11 : It is the part of a true minister to be unwearied in laying in the heart a good foundation, and planting good seeds therein for an after abundant harvest.

1Co 9:12 : To abstain from ones right is a proper offering.

1Co 9:13 : Men eat at Gods table. He feeds His servants when He gives them of that which belongs to Him.

1Co 9:16 : The must here is not a slavish, but an evangelical must: the love of Christ constrains.

1Co 9:19. In Christianity freedom and service stand together. Where the former is not, there there is not in the heart such a willingness to engage in service. This is true Christian magnanimityto be free from all, and yet to devote ones self to all. He who has not the I love so to devote himself is certainly not free, but acts under constraint.

1Co 9:20 ff: Genuine condescension goes counter to flesh and blood; since it is only through a Divine love that a person can be induced to endure, to wrestle, to fight, to turn and twist like a worm in order to accommodate himself to the circumstances and whims of poor ignorant souls, and to surrender, willingly yield, or share in any thing innocent, for the sake of winning them to Christ the better. A minister must bring with him into his office a large pity, since he will be obliged to see much want, and not be able to shape everything on one last. It costs something to associate with the weak and distressed, and the like, whose society men are apt to shun. The mind and example of Christ are to us sufficient law; by these our minds are taken captive and sufficiently assured.

1Co 9:23 : He who labors much to impart the Gospel obtains in return a proportionate share of its blessings. The peace of God which he dispenses will return upon him.

Rieger. [is omitted, being substantially a repetition of the above].

Heubner.

1Co 9:1 : The work which alone endures is that which is performed on the human heart, and a faithful minister has the best opportunity for erecting a monument which shall outlast human records.

1Co 9:3 : Every person is bound to vindicate his conduct to his friends.

1Co 9:7 : There may be claims to a reward without the undue coveting of a reward.Unthankfulness towards ministers merits earnest rebuke.

1Co 9:8 ff: A man should wait for his reward in hope, not demand it before his work is done.

1Co 9:11 : Manual labor, and the expenditure of time, may be appraised, but not the nobler toil, the superabundant blessing, and faithful heart of a true minister. These God alone can reward with His love.

1Co 9:12 : It is precisely the most faithful minister that has to encounter human wickedness in its most outrageous forms. The most meritorious are often the most poorly paid. In many spiritual occupations one does the work and another gets the pay. Like the Apostle, we should be ready in needful cases to work without reward, and find our recompense in our good works and in the approval of God. The more a minister lives under the pressure of hardship, the righter will the light of his religion shine. [But this fact will not justify the people in putting the pressure on].In all doubtful cases the conscientious minister will inquire by what course the Gospel will most be benefited, and act accordingly.

1Co 9:14 : A minister should desire only what is necessary for his support, no more. The church should not give him luxuries.

1Co 9:15 : The disinterested minister may, for the sake of vindicating himself, remind his people of his magnanimous conduct.A minister must have a reputation for disinterestedness. If there is a chance for making large gains, and at the expense of a good name, let him surrender the chance.

1Co 9:16. How foolish it is to boast of having done our duty! The higher the office is, the more disgraceful to our trust. The constraints of duty, to which a pious man freely yields, are irresistible. God has put me herethis thought should accompany the minister to his latest breath. To retire from work, when not compelled by age or other circumstances, is a very questionable procedure.

1Co 9:18. Joy in serving God, and being assured of his love, is the most strengthening reward. A sense of this makes free and happy ministers.

1Co 9:19 : A faithful laborer assumes many burdens not legally imposed. But when can he ever do more than his duty (Luk 17:10)? We cannot fully perform even what we ought.Our labor is at best piece-work. In saving souls nothing is too burdensome, nothing too lowly.

1Co 9:20 ff: A pious man may be many sided; for nothing is more manifold than the ways and means of Divine wisdom in the execution of its designs. But there is a great difference between the noble legitimate accommodation of the Christian and the slippery by-ways of worldly cunning.

Footnotes:

[1]1Co 9:1.The precedence of this clause [thus reversing the order of the two as they stand in our version], is established by A. B. [Cod. Sin.], by almost all the versions, and by other old authorities. [Possibly the original order was changed to bring the weightiest question into prominence. Alford].

[2]1Co 9:1.The Rec. has [with D. K. L.]; others have . X is an addition not found in A. B. [Cod. Sin., and is omitted by Alford, Stanley].

[3]1Co 9:2.Lachmann, Tischendorf [Alford, Stanley], have [to correspond with ] (instead of ); but it is not sufficiently attested.

[4]1Co 9:3. ; Lachmann [Alford, Stanley] read , which also is not sufficiently attested. [Yet it is found in A. B. Cod. Sin.].

[5]1Co 9:6. The omission of is, indeed, strongly attested, but is to be explained as an attempt to conform with the foregoing clauses.

[6]1Co 9:7.Rec. has in conformity with what follows, but it is more feebly sustained.

[7]1Co 9:7.H is rejected by Lachmann according to weighty testimony; it was, perhaps, omitted to accord with the foregoing clauses.

[8]1Co 9:8. The Rec. has [with K. L.]feeble authority. A probable alteration of what seemed unintelligible. [The true reading: , is found in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin.].

[9]1Co 9:9.Griesbach reads: [omitting ], but without sufficient authority.

[10]1Co 9:9. [with A. B.2 C. D.2 K. L. Cod. Sin.]; instead of with the Rec. and Lachmann [Stanley], read . The former is best supported and more probable, because not found in the Sept.

[11]Ver: 10.In the former of the last two clauses, the best supported order is: , instead of which the Rec. puts before , which is a variation of the order. In the second clause some of the better authorities have: , to which the Rec. appends the original . The best accredited text is: [found in A. B. C. Cod. Sin.]. So Meyer [Alford, Stanley, and Wordsworth].

[12]1Co 9:11.The Rec. and Lachmann read , [and so Alford, Stanley, and Wordsworth]. The subj. is strongly supported, and might have been crowded out by the future form, because grammatically objectionable [A. B. Cod. Sin. have the future].

[13]1Co 9:12. is far better accredited than the Rec. [being found in A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.]. But is not so well authorized as .

[14]1Co 9:13. is better supported than the Rec. .

[15][See this subject fully discussed in Andrews Life of our Lord, pp. 104116; Neander, Life of Christ, 22; Langes Leben Jesu, xiii; Kittos Enc., 2d Ed. Art. Jesus Christ, p. 530; and Schaffs exegetical note in Langes Commentary, Mat 13:25].

[16]1Co 9:15. . [found in A. B. C. D.1 F. Cod. Sin.] is better sustained than . and the Rec. .

[17]1Co 9:16.Teschendorf reads: ; the Rec. feebly supported. Others simply . The original is undoubtedly , of which and the Rec. text are emendations. [Kling understanding an aposiopesis after , renders the passage thus: It is better for me to die thanmy glorying no man shall make void]. In Exegetical and Critical, also Meyer, [also Stanleys note].

[18]1Co 9:16. is far better supported than the of the Rec. [which Alford calls a clumsy alteration, not seeing that explains . The is found in A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.].

[19]1Co 9:16. is more credited than (Rec.), or (Lachmann). [It is found in A. B. C. D. F.].

[20]1Co 9:18.M; Rec., Lachmann, [Stanley] , tolerably well authorized, but by some put after .

[21]1Co 9:18.The addition, , found in the Rec., is opposed by the best authorities, [being omitted by A. B. C. D.l Cod. Sin., and by all good editions].

[22]1Co 9:20.The clause , omitted in the Rec. [probably by oversight of the copyist], is to be accepted according to the most decisive authorities [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin.].

[23]1Co 9:21.The Rec. has , . Instead of which , (genitives of dependence) and are better authorized. In we have a conformity with 1Co 9:20.

[24]1Co 9:22.The Rec. has , according to many, but not preponderating authorities. It was introduced in conformity with the preceding ones.

[25]1Co 9:22.The Rec has before , contrary to all the best authorities.

[26]1Co 9:23.The of the Rec. is very feebly supported. Meyer calls it: a more accurately defining gloss. [A. B. C. D. F. Cod. Sin. all read ].

[27][A figure of speech, in which the speaker breaks off suddenly, as if unwilling or unable to state what was in his mind].

[28][Calvin, Wordsworth, Stanley, however, adhere to the strict meaning of and as given in the E. V., viz; willingly and unwillingly. They apparently regard the , not as confirming what immediately precedes, but as resuming the general argument. For if I preach the Gospel willingly,which indeed I do, notwithstanding the obligation imposed upon me, as my unremunerated labor shows, and for the sake of showing which I renounced my claims,I have a reward, i.e., from God, though not from you; but if I do it unwillingly, and simply because I am compelled to, why then I reduce myself to the condition of a domestic servant who merely acts as he is hidden. This interpretation makes Paul intent on showing that he had made that which was a matter of bounden obligation his high privilege, and was fulfilling it in such a manner as to have praise from God. Here was the reason why he would never seek support from the church. One advantage of this view is, that in making the first of the hypotheses state Pauls case, we naturally connect the expectation of a reward here expressed with the inquiry which he goes on to answer, What then is my reward? On it our author goes on to comment].

[29][But why not to what just precedes: I have a reward? This were the more natural].

[30]1Co 9:27.Tischendorf has , but the Rec. and Lachmann, in accordance with the most reliable MSS., have . [A. B. C. D. (1James , 4 th hand). Sinait. many cursives, Orig., Ephr., (one MS.) Chrys., Theodt., Theophyl., cum., have . F. G, K. L., with more than 30 cursives, Euseb.. Serap., and a number of copies of the Greek Fathers, have the Doric . D. (3rd hand) E., and a number of cursives and Greek Fathers, have the Attic. . The Latin writers and versions do not clearly indicate what reading they followed; they hare castigo (vulg.) subjicio, macero, affligo, and domo. Reiche,Matthei and Tischendorf have defended . Meyer thinks that this originated in the error of some unskilful transcriber, to whom with was offensive. The word is found, however, in classic and Hellenistic Greek (Robinsons Lexicon), and occurs also in Luk 18:5. As an agonistic phrase, it seems to accord well with a number of expressions in this whole passage. The English critics have unanimously adopted it.C. P. W.].

[31]1Co 10:1.The Rec. has instead of , but in opposition to decisive authorities. The change originated in a mistake with respect to the proper connection.

[32]1Co 10:2.Lachmann has , on the authority of good but not decisive MSS.; and as the more difficult reading, (of the Rec.) deserves the preference. [The passive form is more usual among Christian writers, especially with reference to infant baptism, and is given in A. C. D. E. F. G. Sinait. and 15 cursives; but the middle form is attested by B. K. L., Orig., Chrys., and others, and its reciprocal signification was demanded by the Apostles purpose, and need not have given offence with regard to the subjects of apostolic baptism. Theophy l. gives , and thus confirms the conjecture that was a correction.C. P. W.].

[33]1Co 10:3-4.The different positions given to the words in 1Co 9:3-4 by different MSS. have no effect upon the sense of the whole passage (see Tischendorf). [A. C, et al, omit and Sinait. omit to B. C. (2d hand) and Sinait. put before and A., with some cursives, put . . before In like manner in V:4, A., et al., omit The Rec., with D. F. K. L., et al., place before . , while A. B. C. Sinait, et al., place it after those words. The Rec. also pats immediately before , with A. C. D. (2d hand) K. L., and some patristic MSS., but with no cursives of much authority.C. P. W.].

[34]1Co 10:7.Instead of , the Rec. has , but it is probaldy a correction to conform to the more usual word.

[35]1Co 10:8.B. D. F. Sinait. omit before , but A. C. D. (2d and 3d hand) E. K. L. insert it.C. P. W.].

[36]1Co 10:9.Lachmann and Meyer have with B. C. [Sinait.], et al. Meyer thinks that and (A.) are attempts made to explain the true text. But even if had been the true reading, it could easily have given offence to some, who did not see how Christ could be tempted before His incarnation, and so it might have occasioned the insertion of . [The only authorities for are A., two cursives, two MSS. of the Slav., and Beda. is adopted by Elzevir, (Rec.) Scholz., de Wette, Osiander, Tisch., Bloomfield and Wordsworth, after D. E. F. G. K. L., a number of cursives, the Ital., Vulg.. Syr. And other versions, and Theodt., Marcion, Chrys., cum., Theophyl., Iren., and several Latin Fathers. Alford and Stanley prefer , as more likely to be explained by the insertion of and from the margin. On the other hand, Dr. Hodge thinks the more difficult, and so the more probable reading, and that while the temptation was strong to change . into . no one would be disposed to put the former word for the latter. Much zeal has been shown with respect to these various readings on account of their supposed bearing upon the prexistence of Christ, and Epiphanius does not hesitate to charge some with an intentional falsification of the text.He says: .C. P. W.].

[37]1Co 10:9.The Rec. after has , but the authority for it is too feeble. [A. B. C. D. F. Sinait. omit it, while only D.(3d hand) K. L., et al., the Syr., Chrys. and Theodt. insert it. It was probably inserted as more usual before , while the only reason for its omission would have been to conform to 1Co 10:8.C. P. W.].

[38]1Co 10:11.The Rec. has after , but it is wanting in B. C., et al., and has different positions in the sentence, thus giving reason to suspect that it must be an addition. [C. K. L., with several versions and fathers, insert it, and D. F. Sinait., and some versions and fathers, read: .C. P. W.].

[39]1Co 10:11.Lachmann has , and his reading is well sustained. It is possible that (Rec.) is an attempt to make the passage conform to 1Co 9:6. [Lachmanns reading is supported by A. B. C. K. Sinait., and some versions and fathers.C. P. W.].

[40]1Co 10:11.Rec. has , but Lachm. and Tisch. have , The latter is better, but both readings have good authorities. [B. D. E. F. G. Sinait., and some Greek Fathers, have the perfect, and Meyer and Alford think the other an instance of the alteration which copyists frequently made of the perfect into the aorist form. The other word, however, may be an equally appropriate instance of the alteration which the Alexandrian critics frequently made of the aorist into the perfect.C. V. W.].

[41]1Co 10:13.The. Rec. inserts after , but it is feebly sustained, and it is probably an addition naturally suggested by the context for the completion of the sense. [It is cancelled by Lachm., Tisch., Alford, Stanley and Wordsw. after A. B. C. D. E. F. G. L. Sinait., and most of the versions and Fathers.C. P. W.].

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

The Apostle pleads the Dignity of his Office, and therefrom sheweth his Liberty. Ministers have a just Claim, and from the Lord’s Appointment, to be maintained in their Labors by the People. The Chapter is closed with comparing the Christian Life to a Race.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

(1) Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? (2) If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. (3) Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, (4) Have we not power to eat and to drink? (5) Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? (6) Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

It Both not appear upon what ground it was, that, Paul considered himself called upon to use this language. He had the humblest opinion of himself, and in another part of this Epistle, saith, that he was not meet to be called an Apostle, but was the least of all saints, 1Co 15:9 . It is probable, that some had called in question his authority as an Apostle, and others had endeavored to lessen him in the eyes of the people, by making a comparison between him and Peter to Paul’s prejudice. See 2Co 10:10 . Alas! what is man in his highest attainment? To behold a Church of God made up of such members, who after a saving work of God hath been wrought upon the heart, yet from the remains of indwelling corruption, to be tempted to call in question the Apostolic, authority of Paul; yea, even the very man whom the Lord had given proofs of his being sent to them by the Lord, in making his ministry useful to them! Reader! pause over the account. And let not faithful ministers be discouraged, nor even grieved, if at any time their services are little valued, when they behold so eminent an Apostle of Christ disesteemed, and by the very Church where he had the highest claim to their love and affection! Blessed servant of Christ! it was thy high honor in this instance, as in many others, to be conformed to the image of thy Lord!

But it will be well to run over the ground, in a cursory manner, of Paul’s pretensions to the Apostleship. One grand feature of character, as an indispensable part in the qualification of an Apostle, settled in the College of the Apostles, was, that he should be a witness to the resurrection of Jesus, Act 1:22 . Now, that Paul, who, as he saith himself, was like one born out of due time, might have this qualification; it is worthy our closest observation, that the Lord Jesus granted Paul this mercy; in appearing personally to him at his conversion, Act 9:3-6 . Add to this, Paul had another interview with Christ, when in a trance at Jerusalem, Act 22:17-21 . And a third when confined in the castle, Act 23:10-11 . And, fourthly, when he was caught up to the third heaven. It is not, indeed, expressly said that he then saw the Lord Jesus; but it is very highly probable (2Co 12:1-4 ), these fully qualified hint as a witness to the Resurrection for the Apostleship.

And it was a further confirmation of the character of an Apostle, his being called to the office by Christ himself. For at his conversion, Jesus declared concerning him to Ananias, that he was a chosen vessel unto him, to bear his name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel, Act 9:15 . And Paul’s account of himself, when writing to the Romans , was that he was called to be as Apostle, Rom 1:1 .

And to add no more. The ordination of Paul by the Holy Ghost, Act 13:2 . and the success of his ministry to the Gentiles at large, and the Corinthians to whom he was now writing in particular; all these things carried, with them a decided testimony of his Apostleship. Reader! it would be well, if men, in modern times, could produce such credentials of their high calling. Alas! what multitudes, it is to be apprehended, by what we see and meet with in life, will be proved in the end of the day to have run unsent. Paul hath described them in his second Epistle to Corinth. The portrait is too striking to be mistaken, and too awful not to excite distress, 2Co 11:13 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1Co 9:15

You find these heroic words in 1Co 9:15 . I purposely cut the text short here, and leave every man to fill up the concluding sentence for himself. Paul tells us the reason, but Paul’s reason may not be ours. We have a great principle laid down here, and it is for each man in his own sphere and in his own way to apply that principle. I want every man who is here to take this as a motto, a living principle, a perpetual rule of life. ‘It were better for me to die than that,’ and let ‘that’ express every man’s peculiar conviction and standard of integrity. Paul said, ‘It were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying void’. Then there are circumstances in which death is the preferable alternative. What are those circumstances? They must be very peculiar and very urgent. Yet here is the great principle laid down by the greatest man that ever lived as a servant of Jesus Christ, and that principle is that death is preferable to something else. ‘It were better for me to die.’ I wonder what the Apostle’s point of glorying is. Well, he said, ‘If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing that we shall reap your carnal things?’ If we have given you ideas, is it a great thing that you should clothe us and feed us and give us a pillow to rest our aching head upon? Nevertheless we have not used this power but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ. We are perfectly well aware that we have a right to this compensation; the Lord hath ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. I know that I do not modify my right or claim, but I use none of these things. I would not be a burden to any man. This is my glorying, that I have done all this for nothing, and so much do I glory in it according to the measure of the grace of Christ, that it were better for me to die than that I should lose my glorying. What we have to do with today is the principle or doctrine that there are circumstances in life in which death is the preferable alternative.

It would be difficult for me to get a hearer, I should almost have to beg for people to listen to me, if I preached this most monstrous doctrine that it is better to die than to do some things. The City says, No; let us fight now and conquer the god of this world in the spirit of the next.

I. It is better for me to die than to break my word That is right. Does some man say that? He is a wise man and a hero. Why, certainly your word is yourself. That is the great doctrine of the Gospel, nobody believes it. But Jesus said, ‘Let your yea be yea and your nay nay; whatsoever more cometh cometh of evil’. That one text would, if received with the heart and applied all day long, make a new world. Let your yea be yea and your nay let it be nay. That one little line would convert the world. The whole Gospel is in that one expression the evangelical Gospel, all the blood which makes it evangelical, all the fire which makes it Divine. It were better for me to die than to break my word. I promised a dying friend that I would look after the boys, and he died in comfort when he received that assurance.

II. It were better for me to die than to deny the omnipotence of my Lord’s grace. He said, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee’. He said, ‘I will be with thee in six troubles, and in seven I will not forsake thee’. Have I magnified this, and do men say, pointing to me, Behold what God’s grace can do for the poorest creature? Or have I murmured and repined? have I rubbed off my baptismal seal, and am I now a Church-going Psalm-singing atheist? Oh, it were better for me to die.

III. ‘It were better for Abraham to have died than to have told the king a lie.’ He should have said, ‘Yes, she is my wife’. ‘But the king might have lifted a long sharp knife and taken my poor life away.’ Well, it were better for you to have died than to have told that lie. But if so, who can live? Very few, but that is of no consequence. It is not necessary for any man to live, but it is necessary to have every man to tell the truth. Ah me! what wonder if the Church is empty and her altars are forsaken by all but the giddy and the vain and the frivolous, who think that by dressing they can accomplish the will of God? It were better that David should have died than that he had put Uriah in the forefront and heat of the battle. Suppose he had died, he would have been a hero, one of God’s heroes; he would have magnified God’s grace, he would have illustrated the greatness of the Christian call, he would have been received up into heaven. But he did put the man in the front of the battle. In a sense he won; in God’s own sense, he lost.

What have ye done? Let that question be a sharp two-edged sword, though it cut the preacher in pieces and turn him into shed blood. What is this but saying in another form, ‘What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?’ It were better for him to die than that he should give his soul in exchange for the whole world, for all the worlds. That is the grand Christian doctrine, that is the tonic thought of the New Testament. We want enthusiasm for our faith, our love, our God, and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Joseph Parker

The Gospel of Christ As an Obligation

1Co 9:16

St. Paul often insists upon the fact that his main duty in life was to make known the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To save the souls of men was the one passion of his life. The obligation to preach the Gospel, and so to spread the kingdom, was enforced on Paul by several considerations, and as those ought to have weight with us also, I ask you to think of them.

I. This Divine impulse of his was partly due to the fact of his own redemption. You know how often reference is made in the New Testament to the sacrifice of Christ as the means of redemption, purchasing us, as it were, and giving God a new claim on our obedience. Thus Peter says: ‘Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with the precious blood of Christ’. Here lies a main distinction between the Christian and the unchristian man. The Bible proclaims that God is Lord over us; and this not merely because He has made us for Himself, enduing us, as our Creator, with powers and possibilities we could never have acquired, and crowning us with His lovingkindness, but because when we had ignored this and gone astray like lost sheep, He in the person of His Son came to redeem us again to Himself. This should strengthen His claim indefinitely for service and inward devotion.

II. But, besides the fact of his redemption, Paul was always conscious of his position as a steward, holding in trust for another what he possessed and controlled. This is exactly in accordance with the teaching of our Lord, who, in His parables, often alludes to us as having been put in trust by an unseen Master who will at last demand of us an account of our stewardship. If that view be taken by us, it will no longer seem a hardship to give to His cause, or to spend our best energies in helping on His work.

III. Finally, a sense of gratitude for the mercies received in and through Christ was an element in the constraining force to which Paul alludes. Now the secret of our difficulties in regard to home and foreign missions lies just here. We ourselves do not realise the blessings of the Gospel sufficiently to fill us with an enthusiastic desire to enrich the world with them. The kingdom of Christ must be intensified in our own hearts before it can be extended among the heathen here and elsewhere. We want also to Know more of the power of the Gospel in our own land in saving men from their sins and delivering us from the scandals which come from the unrighteousness and the unloveliness of those who profess to represent our Lord.

A. Rowland, Open Windows and other Sermons, p. 116.

1Co 9:16

Describing the prostration into which grief for his wife’s death plunged Dr. Donne, Izaak Walton observes that, with sighs and cries, ‘he ended the restless night and began the weary day in lamentation, and thus he continued, till a consideration of his new engagement to God, and St. Paul’s “woe is me, if I preach not the Gospel,” dispersed those sad clouds that had thus blighted his hopes, and now forced him to behold the light’.

References. IX. 16. E. A. Askew, The Service of Perfect Freedom, p. 197. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. i. No. 34. Expositor (6th Series), vol. ix. p. 44. IX. 16, 17. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 131. IX. 16, 26 and 27. Bishop Gore, Christian World Pulpit, vol. lvii. p. 177. IX. 17. F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. vi. p. 207. IX. 19-21. Expositor (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 235. IX. 19-23. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 142. IX. 20. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. iv. p. 114. IX. 20, 21. Ibid. vol. vii. p. 138. IX. 20-22. J. Stalker, Christian World Pulpit, vol. li. p. 280. H. S. Holland, ibid. p. 65. IX. 21. Expositor (5th Series), vol. ix. p. 347.

1Co 9:22

We have the old disciplina arcani among us in as full force as in the primitive Church, but with an all-important difference. The Christian Fathers practised reserve for the sake of leading the acolyte the more surely to the fulness of truth. The modern economiser keeps back his opinions, or dissembles the grounds of them, for the sake of leaving his neighbours the more at their ease in the peaceful sloughs of prejudice and superstition and low ideals. We quote St. Paul when he talked of making himself all things to all men, and of becoming to the Jews a Jew, and as without the Law to the heathen. But then we do so with a view to justifying ourselves for leaving the Jew to remain a Jew, and the heathen to remain heathen.

John Morley, Compromise (ch. III.).

‘The general spirit of Doddridge’s advice,’ says Sir Leslie Stephen ( English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, ch. 11. p. 387), ‘was that the dissenting minister should try to please everybody. Doddridge wished the minister to become “all things to all men”. That was rather too markedly the leading principle of his own life. The eminent dissenter was on friendly terms with the established clergy, and corresponded with bishops; he had relations with Wesley and the Methodists; he was a spiritual adviser of Lyttelton, and of the converted rake, Colonel Gardiner. His life was honourable, independent and laborious; but we may perhaps surmise, without injustice to a good man, that his emotions were rather facile, and that his temptation was to err on the side of complacency. There is a want in his writings of that piousness which is produced by the bracing air of more vigorous times; they show a tendency to flabbiness, and the enthusiasm has a hollow ring.’

He prided himself upon his capacity for becoming all things to all men; but when he applied this maxim to his intercourse with the great, it always resulted in his becoming nothing but a flatterer or an obsequious adviser…. His employers never had any difficulty with him; they let him know their mind, and he went their way.

E. A. Abbott, Francis Bacon, pp. 327-328.

Even if Bacon had had the insight of a prophet, he could have done nothing with so pliant and self-seeking a nature. He wanted not only strength of convictions, but pertinacity in maintaining and imparting them. Like St. Paul if he could be all things to all men; but he had not the Pauline art of being instant in season and out of season for any policy except that which would commend him to the king.

E. A. Abbott, Francis Bacon, p. 151.

References. IX. 22. H. Arnold Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. li. p. 308. J. Keble, Sermons for the Saints’ Days, p. 100. C. Perren, Revival Sermons in Outline, p. 317. H. P. Liddon, Sermons Preached on Special Occasions, p. 26. J. T. Bramston, Fratribus, p. 34. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx. No. 1170, and vol. xxv. No. 1507. J. G. Greenhough, The Mind of Christ in St. Paul, p. 156.

Advice to Young Athletes

1Co 9:24

I. Always play the game.

II. Learn to lose sometimes and yet keep your temper.

III. Let England attend to the weak and train them gently and carefully, and not devote all her attention to the mighty and the strong. May I also remind you that there is a race for which you were entered at your baptism, that there is training provided for you, that you may ‘run well,’ that a reward is offered, an incorruptible crown, and that Jesus Christ, who called upon you to enrol yourself, is Himself the judge.

C. H. Grundy, Church Family Newspaper, vol. xv. p. 672.

References. IX. 24. R. W. Church, Village Sermons, p. 195. W. H. Hutchings, Sermon Sketches (2nd Series), p. 102. J. M. Neale, Sermons for Some Feast Days in the Christian Year, p. 36. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iv. No. 198. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 146.

How the Prize Was Won At an Old Athletic Festival

1Co 9:24-27

Time has washed out much of the vivid colouring which these words had for those who first read them. The language and metaphors are borrowed from those ancient athletic festivals which date back from before the dawn of history, and which were counted among the chief glories of the Grecian people. The influence on Paul’s thought of these great national gatherings is evident from all his writings. In the Epistle from which my text is taken, Paul is writing to Christians. They might be living amongst men who cared for nothing better than the poor perishing pine-wreaths of time, but their eyes were fixed upon ‘the crown of glory which fadeth not away. That was their faith; then says Paul, Live up to it.

I. But I must begin with a question, Is that true of us which Paul assumed to be true of these Corinthian Christians? The question is vital. Just as the racer must know where the goal lies, so we must settle the question, What I am going to live for? Is it for the things that will last, or for the things that will wither and die? The perishable pine-wreath or the unfading crown? Which?

II. Note, further, that if the true end of life is to be attained, it must be kept before us by a distinct effort of the mind. ‘I so run,’ said Paul, ‘as not uncertainly.’ Have you ‘chosen your path

Path to a clear-purposed goal,

Path of advance?’

For without that ‘clear-purposed goal’ life will end in failure.

III. But again to return to the metaphor of my text it is not enough even to keep the goal in view. To reach it there must be effort intense and prolonged, up to the very edge of our powers of endurance. If it is worth while to take pains to win a race, is it not to work out our own salvation? What makes your Samuel Budgetts, your ‘successful merchants’? Tireless patience, unending toil; and do you think if getting ‘on’ is difficult, getting ‘up’ is easy? Like the racer that ‘receiveth the prize,’ so must we run if we would attain.

IV. Notice, in the last place, that ‘every man that striveth in the games is temperate in all things’. Let no one mistake: this is no defence of asceticism as an end in itself, and for its own sake. It is only the affirmation of the great and true principle, that the lower must give way to the higher, wherever the two clash. ‘If we would run well, we must run light.

Does anybody tell me I have forgotten the central truth of the Gospel? that I have been speaking of what man has to do for himself, and have said nothing of what God has done for him? There is no salvation by struggle, and there is none without it. Effort alone is vain, faith alone is equally vain.

G. Jackson, First Things First, p. 115.

Reference. IX. 24-27. G. Reith, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlv. p. 52.

1Co 9:25

‘The question still recurs,’ says Pater, in his Plato and Platonism (p. 233), when discussing the aims of Spartan education, ‘ To what purpose? Why, with no prospect of Israel’s reward, are you as scrupulous, minute, and self-taxing, as he? A tincture of asceticism in the Lacedaemonian rule may remind us again of the monasticism of the Middle Ages. But then, monastic severity was for the purging of a troubled conscience, or for the hope of an immense prize, neither of which conditions is to be supposed here. In fact the surprise of St. Paul, as a practical man, at the slightness of the reward for which a Greek spent himself, natural as it is about pagan perfection, is especially applicable about these Lacedaemonians, who indeed had actually invented that so “corruptible” and essentially worthless parsley crown in place of the more tangible prizes of an earlier age. Strange people! Where, precisely, may be the spring of action in you, who are so serene to yourselves?’

References. IX. 25. S. Gregory, How to Steer a Ship, p. 136. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 202. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Corinthians, p. 153.

The Race and the Fight

1Co 9:26

We have here two topics first, the danger of running vaguely; and, secondly, of fighting ineffectively.

I. I so run, St. Paul says, as not vaguely. There is a danger, then, of running vaguely; and there are two modes of this error.

(1) We may fail to keep the goal in view. The Christian life is a precarious thing in each one of us on many accounts, especially because we are so apt to lose sight of our goal. If we do this we must run at hazard or go wrong. I greatly fear that many have (a) no definite goal at all. Every one, when asked, hopes to reach heaven. But what is heaven? And what is reaching it? Many of us have no real, no adequate notion, of heaven. A safe place, a place of rest, a place of meeting, a place of calm, a place where sorrow, and crying, and pain, and change will be no more. These are our more thoughtful ideas of heaven. I believe they are all true, but I am quite sure they do not make up, they scarcely touch, St. Paul’s idea, for they are heaven without its foundation, heaven without its sun. St. Paul’s heaven was briefly defined where Christ is: ‘I have a desire to depart, and to be with Christ’. It is impossible that we should desire this sort of heaven unless we know much of Christ here below. Many do without Him here; they set Him aside in their daily life. Such cannot have the world or the eternity where Christ is, except in a very feeble sense, for their desire, their goal. But even those who know Christ may run vaguely in the same sense. They often (6) lose sight of the goal. Which of us keeps the goal always in view? Be not hasty to answer. Think what it implies. How unworldly, how heavenly-minded, how charitable, unselfish, and pure that man must be who is running thus, with his goal full in view, and that goal a right one!

(2) We may run vaguely by failing to keep within the course. There were very strict rules on this point in the Grecian games every part was rigidly marked out; the course must be all fairly traversed; and there were perils awaiting the unskilful charioteer who took either a too circuitous or a too abrupt sweep at the turning-point. And a Christian in the spiritual race has not only to keep the goal in view, but he has also all along to keep within the course; and that means he must live exactly by Christ’s rules throughout his life on earth.

II. There is a second danger that of fighting ineffectively. ‘So fight I, as not beating the air.’ This was an allusion to blows that fell short of the adversary by misdirection or by skilful evasion. Now we may beat the air in like manner that is, fight ineffectively in either of two ways:

(1) We may mistake our real enemy. We may direct our attacks upon a wrong point. We have an enemy, but we do not always know who that enemy is. For example, there are those who are spending much of their strength upon what they deem errors of opinion. It is the duty, indeed, of Christian teachers to see that the truths of Revelation and the doctrines of the Gospel are carefully set forth, lest they mar the beauty of ‘the faith once delivered to the saints’. But how different is all this from the practice of those who make men offenders for a word; of hearers who sit in judgment on their teachers; of those who fasten on slips of expression, often arising out of candour or fervour! This is a mistaking of our adversary.

(2) We may mistake our adversary by a very common want of self-knowledge. We all take it for granted that we know our own faults. Where there is a very strong besetting sin in any of us, no doubt this is so; but where the life has been more carefully regulated, and kept pure from gross stain, and the supremacy of conscience obeyed, it often happens that there is an almost entire ignorance of faults of spirit and temper patent to others. How often has some particular virtue been magnified into the whole of duty, such as, e.g., the virtue of temperance or of purity, which has rendered us blind to other faults!

(3) We may ‘beat the air’ not by fighting with the wrong foe only, but by fighting with the real foe wrongly. Which of us has not done this? Which of us has not regretted, resolved, yes, and prayed against, his besetting sin, and yet fallen again before it when it has assailed him? This is sad indeed, and discouraging. We ought to have strength, considering the motive given us in Christ’s death and the promised help of His Holy Spirit. It is all for want of faith, for want of accepting what is offered, for want of believing that there is a Holy Spirit given to all for the asking. If we did believe, we should use it; but for want of faith we fall, even when experience of, and sorrow for, and resolve against, sin, and even prayer for victory, has not been wholly wanting.

C. J. Vaughan.

A Castaway

1Co 9:27

Paul was too eager and too practical a man to dally with a bogy dread. After he had founded so many churches, written so many Epistles, and exercised so widespread an influence, in his quiet moments he was perpetually face to face with this awful nightmare, that the day might come when he would be a castaway; and the thought drove him almost to madness. Have you ever feared this? I am not sure that a man ever reaches his highest development without something of the element of fear.

I. Reverently, humbly, but most searchingly, I ask you whether it may not be possible that at this very moment you are already a castaway. ‘A castaway’ in what sense? You must know that Paul lived to save men. It was the passion of his life; but he feared that unless he took good care, the hour might come in his life when Christ would say: ‘Thou hast served Me well, but thou shalt serve Me no more. Of late thou hast become indolent, and choked with pride, and I have not secured thy whole obedience. I am now compelled to call upon some soul more alert, more obedient than thee; and that man I will use to do the work that thou mightest have done, but which thou didst fail to accomplish.’

II. Look for a moment upon the pages of Scripture, and see how they are littered with castaways! Let us then understand why men are cast away. (1) I take the first case, that of Esau. Is there not here some Christian, who in the past has had some steaming mess of pottage appealing to the senses? (2) I turn the page of Scripture, and come to the first King of Israel, Saul. A noble man in many respects, he was sent by God to fulfil His mission, but he put a reserve upon his obedience, and told Samuel: ‘Blessed be thou of the Lord! I have performed the commandment of the Lord.’ The old prophet at that moment detected the lowing of the herd and the bleating of the flock, and said very significantly: ‘Performed the commandment of the Lord! What means then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?’ I am not here to denounce special forms of sin. It is for you to determine if under the profession of obedience there are some flocks and herds that you are reserving for yourselves. Saul professed obedience, but kept back something for himself, and God rejected him.

III. This is very stern work. We must begin at the bottom; we must begin at the root of our self-confidence. The prime cause of all failure in private life as well as in public ministry is the assertion of self.

F. B. Meyer, The Soul’s Ascent, p. 3.

References. IX. 27. F. B. Cowl, Preacher’s Magazine, vol. xvii. p. 526. F. J. A. Hort, Village Sermons (2nd Series), p. 99. J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons (9th Series), p. 15. S. M. Taylor, Church Family Newspaper, vol. xv. p. 152. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ix. p. 196; ibid. (6th Series), vol. xii. p. 192. IX. 28. Ibid. vol. ii. p. 376. X. 1, 2. J. Keble, Village Sermons on the Baptismal Service, p. 65. X. 1-4. Expositor (6th Series), vol. iii. p. 99. X. 1-11. Ibid. vol. i. p. 214. X. 2. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 398; ibid. (6th Series), vol. v. p. 48; ibid. vol. vi. p. 252.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

Peculiar Questions

1 Corinthians 7-9

“I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.” “I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.” “I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” Let us see what kind of quality we have to deal with, apart altogether from the mystery of inspiration, when we are dealing with such a man as the Apostle Paul. What was he out of the chair? Of what quality are God’s princes? Unrobed and unmitred and unchaired, how does this man walk abroad? Will he be weak as other men? Will his want of mental capacity be painfully obvious? Or is he a great instrument, a man of immense and dominating faculty, even when left to his own judgment, and the movement of his own mind? The answers will be found in these chapters. The Church at Corinth had been turned into a debating club. Questions of more or less interest had arisen as between the members of that community. They referred the matter to the Apostle Paul, and in these chapters he addresses himself to “the things whereof ye wrote unto me.”

The first question was one of marriage. The Apostle is not speaking about the general question of marriage, otherwise he would be contradicting in this portion of his epistolary theology what he so distinctly affirms in other portions. The questions are peculiar as to themselves, and specially peculiar as to the season at which they were discussed. The Apostle is not talking about a Christian man marrying a non-Christian woman, or a Christian woman marrying a non-professor of Christianity, although these verses are often quoted in that sense and with that limitation. Such quotation is a positive perversion of the apostolic meaning. The case is this: Here are two people, husband and wife; one of them has been converted to Christ, what is to be done? Can they live together? Must they separate? The Apostle will not allow for a moment that the Christian has any difficulty about this. He looks upon a Christian as an ever-enlarging soul, taking in more and more points of life, and acquiring more and more intellectual and spiritual territory, and holding it in the name of his Lord. He does not therefore imagine a little pedantic Christian saying, Now that I have become a Christian, what am I to do with this heathen woman? Blessed be God, the Apostle never thought of asking any such question. Christians must not be pedants. The moment a Christian sets up his little morality and says, But what must I do? he has lost Christ. But the Apostle clearly saw that the heathen woman might object; she might say, My husband is no longer the same to me he used to be, he is a fanatic, he is a fool, he has given himself up to a superstition, he has gone away with people who are evidently mad: I cannot tolerate such a life as this, therefore I must leave him. Paul says that question may very naturally come up: now what is to be done with it? It arose at home, and it must be settled at home. With wondrous fatherly insight he says, Now first of all, before you put one another away, think of the children. Then the heathen woman says, Certainly, that is a point that ought to be considered: the heathen man says, Yes, we cannot afford to treat that question lightly. Why, says Paul, do not forget this, that if one of you is a Christian, the children are sanctified by that very fact; they are no longer common children, they come into rights and relations and prospects which are peculiar and incommunicable: the children do not suffer for the heathenism, but they profit by the Christianity. What does the Apostle mean by being “sanctified”? He does not mean being made “holy,” but he means marked, specialised, separated: consider, therefore, the children before you pedantically or superstitiously give up one another. But if the unbelieving husband will depart from the believing wife, let him go; God hath called us to peace, but if the pagan will make off with himself, we cannot retain him. On the other hand, “What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” Thy pagan partner is a home mission field: here is a set of circumstances that may be handled profitably for Christ and for yourselves. Let us therefore have no pedantry in the Church; small, moral little Christians, leaving their wives and families because they are too good to live with them. Paul said, Out upon such hypocrisy and cant! Even the veriest bed of corruption cannot taint the sun. The Christian can afford to live under circumstances which are of a discouraging and, in some instances, of a humiliating nature. The Apostle Paul therefore says, Christian husband, stand to your guns; Christian wife, keep at home: if the pagan woman wants to leave, of course she must leave; if the pagan husband wants to go, of course he must go. That Roman law was not so stern as some other law. The Roman law gave rights hear it, O heavens, and be astonished, O society! to the wife. When the Apostle says that he was speaking on this subject by “permission,” and not by “commandment,” he meant, I speak permissively, not commandingly; I accord liberty, I do not define right. That is the meaning of the Apostle’s words words which have been very often perverted and misunderstood.

Now he turns and generalises the whole situation. His principle is thus laid down ( 1Co 7:20 ): “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” How often are these words perverted! The word “calling” is made to signify profession, situation, condition in life; and the Apostle is quoted as saying to all men, how poor and miserable soever, Men, be quiet; be content with that station in life in which it hath pleased God to place you. Nothing of the kind. I say to every man, Be as discontent as you can with your present attainments, whatever they are, if in advancing farther you can carry up a broader, nobler, more generous, and more beneficent manhood. The word calling in this verse and throughout the context has a Divine relation and not a human limitation. Thus: God calls men, and in obeying the Divine call we are to pay no attention to our circumstances; it is the call we obey, it is not the social situation which we feel, either as a burden or a crown. The social situation has nothing to do with it; there is a great call of love resounding through the ages, saying, Return, O wanderer, to thy home! The rich man says, I will go: the slave says, I will go: the uncircumcised says, I will go: the circumcised says, I will go: and the Apostle says, “Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called,” and not make any difficulty about his situation or his circumstances. Thus: I was uncircumcised, what must I do? Come! But must I not first remove the stigma, the brand, or the sign of my circumcision? No. Another man says, I am only a slave, I have on the manacles and the fetters; what am I to do? Put off all these old clothes, and come in the splendid attire of a meek and a quiet spirit. Is the Apostle upholding slavery? On the contrary, he is destroying it. The Apostle was too great a man to fight any question in mere detail. He said to the slave, You lead such a lite as will make slavery impossible; be so noble, so grand, so majestic, that you will make it felt that you are not a slave in reality, whatever you may be in name. This is the subtle spirit, this is the fundamental action of Christianity, that it does not vex itself with merely passing details, but lays down sovereign principles, which, being carried out, end in liberty, growth, progress.

But the argument of the Apostle related not only to the peculiarity of the case but to the seasons which he distinguishes by the words “the present distress” The Apostle was evidently looking forward to the close of the dispensation. Many critics try to show us that the Apostle was really not looking forward to the immediate closing of the dispensation, but in my judgment they fail. I have studied their arguments, and balanced all their reasonings, and I have said, All this amounts to a theological post hoc ; these people want to prove something which they have assumed, and they want to make certain words fit in with certain foregone conclusions, and it will not do. I cannot read the Pauline epistles or other epistles without feeling that the Apostles were looking forward to the almost immediate coming of their Lord: whether that event took place in the destruction of Jerusalem, is a question which theologians may argue, more or less profitably; but it is impossible from my point of view to avoid the conclusion that these men always wrote in haste, as if they were not sure they would be able to sign their own letter before the heavens rent, and the Son of Man returned to the vision and the touch of the world. This being so, the letter is explained. The Apostle would seem to say, Brethren, you are talking about marrying, and giving one another in marriage, and what is to be done in the household under such-and-such circumstances, why, all these things are hardly worth arguing at all, already the axe is laid unto the root of the tree, already I hear a sound as of advancing footsteps, and whilst we are arguing these little local domestic matters we may be summoned to the consummation of things. Thus: This house has but one year to run in its lease: is it worth our while spending a thousand pounds in connection with it? The voice of prudence says, Certainly not; you have but a year to remain, why then should you go to this expenditure? We have but a certain time to remain in the country, shall we adjust certain questions that are now exciting the anger or the prejudice of the multitude? No, it is not worth while.

Thus we are always reasoning outside theological lines, and the Apostle says upon all these questions about eating and drinking, and marrying and giving in marriage, and all these questions about circumcision, and slavery, and male and female, Why, the whole controversy will be settled presently; there will be one gleam of light through the air, and in the twinkling of an eye the whole firmament will be filled with midday, and the Lord will come, the new relationship will be established, the new sovereignty will advene, and then where will be our little questions about marrying and giving in marriage? “Brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.” A singular word is this “abusing,” in 1Co 7:31 (ch. 7). What should we say to be the meaning of the word “abusing”? Probably we should say he abuses the world who misuses it. That is not the Apostle’s meaning. The Apostle’s meaning would be better expressed thus: “And they that use this world, as not over-using it,” not being too fussy, and making too much of nothing; playing with clay, trying to find eternity in time. Men over-use the world and get their hands too deeply into it; they play the fool with it.

The next point that is touched upon in the inquiry made by the Corinthians was about meat offered to idols, and about eating that meat. The question is a very simple one. The heathen priests took meat into the temples, and offered it to the idols, and having done this they went and sold it to the dealers who offered it in the shambles; and there was a conscience that said, Now about this meat: it has been handled by pagan priests, it has been offered on pagan altars, and it has been bought out of the heathen temples, and is now in the general shambles offered for sale: what is to be done with this meat? Some say, We cannot touch it, because it has been offered to idols. Others said, An idol! why, an idol is nothing at all; the meat is not tinged or tainted by its having been offered to nothing at all; the meat is as good as any other meat: produce it, enjoy it. The Corinthian casuist said to the Apostle under these circumstances, What shall we do? And the Apostle delivers the judgment which is recorded in the eighth chapter: and having given his own judgment upon the subject he says, After all, we must consider the weak conscience. Weakness governs the world; it is always the minority that rules, although if you were to say so in a public meeting you would be hooted from the platform. But it is always the minority that rules. It is weakness that stops the house, it is the baby that keeps the family at home; it is the lame limb that detains all the sound faculties and says, Stop! What! am I to stop because I have one lame limb? I am sound in all my other limbs, and sound in all my mental faculties, and am I to be humbled in this way? Yes, you are, and you cannot get out of it. So the Apostle says, Here is a lame man in the Church, and the Church must wait for him; and the Church says, This is the singular pass we have come to, all waiting for one lame man. The Apostle says, That is the very idea of the Church. The whole universe may be waiting for one little lame world called the earth: nobody can tell how fast the universe might get on but for this cripple called the earth. Nobody knows how great the family might have been and how wonderful in fame and influence but for the sick-chamber. The Apostle says, Here is one poor man; call him weak, do not let him be under the impression that he is strong; let him know exactly what he is, and tell him that it is to his weakness we make this obeisance. What is the use of your standing over a little baby, and pouring upon its unconscious head a whole Niagara of rhetorical expostulation? The thing is impossible. So the Apostle said, We must wait for this man: he is a man, he is not much of a man, he is about as little of a man as it is possible to be and yet be a man; but Christ died for him, therefore we must wait. Now, says the Apostle, I will tell you what I will do; I dare not say anything to anybody else, but this is my position. I can eat this meat; it is nothing to me that the meat has been offered by some heathen priest to a heathen idol; I do not care for that for one moment: but there is a man just there, who says he would be hurt in his soul if I took it. I say, Very well, I will not take it. That is the ground on which all total abstainers from innocent things must rest, if the action is to be widely influential. Many a man says, I could take this wine, I should know exactly when to give over, it would do me no harm, I could take it with a good conscience; but if I did take it, there is a poor soul that could not even inhale the odour of the wine, without the appetite fired as from hell. I say, Very well, I throw it on the ground, I will not touch it, for your sake. That argument can never be overturned; and if there be a man who never does anything for any other man’s sake, let him not name the name of Christ.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

Apostolic Rights

1Co 9:15

We should have thought there was nothing worse than death. The Apostle Paul says in effect, It is not in the slightest degree necessary that any man should live, but it is infinitely needful that every man should be good, honest, upright, useful. How foolishly, then, we have reasoned upon this matter! We have gone so far sometimes as to say, My daily bread depends upon it! The Apostle Paul says, What do you want with daily bread? that is of no consequence; it is not at all necessary that you should live, in the body, live upon daily bread: it were better for you to die; better far, than that you should make a fool of yourself in the sight of God; than that you should kill your soul; than that you should be an empty heart, without moral riches, without spiritual confidence, without beneficent nobleness. This is quite a Christian tone; no one else ever used that argument with the same measure, direction, and purpose of force. Others have had their attention called to thoughts that lay in that direction, but it required a Christian, who had been a long time with Christ on the Cross, to say, that it is not at all necessary that any man, how great soever, should merely live, breathe, eat daily bread. The necessity is that a man’s soul should live; his honour should be immortal; his beneficence as enduring as the love of God.

The Corinthians never used the Apostle Paul well. There was always a minority against him. That minority was obstinate, selfish, Judaic in thought and in inclination, and altogether wanting in that noble overwhelming enthusiasm which belongs to Christian faith and loyalty. There were men in Corinth who questioned whether Paul was an apostle at all. They were literalists, men who set up certain inch-high standards by which to measure apostleship. They were mere arithmeticians, with a semi-moral cast, somewhat inclined to be pious when piety required no sacrifice at their hands. They would set up their test, especially the test of having seen Christ in the flesh, and companied with him visibly, tangibly, and audibly for many days. The Apostle handled that objection with his usual masterliness. He was calm in all such argument; he had lived too long to permit himself to get into any tumult of debate with ignorant and retrogressive minds. He therefore said, “Am I not an apostle?” Instead of laying the emphasis upon the word “Apostle,” and speaking the inquiry upon the rising inflection, put the emphasis upon the word “not,” and let the inquiry rather go downward than upward. Thus: Am I not an apostle? are you quite sure about it? what are your signs of apostleship? If you make the visible manifestation of Christ an indispensable sign of apostleship, even to that I can submit as to a test: “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?” not perhaps in the same way other men saw him. There is a larger sight; Paul was always moving in the direction of larger spaces, larger interpretations, and larger uses of things. If it comes to seeing, said he, what do you mean by seeing? Do men only see with the eyes of the body? Do they only see the physical Christ? Is there not a larger seeing, a seeing of the very soul, and a seeing into the very soul of Christ himself? Then he turns upon a favourite method of his own the argumenlum ad hominem ; he turns right round upon these Corinthian sceptics as to. his apostleship, and says, “Are not ye my work in the Lord?” when you run down my apostleship you run down your own Christian standing: you never would have been so far on as you are but for me: “If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord”; it is not the very brightest seal an apostle might have, it is not a proof to be very proud of, you are not the richest and noblest specimens of Christian manhood that the Christian imagination could dream; but such as you are, poor enough in quality, stunted enough in growth, perverse, crooked, in mind, and altogether selfish in many of your thoughts, yet even yourselves would not have been so far on as you are but for me; and yet you turn round upon your very master and teacher and say, Thou art not an apostle. Paul did not give up his ministry on that account. It does not take a great mind to resign a ministry. Many men have thought they were acting quite a majestic part in human history when they resigned their work. It seemed to satisfy their vanity, to please their little fevered pride, to say that they had “resigned.” The Apostle Paul did not resign, he still continued his ministry, his persuasion, and his prayer; he said, The Apostle must not give up, the Christian must not lose heart; these scholars are very wayward and obstinate, and their ignorance is almost invincible, I can hardly get another idea introduced into their brain; yet I must be the more patient in proportion to their obstinacy. When a man talks thus there is no need to question his Apostleship. He may not have a written paper to the effect that on a given day in a given year he was appointed an Apostle, but he turns round and says, Behold! let the work be the witness.

The Apostle would not take any money from the Corinthians because they did not know how to give it. They begrudged everything. Many men do give money with an explanation. There are persons who have a genius for giving subscriptions, with a footnote. They do part with the money, but they would rather have kept it. The Apostle says to the Corinthians, Keep it, every whit; I will not touch it: I have a right to it; I have the right of reason; I have the right of the ancient law; I have the right of common habit; I have the right of the Lord’s own appointment in this matter. Jesus Christ himself entitled me to receive carnal things in exchange for spiritual; but when I have reference to your temper and disposition, your money is even worse than you are yourselves; I would not touch it; I will work an hour later every day, I will make an extra tent every week; I will have nothing to do with such a begrudging and reluctant remuneration. In this chapter the Apostle argues out the case well. He shows that as an Apostle he has certain rights and claims, that, like the other apostles, he could take with him a sister or a wife upon his missionary tours, and have a right to be maintained by the churches that he visited. He adopted this right on many occasions, he availed himself of the liberality of the people; but to these turbid spirits at Corinth he says, I will not touch anything that belongs to you. He could be very proud. It was not necessary for him to live, therefore his pride was not an ebullition of vanity but the assertion of a great sovereign ruling principle in life: “It were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void” in this respect; death is preferable to the humiliation to which you in Corinth invite me. If this were a mere tiff between the Apostle and some of the libidinous and dissolute Corinthian souls, it would not be worth while to revive it, but it is in connection with such matters as these that the apostolic character is most graphically and vividly developed and brought before us.

Now the Apostle resorts, as he always does, to great principles. He is not acting passionately, petulantly; he is not doing something to-day which he will regret tomorrow, coming back and begging the Corinthians’ pardon for having acted so impetuously and vehemently. He says, My principles are such that I can live upon them. These principles he indicates with startling distinctness: “but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ.” That is apostleship; the man who says this must have seen the Lord sometime, somewhere; he may not have seen him as other men have seen him, but he never could have said these words if he had not seen the Lord’s heart and held long converse with the Man of the Cross, and the Man on the Cross. It would have been an easy thing for the Apostle to grind his Corinthian opponents to powder and scatter them upon the sea; but, said he, I am not sent to destroy men’s lives but to save them, because I am sent in the Spirit and power of Christ; therefore, if I did certain things, the very course which I took would be misunderstood; it might be a right course, it might be a useful course, but because it would hinder the Gospel of Christ I will not take it; by-and-by my position will be made clear, in the meantime I will hold my tongue where I might righteously speak, I will make no claim where I might urge a reasonable demand; I will make the Gospel of Christ first, foremost, supremest; that that may proceed and conquer shall be my living and unchanging aim: and therefore I can suffer all things, and exceedingly rejoice in my gathering tribulations. You cannot get hold of a man of that soul, so as to punish him very much, by simply withholding your patronage from him. He feeds upon his hunger, his deprivation is one of his luxuries; he says, This, O Christ, is for thy sake, and therefore it is nothing; do not set it down in thy book as any virtue on my part; I feel now as if I want to do it; thou dost feed my soul so bountifully with the bread of heaven that I do not want any other bread, and even in this miserable Corinth I feel as if I had acre upon acre of fruitful garden and orchard: Lord, reckon it not as for me in the book of thine account. Why did he not leave the ministry altogether, and go forward with his tent-making? He gives the reason “For though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory of” it is no sacrifice on my part “for necessity is laid upon me; yea” not only is necessity laid upon me, but “woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel,” to be dumb would be to be punished; to hold my tongue would be to reverse the decree of heaven, and set my puny self against the predestination of God. A man like that does not wait until the church is built, he preaches at the street-corner; when he is tied by chains to some custodian, he preaches the Gospel to the one hearer, and thus sets a seed of truth even in Rome itself. “Necessity is laid upon me,” I must preach, I feel I can do nothing else; whatever else I do, even tent-making, is a struggle, and is an indication that my work is larger, and when I am preaching there is no time, no space, no pain; I feel then as if I were under solar action, revolving with quick velocity and flaming glory around my central sun. When men have to lash themselves up to their work, they can never do it, whatever the work be. A man who has to scourge himself to poetry will never write poetry. The man who has to prick and puncture himself, in order that he may begin to paint something, will never paint anything the world will care to see. When Victor Hugo was asked whether making epic poetry was not very difficult, he said, “No: easy, or impossible.” So it is with all great elections, to business, to literature, to statesmanship, to preaching, to every degree of status and every zone of vocation in life. If the necessity, the pressure, the touch eternal is not felt, then all your labour is a beating of the air. When some one told Melancthon the ministry was the art of arts, the science of sciences, the sweet-souled Philip said, “If he had added the misery of miseries, he would have struck the nail upon the head.” The very misery is the beginning of the joy. Only a Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief could reveal the joy of God: only on Golgotha do men get the right visions of the Holy One. A preacher who has not had his whole heart ploughed up, ripped up, as if by hot ploughshares, cannot talk to men to their edification. He may be a maker of sentences, and a manufacturer of small infidelities, but he cannot preach with the might of tenderest love to the wounds, the sorrows, and the necessities of the soul. This is the reason the Apostle Paul did not resign. He could not resign; he was the happy slave of a blessed compulsion, and this went through the whole line of his conduct. He could not be ignoble. If the Apostle Paul had tried to do a mean thing, he would have failed; if the Apostle had ever made up his mind to write an anonymous letter he never would have posted it, he would have broken down in the attempt to be a coward and a poltroon; he would have erected himself and said, No, it is better for me to die than to try the trick of meanness. He said, Yea, and meant yea; he said, Nay, and meant nay. He had not learnt the art of diplomacy, the art of courtly lying, the art of saying what you do not mean, the Talleyrand morality that says, “Language was given to a man to conceal his thoughts”; that was not the school in which the Apostle was trained. He may have been a fanatic, an enthusiast, an infatuated preacher, but he was an honest soul.

Another great principle he lays down in 1Co 9:19 : “For though I be free from all men, yet I have made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more:” unless you make yourselves the servants of others you cannot help them. You cannot help the east end from the west end; you cannot be doing things from a fine sanctum of elegance, that shall tell upon the remotest fibres and trembling issues and agonies of downright necessity, poverty, or pain; you must go and be one of the people; you must live their life, and speak their language, not as an acquired dialect, but as your mother tongue. When the greatest of all slave missionaries went to preach the Gospel to bondsmen he sold himself as a slave. He became a slave that he might save the slaves. He did not preach during the dinner-hour outside the cotton plantation, he went into the plantation itself, stooped himself down to his work, and whispered his Gospel to anybody that would listen to him. Men who do this do not need to produce testimonials, certificates, reluctantly written by somebody who cannot be found. Let your work speak for you; let the miracles wrought by your own genius of love attest your heavenly descent: the palm be his who wins it. Do not ask where a man came from, or by what qualification or authority he ministers: ask, what is the harvest grown under his care? and if it be golden wheat, say, This only could come forth from him who is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working.

Here, then, we have Paul’s way of treating death. He always despised it. When the people came to him upon one occasion and told him that if he went on a certain course bonds and imprisonment awaited him, he said, “None of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” When the people said, They will bind thee, and the chains are heavy, and the dungeon is cold and dark, he said, “I am willing not to be bound only, but to die for the Lord Jesus.” A man who talked so made noble history. He is not to be laughed down by persons who have never sacrificed one solitary enjoyment that they might help some other soul to live. This is the influence that tells upon society in the coming and going of the ages; and Paul would be the first to tell you that the influence was not his, it was an influence derived. He says, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” In another prayer, he will exclaim, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” When you praise the Apostle Paul know ye that the anthem is due not to the servant but to the Lord, the living Eternal Christ.

Let young men adopt this as their motto: It is better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorifying, in truth, and honour, and goodness, void. You may have a struggle, but you will have a great victory at the end. I have less and less faith in people who get up in the morning without having done anything, and begin to cut down what other men have sown. I like the man who has won every mouthful of bread he eats; I have confidence in the man who tackles life bravely, who had early and tremendous struggles, but who came up with Divine courage every time he was called for; I have faith in the men who have rich, large, noble experience of the realities of things. I know not that I could give to young men a motto nobler than this, when interpreted in the spirit of Christ: It is better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying in Christ, truth, love, pureness, and beneficence, void. Hold your lives loosely, so far as your mere earthly enjoyment is concerned; look upon your present life as a mere puff of smoke blown away by the wind, so far as duty is implicated; and respond to the obligations of reason; and thus find your life, not in your meat, but in your Christian service. I have seen life in all its phases, I know it altogether; I know its deprivations and its enjoyments; I know its desolations and its popularity, I know what men are. Looking at life out of Christ, it is a mystery, a tragedy, a perplexity infinite: looking at life in Christ, it is a pain, a wonder, an apocalypse; but over it there steals, with the quietness of sunrise, the blessed assurance that to be in Christ and to do Christ’s work in Christ’s spirit makes life the seed, whose fruit is immortality.

Prayer

Almighty God, it hath pleased thee to make our days but a handful, may we know the number thereof, and turn our hearts unto wisdom. We arc to-day like grass in the field, and tomorrow we are cut down, and there is none abiding. The trees outlive us; we go to our own place, and are known no more upon the earth. What is there beyond? What is thy purpose concerning our life? Surely thou art training us for heaven, for larger service, for nobler stature and capacity of being. We believe this, because we have learned it in the school of Christ; this is the meaning of Bethlehem, and this is the meaning of Golgotha: we will not believe that thou dost crush us and extinguish us, we will believe in immortality. Lord, help us by the power of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit so to do. We love the Saviour, and where he is there we shall be also. Did he not say, If it were not so I would have told you? We live upon his word, we stand upon the rock of Christ’s assurance; we are confident that we shall say, O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? and that by the power of the Cross, earth shall be but the beginning of heaven. In this confidence may we do our duty, and bear our burdens, and fulfil the responsibilities of the day; out of this will come patience, tender, considerate, and heroic; yea, out of this shall come such fulness and richness of manhood that we shall not only be without fear ourselves, we shall be the ministers of courage and hope unto others. We leave ourselves always wholly in thine hands, thou Father of us all. Thou knowest the way that we take, when thou hast tried us thou wilt bring us forth as gold. Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, yea, he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth, that his sonship may be decided and established. Help us to accept all the deprivations and enjoyments of life as specially sent of God for the training, the culture, and the immortality of blessing promised to our souls. We would not live incidentally, superficially, despairingly; we would live as those to whom heaven is a blessed, it may be an imminent, reality. Save us from all meanness, low-ness of thought, selfishness of motive and of purpose; and to this end may we know the power of the sufferings of Christ when he died upon the Cross. Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

XVII

SAUL’S CONVERSION, HIS CALL TO THE APOSTLESHIP AND HIS COMMISSION

Act 9:1-19 ; Act 22:5-16 ; Act 26:12-20 ; 1Co 1:1 ; 1Co 9:1 ; 1Co 15:7-10 ; Rom 7:7-25 .

In commencing this chapter, I call attention to my address called, “The Greatest Man in History,” which you will find in The Southwestern Theological Review, Vol. I, No. II. There are ten special scriptures which bear upon the conversion of Saul, and most of them upon his call to the apostleship. The accounts given are as follows: (1) By Luke, Act 9:1-9 , A.D. 36; (2) by Barnabas, Act 9:26-28 , A.D. 39; (3) by Paul at Corinth, Gal 1:15-16 , A.D. 57; (4) by Paul at Ephesus, 1Co 15:8-10 , A.D. 57; (5) by Paul at Corinth, Rom 7:7-25 , A.D. 58; (6) by Paul at Jerusalem, Act 22:1-16 , A.D. 59; (7) by Paul at Caesarea, Act 26:1-19 , A.D. 60; (8) by Paul at Rome, Phi 3:4-14 , A.D. 62; (9) by Paul in Macedonia, 1Ti 1:12-16 , A.D. 67; (10) by Paul at Rome, 2Ti 1:9-12 , A.D. 68. In order to understand the conversion of Saul of Tarsus we must be able to interpret these ten scriptures.

To prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion I submit two scriptures: (1) The words that Jesus said to him when he met him, “It is hard for thee to kick against the goads.” (2) What he says about his experience in Rom 7:7-25 , that he was alive without the law until the commandment came, when sin revived and he died.

As to the time and place of Paul’s conversion, the argument is overwhelming that he was converted outside Damascus. In the first place, the humility with which he asked the question, “Who art thou, Lord?” Second, the spirit of obedience which instantly followed: “Whereupon, O King Agrippa, Is was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision.” Again he says, “When God called me by his grace, he revealed Christ in me.” So we may count it a settled question that Paul was converted out there on the road, when the light above the brightness of the midday sun shone about him, and he fell to the ground.

The proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state, is found in 1Co 9:1 , and also 1Co 15:8 , in which he expressly affirms that he had seen Jesus, and puts it in the same class with the appearances of Jesus to the other disciples, after his resurrection from the dead. It was not simply an ecstasy, nor a trance, nor a mere mental state, but he actually met Jesus, and saw him. Jesus appeared to him, not in the flesh, as on earth before his death, but in the glory of his risen body. He and Paul actually met. There was a necessity for his actually seeing the Lord. He could not otherwise have been an apostle, for one of the main functions of the apostolic office was to be an “eyewitness” that Jesus had risen from the dead. So Peter announces when Matthias was chosen to fill the place of Judas that he must be one who had continued with them from the time of the baptism of John until the Lord was taken up into the heavens, and that he must be one eyewitness of the resurrection of Christ. Other passages also bearing on his apostolic call, are, one particularly, 1Co 9:1-9 , and then what he says in the beginning of his letters: “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, not of man.” I need not cite all of these beginnings. You can trace these out yourself. The second particular passage that I cite, to be put by the side of 1Co 9:1-9 , is Gal 1:15-16 .

Let us distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show what part of this point experience may not be expected in conversions today, and was not a part of his Christian experience, and what the elements of his Christian experience. When I was interested in the subject of my salvation, to me, a sinner and an outsider, the distinction between Saul’s conversion and his call to the apostleship was very clear. You must understand that the light above the brightness of the midday sun was the glory of the appearance of the risen Lord to Saul, in order that he might see him to become an apostle, and the shock which Paul experienced by thus seeing the risen Lord was the shock that knocked him down, but it was not a part of his Christian experience it was a part of his call to the apostleship. You must not expect anything of that kind in order to your conversion, nor must you teach other people to expect it. But the elements of his Christian experience were these: (1) He was convicted that he was a sinner; (2) Christ was revealed to him; (3) he did believe on the Christ thus revealed as his Saviour; (4) he did then and there receive the remission of his sins, which remission was pictorially set forth in his baptism three days later.

Here it is well for us to define a Christian experience. I was once present when a man came to unite with the church, and the first question propounded to him was, “Please tell us in your own way why you think you are a Christian.” “Well,” he commenced in a sort of “sing-song” manner, “one day ah, about five o’clock ah, I just took a notion to walk around the work-fence ah, and I thought maybe I’d better take my rifle along ah, for I might see a squirrel ah,” and he went on just that way. I myself have heard, in a Negro protracted meeting on the Brazos, about eight miles below Waco, candidate after candidate tell their experiences. They commenced this way: “Well, about last Sunday night ah,” following the same “sing-song” manner, “something seemed to drop down on me like a falling star ah, and I heard the angel Gabriel toot his horn ah; I went down in the valley to pray ah,” and so on.

Therefore, I say that we ought to define accurately the Christian experience. This is a Christian experience: All those convictions, emotions, and determinations of the soul wrought by the Spirit of God in one’s passage from death unto life. That may sound like a strange definition of a Christian experience. It has in it a conviction and certain emotions, also certain determinations, or choices, and those convictions and emotions are not excited by seeing a squirrel, not in imagining that you heard Gabriel blow his horn, for it is not Gabriel that is going to blow the horn. Michael is the horn-blower. But this conviction, this emotion and the determinations of the will, are all Spirit-wrought. And a Christian experience covers every one of those in the passage from death unto life.

There are varied uses which the New Testament makes of Paul’s experience:

1. As soon as he was converted, and yet outside Damascus or at least as soon as he had entered Damascus, the Lord tells Paul’s Christian experience to Ananias in order to induce that disciple to go to him. That disciple says, “Lord, I know this man. Why, he is a holy terror! He just kills us wherever he finds us.” But the Lord says, “I tell you he is a chosen vessel unto me, and you go to him.” So the Lord made use of Paul’s experience to prepare Ananias to accept Paul, and to minister to him what ought to be ministered to him, just as God made use of the experience of Cornelius related by himself to Peter in order to prepare Peter to perceive that God was no respecter of persons.

2. The second use made is by Barnabas in Act 9:26-28 . Paul came to Jerusalem three years after his conversion, and essayed to join himself to the disciples, but they would not receive him: “You? Take you? Accept you? Why, this whole city is full of the memories of your persecutions.” But Barnabas took up for him, and related how this Saul had met Jesus, and how he was a believer in this gospel, and a preacher. And the relating of Saul’s experience to the Jerusalem church removed all of their objections to him, and prepared them to receive him among them, so the record says, “he went in and out among them.”

It is for such objects that the Christian experience should be related to the church. God requires it as the second ceremonial act that the man shall publicly confess the change that has taken place in him before he can be received into the church, and I will be sorry whenever, if ever, the Baptists leave that out. A man must not only be converted inside, but in order to join the church there must be a confession of that conversion.

In this particular case it was exceedingly appropriate for Barnabas to relate it, as they would not be disposed to believe Paul. The general rule should be that each candidate tell his own experience. It is better to let the candidate just get up and tell the church why he thinks he is a Christian, in his own way. Some people object to it. They say it is too embarrassing to the women. I have never found it so, but Is have seen men so “shaky” when they went to get married that they answered so low I could hardly hear them. But women are always assertive. A woman knows she loves him. She knows what she is doing, and she doesn’t mind saying so.

I remember a Christian experience related to our old First Church at Waco. A Mrs. Warren gave it. I talked with her privately, saying, “When you come before the church, don’t let anybody suggest to you what you are to say, and don’t you say anything because somebody else has said it; you just simply say what has happened to you.” When I put the question to her, she opened her Bible and put her finger on the passage from which she heard a sermon, and showed how that sermon took hold of her; told how it led her to pray; she then turned to another passage, showing that through faith she believed in Jesus Christ; and she thus turned from passage to passage. I considered her’s the most intelligent and the most impressive Christian experience I had ever heard. That kind of testimony does a world of good.

3. The third use of it Paul himself makes in his letter to the Galatians. He says, “God, who separated me even from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me.” Thus he goes on to make use of his Christian experience. He says, “Therefore, now first I was converted, and then called as an independent apostle. That is why I do not go to Jerusalem to submit my experience to Peter or John, having derived this direct authority from God, from Christ, who alone can call an apostle. That is why I did not submit to the instruction of man.”

4. The next use he makes of it is what is told in Rom 7 , and he there tells his experience in order to show the use of the law in the conversion of a man that the law does not convert the man; that it discovers sin to him: “I had not known sin except the law said, Thou shall and shalt not do this or that. I was not even conscious that I was a sinner until the law showed me I was a sinner. Apart from the law I felt all right, about as good as anybody, but when the law came, sin revived and I died.” And then he goes on to show that this mere sight of sin through the law cannot put one at peace with God, neither can it deliver one; it does not enable one to follow the right that he sees in order to evade the wrong that he would not; that it leads one to cry out, “Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me out of the body of this death?” But when he says, “I thank God through Christ Jesus our Lord,” he then shows how his conversion, through faith in Jesus Christ was led up to by the law: the law was a schoolmaster to lead him to Christ.

5. In the letter to the Corinthians he makes another use of it. He explains that he is so different from what he was, saying, “By the grace of God I am what I am.” In other words, “You need not come to me and say, ‘Why, Paul, when did you commence to do better, to work out your own righteousness? You are so different from what you were when I first heard of you; you then were breathing out threatenings,’ for I say to you, By the grace of God I am what I am.”

6. We see another when he stands on the stairway in Jerusalem, giving an explanation as to why he quit one crowd and then went to another crowd. They were howling against him for going over to the Christians after being so zealous as a Jew, and he asked the brethren to hear him. He admits all that they said as to what he had been, and to justify his occupying the position he now occupies, he says, “I will tell you my Christian experience,” and he proceeds to do it. If a leader of wild young men, up to all sorts of mischief and devilment, should go off for a few days, and come back changed, and the boys say, “Come down to the saloon tonight, and let us have a good time,” and he would then say, “No,” they would wonder what had come to him and would ask, “What has come over you lately? Come and let us have a game of cards.” But, “No,” he says, “boys, I will tell you why I cannot do that.” Then he explains why, and he leaves that crowd because he can’t stay with it any more. So Paul explained why he left the persecuting crowd, and could not go with them any more. He had had a Christian experience.

7. In Act 26 there is another instance recorded in which he made use of it. He was at Caesarea, arraigned on trial for his life, before Festus and King Agrippa. He is asked to speak in his own defense. In defending himself against the accusations of his enemies he relates his Christian experience.

8. In the letter to the Philippians he relates his Christian experience in order to show the impossibility of any man’s becoming righteous through his own righteousness, and to show that Christ laid hold of him. He uses his own experience now to show that his righteousness can never save him, and that though regenerate, he cannot claim to be perfectly holy and sinless.

9. In 1Ti 1:12-16 he relates his Christian experience in order to explain two poles of those who are salvable: (a) “God forgave me because I did it through ignorance,” and (b) to show that any man who has not committed the unpardonable sin, may be saved, since he, the chief of sinners, was saved.

10. Then, in the last letter to Timothy, and just before he died, he recites his Christian experience. He says, “I know him whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to guard that which I have committed unto him against that day,” i.e., “I committed my soul to him on that day when he came to me and met me; I knew him before I committed it to him, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep it.” He made that use of his Christian experience because he was under the sentence of death, expecting in a few hours to be executed. This is his farewell to earth and to time, so he closes his letter with the statement that the time of his exodus is at hand; that he is ready to be poured out as a libation; that he has fought a good fight, has kept the faith, and that he feels sure that there is laid up for him a crown which God the righteous Judge will give to him at his appearing, i.e., the appearing of Jesus. The relating of that experience came from the lips of a dying man, showing that the ground of his assurance gives calmness the calmness of God’s peace.

A startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience. We do not find many uses of Peter’s experience, or John’s, or Matthew’s, or Mark’s, or Luke’s. Paul is the only man in the New Testament whose experience is held up before us in ten distinct passages of scripture. To account for the fact, let us expound the two reasons for this particular man’s conversion (1Ti 1:13-16 ), in which he says, “Howbeit I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as the chief [of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his longsuffering, for an ensample, . . .” the conclusion of which is this: All these uses are made of Paul’s experience because as Abraham had the model faith, which is the pattern for all generations, so Paul is a model in Christian experience he is the pattern. If you preach on the faith of Abraham you have the model faith of the world; if you preach on the experience of Saul of Tarsus you have the model experience of the world.

The principal lesson to us is that as it was in the particular case of Paul, so it is in our case, that the most stupendous fact in our history is not when we were born according to the flesh, but when we were born according to the Spirit. That is our real birthday. It is the most significant and the most far-reaching fact of anybody’s lifetime and an abundant use may be made of it.

For instance, John Jasper, the Negro preacher, with his Christian experience could always reply to any atheist even to President Eliot, of Harvard, about a new religion. He would say to President Eliot, “When you say there is no such thing as the religion that has been preached, you ought to say, ‘Not as you knows of.’ I have it, and since I have got it and you haven’t, I am higher authority on that than you.”

In Edward Eggleston’s Circuit Rider is the story of a fighting preacher, who was going to his appointment, and certain rough men stopped him on the way and told him that he must turn round and go home, and not fill that appointment. “No,” he said, “I am going to fill it; I’m not going home.” “Well, then, we will take you down from your horse and give you such a beating that you will not feel like preaching.” “Well, you ought not to do that,” he said. “You get down,” they said. He got down and whipped both of them outrageously, but in the fight he got his jaw badly bruised and marred, and when he got to where he was to preach he could not preach. There was a big crowd, and no preacher who could preach. So he looked around and took a poor, thin, long-haired, black-eyed young fellow who had been very wild, but who had just been converted just a boy. The preacher said, “Ralph, get up here and preach.” “Why,” he says, “I am no preacher; I have not been a Christian long; I have not been licensed, nor ordained.” “But,” said the preacher, “get up here and preach.” “Why,” said the boy, “I do not know any sermons.” “Well, if you try to make a sermon and fail, then throw your sermon down, and tell your Christian experience before this crowd.” So that boy got up and made a failure of trying to preach a sermon like preachers preach. Then, weeping, he said, “Brethren, I can tell you how God for Christ’s sake forgave my sins,” and he became more eloquent in telling his experience than Demosthenes or Cicero, and that whole crowd was weeping under the power of the boy’s simple recounting of the salvation of his soul. He could not possibly have done any better than just what he did that day.

There is a myth that when Jupiter made a man he put a pair of saddlebags on his shoulders. In one of the saddlebags was the man’s own sins and in the other were the sins of his neighbors, and when the man threw the saddlebags on his shoulder the sins of his neighbors were in front of him and the other saddlebag with his own sins was behind him so that he could not see them, but his eyes were always on the sins of his neighbors. But when conversion comes God reverses the saddlebags, and putting the man’s own sins in front, he places the sins of his neighbors behind him, so that he never thinks about what a sinner A, B or C is, but, “Oh,” he says, “what a sinner I am!” That is the way of it in the Christian experience. Some think that it was the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners, i.e., that it was because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other people. My belief is that all of us feel that way the first time we quit looking at our neighbors’ sins and begin looking at our own sins, but it is not the explanation of Paul’s statement, because that does not make a pattern of the case. He says, “Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief: howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as chief might Jesus Christ show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample of them that should thereafter believe on him unto eternal life.” Note that his case was a pattern to them that should thereafter believe. That was the reason, and not simply that of looking at his own sins instead of his neighbors.

What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the chief of sinners, is e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or injurious? No. I have showed in a previous chapter that Louis XIV and Alva in the lowlands persecuted worse than all. Others have gone before him in blaspheming, and there have been more injurious men than he. The answer is this: He was a “Pharisee of the Pharisees,” that is, he was an extremist, going to the fine points of Pharisaism, the acme, the pinnacle, the apex of Pharisaism, which is self-righteousness, and Paul was the most self-righteous man in the world. What is the sin of self-righteousness? It says, “I am not depraved by nature; I do not need the new birth, the re-birth of the Holy Spirit; I need no atonement; I am the ‘pink of perfection.’ ” That is the greatest sin that man ever committed, because it rejects the Father’s love. It rejects the Saviour’s expiatory death, and his priesthood. It rejects the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. Hence it is the culmination of sin. While other people are self-righteous, Paul was the outside man, which means that if all the sinners from Adam to the end of the world were put in a row and graded according to their heinousness, this one a sinner) this one more a sinner, that one even more, and to the outside man, the worst, the one next to hell, that man was Saul of Tarsus. That is what is meant by being the outside man as a pattern. He topped them all, to be held up before other sinners, so as to say, “If the outside man was saved, you need not despair.” The value of this man’s conversion to the church and to the world is very great. It marked the turning point in the direction of the labors of the church in a worldwide way, and it established forever the foundations of the new covenant as against the old covenant.

His apostolic call and independent gospel knocks the foundation out from under the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope, because it shows that he did not derive from Peter his apostolic authority; that he did not even go to see Peter before he commenced exercising his call; that he did not get from Peter one syllable of his gospel; and whenever an issue came up between him and Peter the latter went down and not Paul. That one fact destroys the entire claim of the papacy that Peter was the first Pope.

There are some things in this connection that need explanation. First, the falling of the scales from his eyes. Literally, there was no falling of the scales from his eyes, but the glory of Christ blinded him. His physical eyes could not see. It was not his soul that was blinded, but his physical eyes; and “the scales” that fell from his eyes was this temporary suspension of sight caused by this glory of the Lord. If you hold your eye open a little and let me put a red hot iron, not against your eye, but close to it, it will make you as blind as a bat, but if you shut your eye it won’t do it, because the tears in your eyes will break the conduction of the heat. Paul’s case is just as when you are standing out of doors on a dark night and there comes an intense flash of lightning. When it is gone you cannot see for a moment. That is the scales.

Second, Paul was unable to eat and drink for three days. The experience that had come to him was turning the world upside down. He had meat to eat that the ordinary man knows not of. The disciples were astonished that Jesus, sitting at the well of Sychar, was not hungry. He says, “I have meat to eat that ye know not of.” Hundreds of times I have been in that condition, after a great illumination in God’s work, and some powerful demonstration in a meeting, that I could not eat anything. The things of heaven tasted so much better than the things of earth. No man eats for a while in the shock of such tremendous experience as that Paul passed through.

Third, the Lord said to Ananias, “Behold, he prayeth.” The question arises, What was he praying for? What do you pray for? You are converted. The Lord said to Ananias, “Paul prayeth.” It was used as a proof that he was converted, and, “therefore Ananias, you may go to him.” Ananias was afraid to go. So the Lord said, “Why, you need not be afraid to go; he is not persecuting now, he is praying; there has a change come over him.” I do more praying and quicker praying after an extraordinary visitation of God’s grace than at any other time.

QUESTIONS 1. What address commended for study in connection with this chapter, and have you read it?

2. What the scriptures bearing on the theme, and what the corresponding date of each?

3 Prove that Paul was under conviction before his conversion?

4. Through whose ministry was Paul convicted?

5. At what point in the story was he converted when he met Jesus outside Damascus, at the end of three days in Damascus, or at his baptism?

6. What the proof that his vision of Jesus was real, and not a mere mental state?

7. What was the necessity for his actually seeing the Lord?

8. Cite other passages also bearing on his apostolic call.

9. Distinguish clearly between his conversion and his apostolic call, and show what part of this joint experience may not be expected in conversions today, and was not a part of his Christian experience.

10. Define a Christian experience.

11. What varied uses does the New Testament make of Paul’s experience?

12. What startling fact confronts us in these many uses of his experience?

13. To account for the fact expound the two reasons for this particular man’s conversion (1Ti 1:13-16 ) in which be says, “Howbeit Is obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief; . . . howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me as the chief of sinners] might Jesus Christ show forth all his long-suffering, for an ensample, etc.”

14. What the lessons to us of the use to be made of our experience, and what illustration of it?

15. Cite the myth of Jupiter concerning the man and the saddlebags.

16. Was it the thought underlying this myth which caused Paul to call himself the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he saw his own sins, but not the sins of other people? Explain fully.

17. What particular act, or series of acts, or state of mind constituted him the chief of sinners, i.e., was it because he was a persecutor, blasphemer, or injurious?

18. What is the value of this man’s conversion to the church and the world?

19. What is the bearing of his apostolic call and his independent gospel on the Romanist claim that Peter was the first Pope?

20. Explain the falling of the scales from his eyes.

21. Explain his not eating and drinking for three days.

22. The Lord said to Ananias, “Behold, he prayeth.” What was he waiting for?

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

XVI

THE REVOLT AGAINST PAUL’S APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

1Co 4:8-21 ; 1Co 9:1-27 .

In the last chapter this question was asked, “Who questioned Paul’s authority?” And our answer was, “Visiting brethren from Jerusalem,” and we discussed the various grounds upon which they based their questionings. Paul’s reply is found in 1Co 4:8-21 ; 1Co 9:1-27 ; and three or four verses in 1Co 15 . We take two sections somewhat distant apart and put them together in order to put everything together that bears upon the discussion.

The first charge was that he was not one of the original twelve. He admits the allegation, but denies the deduction. Jesus Christ had as much right to appoint an apostle after his resurrection as he had while in the flesh. It will be remembered that in Acts I, through the Spirit, Matthias, not one of the original twelve, was numbered with the twelve, received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and became in every way a qualified apostle of Jesus Christ. Paul was as truly appointed an apostle by the will of God as Peter was. There never was any more definite or important a transaction than his meeting the Lord on the way to Damascus at which time he was not only converted, but was specially called into the apostolic office. Over and over again in his letters and in his life are evidences that the Lord not only originally called him, but appeared to him many times in confirmation of that call. So he well says in commencing this letter, “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God.”

Then they charged that he had not seen Jesus in the flesh. He admits the fact, but he says it is altogether unimportant whether he had seen Jesus in the flesh or not. He had seen him after he rose from the dead, and that was the point upon which the apostleship rested. That he had seen the risen Lord constituted his qualification to be a witness as an apostle. They charged that he had not exercised his apostolic authority in vindicating himself by punitive judgments on those that questioned him. Peter had Ananias and Sapphira struck dead for telling a lie. It is said that Paul talked big enough, but did not act. To that Paul replies that on account of mercy he had refrained from vindicating, by punitive right, his power, but that he had a right and could exercise it, and when he got among them he would do it unless they repented of the wrongs that they had done.

They charged that he had not exacted apostolic support for himself and wife. They argued that he, in his own conscience, did not feel entitled to it. His reply to that is superb, and is completely unanswerable. He commences with 1Co 9:1 , which is the chapter of the Bible on the scriptural grounds for ministerial support, by saying, “Am I not free?” This matter of support is a right, not a duty. “May I not waive the right ‘if I choose?” There are some things we can waive if we choose to do so.

A certain man whom I knew, an exceedingly eccentric man, was, as a widower, paying his addresses to a widow. The lady said when he asked her to marry him, “I have some objections to marrying you.” He said, “I have a great many objections to marrying you, but I waive them.”

Next, Paul gives the reasons why he waived the right. They were missionary reasons. If he had come there and made his first speech on their paying him a salary, nobody would have listened to him. It was not after the plan of God’s gospel that a missionary, reaching territory that had never been occupied, should lay great stress on the people’s paying him to preach to them. The next is, that his desires were for them, not for their money: “I coveted you for Christ, and not anything that you had.” Third, as a matter of fact it was not true, since in part he bad been supported while among them, through a contribution of the church. Next, that he labored with his own hands, not because an apostle had to do that, but because it was a necessity for an important lesson to them in that community. Tens of thousands of Corinthians were loafers. Paul wanted to be able to say, “You remember you people who won’t work that when I was among you I worked by night and preached to you by day. These hands ministered unto my support in order that you might understand that he who won’t work should not eat.” There is no sentimentality about Paul on the beggar question. They charged that he had exacted no pay for his preaching. He replied that that did not make him inferior, but made them inferior: “For what is there wherein ye were made inferior to the rest of the churches, except it be that ye were brought to Christ and established and built up by my ministry, and ye did not pay me a cent?” Then he said, “Forgive me this wrong. It was wrong for me to waive my right to a support that you should not be instructed to minister to those who minister to you.” Then he goes on to prove his right.

To the end of time, 1Co 9 , will be the chapter in the New Testament on the subject of ministerial support. I once took as a text this scripture: “My defense to them that examine me is this.” They put him upon examination. He bases his answer, first, upon analogy from human conduct in other things, and cites three things: First, the soldier: “Who goeth forth to warfare at his own charges?” They objected to a preacher being supported for his ministry. On all sides these people could see soldiers. “Do they pay for their rations, their uniforms, their weapons, their hospital in which they stay, and the medicine which they take?” It would be impossible to have an army permanently without setting aside from some source adequate support for them. So applying that analogy to the preacher, why may he not have a right to a support? Paul might have gone further: Officers in the army are not merely provided for the field, but are educated at national expense, like Army cadets at West Point, or Naval cadets at Annapolis.

My wife’s brother, Willie Harrison, is in the Navy. I remember well when he was just a boy he entered Annapolis as a cadet. He knew no more about a ship than he did about a balloon. He is now lieutenant on one of the great battleships, and has charge of a most responsible position in its navigation. I went to see him a few years ago and went all over the yards at Annapolis, Washington, and Baltimore. It became perfectly evident to me that no untrained man could be a naval officer. His training must commence very early. As protected those enormous guns, I realized that one slight mishap in the process of making defensive armor that take and the whole ship would blow up, and that the keenest, highest education was necessary in order to know how to handle those ships in time of war.

Then he cites the case of the vine-dresser: “Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not the fruit thereof?” One cannot drag a man to a piece of ground, make him clear it, cultivate and gather the grapes, and not pay him anything. He asks: “Who feedeth the flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock.” Will a Texas cowboy take charge of a herd of cattle, watch by day and night, nearly kill himself avoiding a stampede, be burned in the sun, and do all for nothing? Hasn’t he a right to a piece of beef, to milk and butter? Or if it be sheep, to a piece of mutton, or to woolen clothes? That argument is perfectly unanswerable.

Second, he appeals to the law of Moses. The Jews were questioning his right. He refers to their law, “Say I these things as a man? It is written in the law of Moses. Does the Mosaic law forbid a man to muzzle his ox that is threshing the grain?” In those days they threshed the grain by oxen treading on it continuously. That was their primitive way of threshing. “Now would you begrudge an ox his food if he stooped to get a bite of grain? The Mosaic law forbids you to muzzle the ox that treads out the grain. If it be a sin to muzzle an ox, is it not a greater sin to muzzle a man that brings the message of eternal life to the people? He brings not the bread of earth, but the bread of heaven. Certainly it applies more to men than to oxen.” He says, “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? The preacher finds you in darkness under the power of Satan, lost; and in tears and love he pleads with you and you are led to Christ and find eternal life. The spiritual things to which he leads you are worth more than all the world. Is it then unreasonable that he should reap your carnal things?” In other words, a man who by the grace of God and through the ministry of a faithful preacher has been led to eternal life and made a partaker of the inheritance of the saints, who would grudge help in a carnal way to the one who had been the means of his salvation, would certainly throw a question over his salvation.

Notice his next argument, viz.: their own conduct: “If there be those who are partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?” In other words, “The preachers you have had, you have paid for their services. You concede the right to Peter and others, and if this support is for them, why not Paul? Ask yourselves which one of these led you to salvation. Paul is the one that found you and led you out of darkness into light.” Then he passes to his next argument, still on the law of Moses, the Levites, and the priests: “Do you know that they who minister about the holy things of life, of the things in the Temple, and they which wait at the altar are partakers of the altar? The tribe of Levi, which had no territory given to them, had become the Lord’s servants to do the Lord’s work and minister to the Lord’s sanctuary, and the Lord provides for their support.”

He thus makes the application of these five distinct arguments: “Even so did the Lord ordain that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” It certainly is an important declaration. As a government maintains its soldiers, and when they get old and feeble, it provides hospitals and infirmaries, and when officers are retired they receive half pay, so “God hath ordained that they that preach the gospel should live of the gospel.”

When Christ sent out his apostles he commanded them to take no means of support, saying, “The laborer is worthy of his meat and his hire.” In other words, “I would be a very poor employer if I sent you out to confine your attention strictly to my work, and make you hustle to get your living from other things.” Wherever there is no adequate provision for ministerial support, and the preacher must do things for his living, run a farm or practice medicine, we may rest assured that he cannot give his undivided attention to the ministry, and that churches that receive that kind of ministry do not receive the full work of the ministry. The calamity in that case is on the church. Oftentimes it is downright covetousness that is the cause of it. Churches think we can get Brother So-and-so for fifty dollars a year, and we can just have preaching once a month. Can a church prosper on once a month’s preaching?

I have always taken this position: If any preacher, truly called of God to preach, will implicitly trust, not the churches, but the Lord Jesus Christ to take care of him, and will consecrate his entire time to the work of the ministry, verily he shall be clothed and fed, or else the heavens will fall, and God’s word will not be so.

I made that statement once and some of the brethren questioned it. I still stand on it.

If I were a young man again, I would do just as I did then, burn all the bridges behind and push out on the promises of God, that perhaps not in my way, not in the church’s way, but in some way the Lord Jesus Christ would take care of my wife and children.

I would say in my heart, “I am God’s man; I am to go out as his minister, to do his work, to do no other business; and sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I will trust the Lord and stick to my work.” I have tried trusting Jesus and he has never failed; I have had men to lie to me straight-out; I have had 1,000 promises to fail, coming from men, but never has any promise of God failed that he has ever made.

An illustration on this point occurred at an early day in Waco. We had a very skeptical man there, Mr. Berry, whom Dr. Burleson invited to attend an association. He had no buggy, and so Dr. Burleson said, “You may ride with me.” When he saw Dr. Burleson’s shabby old buggy and rattletrap harness and lean, raw-boned horse, he said, “Dr. Burleson, you have faith that you will get there in that buggy, but I have not; I am going to get a buggy from the livery stable.” But Dr. Burleson beat him there just the same. I have known preachers to get there in ramshackle buggies and pieced-out harness, tied with shoe-strings. Once I saw a collar on a horse tied with a necktie, and the preacher had to preach without one, but “he got there just the same.”

When Jesus gave the commission he said, “These things shall follow: If a serpent bite you, or you drink deadly poison, it will not hurt you.” They applied that to Paul and said, “We infer from your extraordinary afflictions the Roman lictors, the stripes and scourges of the Jews, and the thorn in your flesh, and that bad eyesight, that if you were an apostle of the Lord he would take care of you.” His reply to that is certainly great. It is in 1Co 4:9 : “I think God hath set us, the apostles, last of all, as men doomed to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world ( kosmos ), both to angels and men. . . . Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked.” In other words, “You bring up that charge against me and I accent the facts, but it is worse than you know. You are rich from our labors; you are kings through our labors. We are weak and poor and suffering.” Just as Jesus, the Captain of our salvation, was made perfect through suffering, these apostolic leaders were to share his suffering and fill up what remained, and to bear all things.

A demonstration was needed upon this subject, and therefore he says, “I glory in it.” The word “spectacle” was taken from the custom of the amphitheater where from 50,000-200,000 people were gathered as many as could be gathered in the great Roman amphitheater and down below a gladiator was to fight a Numidian lion or a Bengal tiger. High upon the platform was the emperor and his suite, and all around in this semicircle thousands of the people were gathered, and that man was the spectacle. He fights the wild beast, and as his blood gushes out of his wounds he salutes the emperor and says, “Caesar, I salute thee,” and so Paul, about to make his exodus, ready to have his blood poured out as a libation, salutes the Emperor and says, “I have fought the good fight I have kept the faith; henceforth there ‘is laid up for me the crown of righteousness.”

Again he says, not to some Roman, Corinthian, or Athenian amphitheater, but to the kosmos to the universe of angels and men, that all the galleries of heaven are filled with the onlooking angels, and all the population of the earth have their eyes fixed upon these apostles, and they are in the arena appointed unto death. This is proof of their apostleship, as Jesus told him when he called him. If a man is going to turn his back on the ministry on account of the suffering, the sooner the ministry is rid of him the better. If he is only going to be a sunshine, fair-weather, daylight man, who, because the darkness comes, the march is long, or the battle is terrible, or the cold severe, or the watching is trying, or the wounds are painful if he is going to turn away from the ministry of Jesus Christ on that account let him go.

His reply to their charges that he could not be an apostle because he was not exempt from suffering is one of the finest arguments in literature. Jesus Christ could not be Saviour according to that argument, for it was by his suffering he became Saviour.

NOTE. The other charges given in Jas 2:1-26 are answered in 2Co 10:13 .

QUESTIONS

1. What the second ecclesiastical disorder, who raised the question, and what the scriptures containing his masterful reply?

2. What Paul’s reply to the charge that he was not one of the original twelve, and had not seen Jesus in the flesh?

3. What his reply to the charge that he bad not exercised his apostolic authority in punitive judgments?

4. What his reply to the charge that he did not exact support for himself and wife?

5. What the condition at Corinth that made it necessary for him to waive this right?

6. What reflection on them does Paul show in his second letter that they had allowed him to waive his right in the matter of support?

7. What good text on ministerial support cited?

8. What three instances of human conduct does he cite in defense of ministerial support?

9. What his argument from the law of Moses relating to the ox?

10, What his argument from the benefit they received?

11. What his argument from their own conduct?

12. What his argument based on the support of the priests and Levites?

13. What the general application of the five preceding distinctive arguments?

14. What the teaching of Christ on this same line?

15. What the result generally of a poorly paid ministry?

16. What the author’s position with regard to the preacher and his support?

17. What Paul’s reply to the charge that he had extraordinary afflictions?

18. What the origin and application of the word “spectacle” as used here?

19 What Paul’s reply to the charge that his was not the true gospel?

20. What Paul’s reply to the charge that he did a great many foolish things?

21. What Paul’s reply to the charge that he had bodily infirmities and weaknesses?

22. What his reply to the charge that he was against the law of Moses?

23. What his reply to the charge that he was a preacher to the Gentiles?

NOTE: For answer to questions 19-23, study carefully the scriptures cited, and for continuation of the discussion of this subject see last chapter in this book.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

Ver. 1. Am I not an apostle, &c. ] That is to say, Do I require you to do anything more than I myself do daily, in parting with my proper rights? All things in a minister should be exemplary, and for imitation; Tit 2:7 ; “In all things show thyself a pattern of good works.” The word , there used, signifies a thing that makes the stamp on the coin, or the mould whereinto the vessel is cast and shaped.

Have I not seen the Lord? ] viz. In visions and ecstasies. The false apostles reported him no apostle because he had not conversed with Christ in the flesh. It is ordinary with seducers to detract from the truth’s champions, that they may be the better esteemed of. Thus Bellarmine rejecteth the fathers and others that make not for him as heretics. To Iraneus, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Luther (said he) I answer, Omne manifesti haeretici sunt, they are all manifest heretics. So Arminius’s course was to detract from the authority and fame of Calvin, Zanchius, Beza, Martyr, &c., that he might build himself upon better men’s ruins. (Synod. Dordec. Praefat.) The Jesuits speak most basely of St Paul, a making much against many of their tenets; and stick not to teach in their pulpits, that he was not secure of his preaching but by conference with St Peter; nor that he dared publish his Epistle till St Peter had allowed them. Zuinglius mentioneth some bold fellows in his time, A. D. 1519, who spake very contemptuously of this great apostle: Quis tandem Paulus, &c. Calvin telleth that Quintinus the Libertine called him Vas fractum, a broken vessel. And Leo Judae, in his preface to Bullinger’s book against the Catabaptists, noteth, that albeit there were various sorts of those sects, and all at odds among themselves, yet they all concurred in this, that they vexed and disparaged the godly preachers of the truth. And do they not still antiquum obtinere, hold to their old wont?

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1 27. ] He digressively illustrates the spirit of self-denial which he professed in the resolution of ch. 1Co 8:13 , by contrasting his rights as an Apostle with his actual conduct in abstaining from demanding them ( 1Co 9:1-22 ). This self-denying conduct he further exemplifies , 1Co 9:23-27 , for their imitation . See Stanley’s introductory note; and Conyb. and Howson, vol. i. pp. 61, 457, edn. 2.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1 .] He sets forth, (1) his independence of men (contrast 1Co 9:19 ); (2) his apostolic office (for the order, see var. readd.): (3) his dignity as an Apostle, in having been vouchsafed a sight of Christ Jesus our Lord; (4) his efficiency in the office, as having converted them to God.

. ] So that the resolution of ch. 1Co 8:13 is not necessitated by any dependence on my part on the opinion of others .

] Not, during the life of our Lord on earth, as Schrader, nor is such an idea supported by 2Co 5:16 ; see note there; but, in the appearance of the Lord to him by the way to Damascus (Act 9:17 ; ch. 1Co 15:8 ; see Neand. Pfl. u. Leit. p. 151, note); and also, secondarily, in those other visions and appearance , recorded by him, Act 18:9 (?), Act 22:18 , and possibly on other occasions since his conversion. , Chrys. Hom. xxi. p.180.

is not a mere humble qualification of , as Chrys. ib., , , but designates, as elsewhere, the element, in which the work is done: they were his work as an Apostle , i.e. as the servant of the Lord enabled by the Lord , and SO IN THE LORD. See ch. 1Co 4:15 .

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 8:1 to 1Co 11:1 . ] ON THE PARTAKING OF MEATS OFFERED TO IDOLS, AND ASSISTING AT FEASTS HELD IN HONOUR OF IDOLS.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

1Co 9:1-6 . 27. PAUL’S APOSTOLIC STATUS. The Ap. is ready to forego his right to use the idolothyta, wherever this claim hurts the susceptibilities of any brother (1Co 8:13 ). He is “free” as any man in Cor [1274] in such respects; more than this, he is “an apostle” (1Co 9:1 ), and the Church of Cor [1275] is witness to the fact, being itself his answer to all challengers (1Co 9:2 f.). If so, he has the right to look to his Churches for maintenance , and that in the ordinary comfort of married life a claim unquestioned in the case of his colleagues in the apostleship (1Co 9:4-6 ).

[1274] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

[1275] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1Co 9:1 . ; This question, arising out of the foregoing , properly comes first. The freedom supposed is that of principle; in 1Co 9:19 it will take a personal complexion. P. is no longer bound by Mosaic restrictions in the matters under dispute ( cf. 1Co 9:21 , 1Co 10:29 , Gal 2:4 ; Gal 4:12 ; Gal 5:1 ); he holds the right belonging to every emancipated Christian. Far beyond this reaches the question, ; which P. answers by putting two other questions, one to his own consciousness, the other to that of his readers: “Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord?” ( cf. Act 7:55 ; Act 9:5 ; Act 9:17 ; Act 22:8 ; Act 26:15 ) is a unique expression with P.; it describes not a spiritual apprehension, the of the believer, nor the ecstatic visions which he had sometimes enjoyed in a state of trance (2Co 12:1 ff.), but that actual beholding of the human and glorified Redeemer which befell him on the way to Damascus; from this dated both his faith and his mission (Act 9:1-32 , Gal 1:10-17 ). Paul seldom uses “Jesus” as the name of our Lord distinctively, always with specific ref [1276] to the historical Person ( cf. 1Co 12:3 ; 1Co 12:1 , 1Th 4:14 ; Eph 4:21 ; Phi 2:10 ; 2Co 4:10-14 ). The visible and glorious man who then appeared, declared Himself as “Jesus”; from that instant Saul knew that he had seen the crucified Jesus risen and reigning. Asking of his new-found Lord, “What wilt Thou have me to do?” he received the command out of which his commission unfolded itself. Personal knowledge of the Lord and a “word from His mouth” (Act 22:14 ) were necessary to constitute an Apostle in the primary sense, the immediate “emissary” of Jesus ( cf. Mar 3:13 , Act 1:21 f.); in virtue of this experience, P. classes himself with “the other App.” (1Co 15:7 ff., Gal 1:16 f.); his right to do so was in due time acknowledged by them (Gal 2:6-9 ). The great interview, in its full import, was Paul’s own secret; his Apostolic power, derived therefrom, was manifest to the whole world (2Co 3:1 ff; 2Co 12:12 ), the Cor [1277] Church supplying a conspicuous proof.

[1276] reference.

[1277] Corinth, Corinthian or Corinthians.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

1 Corinthians Chapter 9

The apostle now enters on the vindication of his office which some in Corinth had sought to undermine and of ministry in general which they tended to corrupt. Title is asserted, but with full room for grace. For ministry is of Christ the Lord, not of the first man, and the spirit of the world if allowed is its ruin.

“Am I not free?* am I not an apostle?* have I not seen Jesus our Lord? my work are not ye in [the] Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, yet at least I am to you; for the seal of my apostleship ye are in [the] Lord. My defence to those that examine me is this. Have we not authority to eat and drink? have we not authority to take about a sister wife, as also the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? or I alone and Barnabas, have we not authority to abstain from working [lit. not to work]?” (Vers. 1-6.)

* The order is transposed in the vulgar text, following the mass but not the best MSS and versions, A B P, etc. Vulg. Syr Cop. Aeth. Arm., etc.

. ., as in T. R., D L K L P, most cursives and versions; X. F G, etc.; . A B, a few cursives, some ancient versions, etc.

. A B D F G P, etc.; . the rest.

Most strongly had he declared his readiness to give up anything for natural life rather than jeopard his brother. Yet does he affirm his independence of human yoke as distinctly as his apostleship. Liberty thus went hand in hand with the highest responsibility. Nor was his office vague or secondary. He had seen Jesus our Lord. His detractors were thus far right: he had derived no degree from the apostolic college, no mission from Jerusalem. From the twelve others might pretend to succession, and falsely: Paul had his authority immediately from the Lord seen on high. Were the Corinthians the men to question this? – the “much people” whom the Lord had in that city? whom Paul had begotten through the gospel? Was this their love in the Spirit? If not an apostle to others, surely such should not deny it who were its seal in the Lord. But what may not the saint do or say who slips out of the Lord’s presence? Too, too like Jeremiah’s figs; the good figs, very good; and the evil, very evil, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil. In none is evil worse than in. the Christian. The corruption of the best thing is not the least corruption. Was it come to this, that Paul was put on his trial, on the preliminary inquiry at least, to see whether an action would lie against him, and that he had to make his plea or speech in defence to his own Corinthian children in the faith? He then asserts the title of an apostle, as we may say too in general of him who ministers in the word, and here in the gospel particularly. “Have we not authority to eat and drink?” that is, right to maintenance. “Have we not authority to take about a sister wife, as also the other apostles and the brethren in the Lord and Cephas?” that is, not only to marry a sister but to introduce her where he himself went, an object of loving care to the saints with himself. So it was with the apostles in general, notably with the Lord’s brethren or kinsmen and above all with Peter. (See Mat 8:14 .) “Or I only and Barnabas, have we not authority not to work?” This is the alternative ordinarily where support is not given. But the saints should never take advantage of the grace that foregoes such a title to relax in their own plain and positive duty. To cut off the plausible self-seeking of false apostles who wished to ingratiate them. selves and to insinuate evil against the true, the apostle did not use his title, especially at Corinth, but wrought with his own hands, as it would seem Barnabas did also. But he is careful to lay down as unquestionable the title of the spiritual workman to a living for himself and his family.

Very fittingly does this follow his exhortation in the preceding chapter, where he reproves such an use of liberty as might stumble the weak. It was certainly not so with him who did not even use his right to support when in their midst; so had he done as to marriage (1Co 7 ),* through all his career in order to serve the Lord the more undividedly; even as he could tell the Ephesian elders at a later day how they themselves knew that his hands had ministered to his wants and the wants of those who were with him, and had shown them every way that so toiling we ought to come in aid of the weak and call to mind the words of the Lord Jesus, It is more blessed to give than to receive.

* The ignorance of the plainest facts and statements of scripture which characterizes the fathers, even those who were comparatively near the apostolic age, would be scarce credible, if one did not see the same sort of haze over the eyes of almost all who read their writings. They seem incapable of a spiritual or even sober judgment. Thus Eusebius (H. E. iii, 30) cites from Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii.) that “Paul does not demur in a certain Epistle to mention his own wife, whom he did not take about with him, in order to expedite his ministry the better.” This is a total misconception of Phi 4:3 and of our chapter, neither of which supposes him married, whilst 1Co 7 proves he was not. Again, quite a crowd of fathers (Tertullian, Ambrose, Aug, Jerome, Theod, etc.), followed of course by Romanist theologians, even their two best commentators (Cornelius Lap. and Estius), interpret 1Co 9:5 of rich christian females who accompanied preachers to help out of their substance. Possibly so gross a misconstruction flowing from a false system of thought as to celibacy led to the , , or of early ecclesiastical notoriety, condemned by the first council of Nicea. One may add here the curious error in the Vulg. (not alone the printed editions but some good, if not most of the, manuscripts), hoc or haec operandi.

But he proceeds to show that even nature teaches better than to neglect those who serve the Lord in His saints or gospel. “Whoever serveth in war at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of its fruit[*?]? or who tendeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Do I speak these things as a man, or doth not the law also say these things? For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that is treading out corn. Is it for the oxen that God careth, or doth he say it altogether on our account? For it was written on our account, because the plougher ought to plough in hope and the thresher [?]in hope of partaking. If we sowed for you the spiritual things, [is it] a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others partake of the authority over you, should not we more? But we used not this authority, but bear all things that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of the Christ. Know ye not that those that minister about the holy things eat of the temple, and those that attend the altar share[?] with the altar? So also the Lord ordained those that announce the gospel to live of the gospel.” (Vers. 7-14.)

* . . p.m. A B Cp.m. F G P, etc; . T. R. supported by the mass.

T. R. adds with large but inferior authority.

p.m. A B C D E F G P, a few cursives, and many citations; T. R. following a few uncials, most cursives, etc.

All live on the return of their work, soldier, husbandman, shepherd. The propriety of this, according to man, is unimpeachable: did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction; and if He spoke of not muzzling the ox when treading out corn, He had not cattle in view but His people, His servants in the word. The figure is kept up accurately. The plougher ought to plough in hope, and the thresher (ought to thresh) in hope of partaking, the last phrase being more appropriate when the time for a share was obviously near.

There is also, it may be well to notice, in verse 11 a guard against him who would object that the analogy fails, in that the labourer thus specified received in kind, whereas the spiritual labourer might need help in the things of this life. The apostle meets the senseless or selfish cavil by showing the duty of a recompense fortiori, as what is of the Spirit transcends what is of flesh. “If we for you sowed the spiritual, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal?” He appeals in verse 12 to their own practice as owning the title of others. “If others partake of the authority over you, should not we more?” He takes care however to show that he was wholly above selfish aims in thus pleading for the spiritual labourer and his title to support: “Yet we used not this authority, but bear all things that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of the Christ.” He would plead for others and their title, and the duty of the saints ministered to on a right consideration of the work done; but he used not the right for himself, on the contrary bearing all sorts of trial in order to afford no hindrance to the gospel.

Lastly the apostle draws a testimony from the Levitical system contrasted, as it is in many respects, with the gospel, in that it identified the ministrants with what was brought into the temple and laid on the altar. Jehovah being the part and inheritance of the priestly name among the sons of Israel, He gave them a share in His offerings and sacrifices. So now under the gospel the Lord forgets not those who preach it but appoints them to derive their maintenance from it, though there may be exceptional cases as in his who has written the rule for us.

The apostle had now affirmed the principle. It was for others however, not for himself. He is careful to make this understood by the Corinthians. He had written in love for the glory of the Lord, “but,” says he, “I have used none of these things. And I have not written these things that it should be thus in my case, for [it were] good for me to die rather than that any one should make vain my boast. For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to boast, for necessity is laid upon me, for woe is to me if I preach not the gospel. For if I do this willingly, 1 have a reward; but if unwillingly, I have an administration entrusted to me.” (Vers. 15-17.) Divine love cares for others, and sacrifices self. The apostle was the living exemplification of the gospel he preached. There were rights, and grace does not forget them for others – does not avail itself of them. He is even warm in repudiating any such thought in the present case. It was living Christ so to feel and act, who taught that it was more blessed to give than to receive. His own life and death were the fulness of its truth; but the apostle was no mean witness of it, though a man of like passions with us. Nor has he been without his imitators in this, even as he also was of Christ. He would not afford a handle to those who sought it at Corinth. Others have had grounds equally grave for a similar course.

It is important to see also that to preach is not a thing to boast of. It is an obligation – a duty to Him who has called one, and conferred a gift for this very purpose. It is thus a necessity laid on all such, not an office of honour to claim, nor a right to plead. Christ has the right to send, and He does send, labourers into His vineyard. This makes it truly a necessity laid on him who is sent. According to scripture, the church never sends any to preach the gospel. Relations are falsified by any such pretension. Again He who sends directs the labourer. It is of capital importance that this should be maintained with immediate responsibility to the Lord. ,Therefore it is that the apostle adds, “For woe is to me if I preach not the gospel.” Undoubtedly he who does this voluntarily has a reward, and the heart goes with the blessed work, whatever the hardness and reproach which accompany it. But if not of one’s own will, an administration, or stewardship, is entrusted to one. Now of the steward it is sought that he be found faithful.

“What then is my reward? That in preaching the gospel I may make the gospel without charge. So that I use not for myself any authority in the gospel.” (Ver. 18.) It was meet that such an one as the apostle, extraordinarily called, should act in extraordinary grace; and this 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 no question here of “abuse,” any more than in chapter 7: 31. It is the giving up of one’s right for special reasons of grace, and it is the more beautiful in one who had as deep a sense of righteousness as any man, perhaps, who ever lived. The plea for the rights of others was therefore so much the more unimpeachable, because it was absolutely unmixed with any desire for himself.

“For being free from all, I made myself bondman to all, that I might gain the most. And I became to the Jews as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; and to those under law, as under law, not being myself under law,* that I might gain those under law; to those without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain those without law. To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak; to all I have become all things, that by all means I might save some. And all things I do for the sake of the gospel, that I may become a fellow-partaker of it.” (Vers. 19-28.) How bright a reflection of the spirit of the gospel! The apostle was ready to yield at every side where Christ was not concerned. He was free, but free to be a bondman of any and everyone, in order that he might gain, not ends of his own, but the most possible for Christ. Hence among the Jews he raised no question about the law. His heart was set on their salvation; he would not be turned aside by legal questions. He became as a Jew; but while he declares that to those under law he was as under law, he carefully guards his own standing in grace by the clause left out in so many of the more modern copies, “not being myself under law,” that he might gain those under it. Such was the only gain he sought – not theirs, but them; and them for God, not to mould after any opinions or prejudices of his own.

* A B C D E F G P, many cursives, ancient versions, etc.; Dcorr. K and most cursives omit, as does Tex. Rec.

He was just the same with the Gentiles. (Compare Gal 4:12 .) Such is the elasticity of grace. “To those without law, as without law,” while he carefully adds, not being without law to God, but duly or legitimately subject to Christ, that he might gain those without law. It is in vain to speak of natural character or education. If there ever was a soul rigidly bound by Pharisaic tradition within the straitest limits, it was Saul of Tarsus. But if any man be in Christ, there is a new creation. The old things passed; behold they are become new. Such was Paul the apostle; and so he lived, laboured, and speaks to us livingly. He would not wound the scruples of the feeblest; nay, to the weak he became weak, that he might gain the weak; in short, he could, and does, say, “to all I am become all things, that I may by all means save some.” It was not, as some basely misuse his words, to excuse tampering with the world, and so spare one’s own flesh, which is really to become the prey of Satan. His was self-sacrifice in a faith which had only Christ for its object, and the bringing of every soul within one’s reach into contact with His love.

“Know ye not that they who run in a race-course run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And everyone that contendeth is temperate in all things; they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown, but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, as not uncertainly – so combat, as not beating air. But I buffet my body, and lead [it] captive, lest by any means, having preached to others, I myself should be reprobate.” (Vers. 24-27.) The figure from these games would be most striking to the Corinthians accustomed to those of the Isthmus. Indeed the use is plain to anyone. Spiritually, the prize is not for one, but for all, if all run well. But even in the games the candidates must be temperate in all things, though theirs were but a fading crown, ours an everlasting.

The apostle then applies it with touching beauty, not to the faulty Corinthians, but to himself. His was no rhetoric of the schools or the law-courts, but the word of Christ for heaven. He therefore transfers the figures to himself for their sakes, if one may apply his own language in 1Co 4 . “I therefore so run as not uncertainly.” How was it with them? I “so combat, as not beating air.” To this alas! they were habitually prone, as the epistle shows throughout, especially 1Co 14 and 1Co 15 . “But I buffet my body, and lead it captive, lest by any means, having preached to others, I myself should be reprobate.”

Would that the Corinthians had so dealt with themselves! Alas! they were reigning as kings, while the apostles were, as it were, appointed to death. It is an utter mistake to suppose that the language of the apostle supposes any fear of perdition for his own soul. He had grave fears for those who were living at ease and carelessly. It is very possible for a man to preach to others, and be lost himself; but such an one does not buffet the body, nor bring it into subjection. Had the apostle lived without conscience, he must have assuredly been lost, as indeed one of the twelve was. Here we are shown the inseparable connection between a holy walk along the way, and eternal life at the end of it. Who can doubt it? and why should any man make a difficulty of the passage? There would be difficulty indeed, if the apostle spoke of having been born again and afterwards becoming a castaway: in this case life would not be eternal But he says nothing of the sort. He only shows the solemn danger a” certain ruin of preaching without a practice according to it. This the Corinthians needed to hear then, as we to weigh now. Preaching or teaching truth to men without reality, self-judgment, and self-denial before God, is ruinous. It is to deceive ourselves, not Him who is not mocked. Nor do any Christians more deeply need to watch and pray than those who are much occupied with handling the word of God or guiding others in the ways ‘of the Lord. How easy for such to forget that doing the truth is the common responsibility of all, and that speaking it to others ever so earnestly is no substitute for their own obeying it as in the sight of God! A spiritual walk is a different thing from sincerity; but high discourse without an exercised conscience exposes to shipwreck ere long.

Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: 1Co 9:1-2

1Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? 2If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

1Co 9:1 “Am I not free” There is a series of questions in this context. USB4 has fourteen, NASB has sixteen, NKJV has fifteen, NRSV has sixteen, TEV has fourteen, and NJB has twelve. It is uncertain if these are statements or questions (cf. Ellingworth and Hatton, A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, p. 193). The questions in 1Co 9:1-2 all expect a “yes” answer. The question in 1Co 9:6-7; 1Co 9:10-11 are stated so as to expect a “no” answer.

This is the use of “free” in the sense of spiritual freedom in Christ (cf. 1Co 9:19; 1Co 10:29), not Roman freedom (i.e., political rights). In Christ the believer, now indwelt by the Spirit, now informed by the gospel, has the freedom “not to”! The power of the “fallen self,” the “me first” of Genesis 3 has been replaced with “others first”! Freedom in the gospel is not “freedom to. . .,” but “freedom no to. . .”! It is very different from political freedom which is really the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Fallen humanity cannot handle “freedom”! Neither can immature believers!

“Have I not seen Jesus our Lord” This is Perfect active indicative, which implies that a past action has resulted in a current state of being. Paul’s apostleship was being attacked because he was not one of the original Twelve. The qualifications for an apostle were that one had been with Jesus during His earthly life and had seen the resurrection (cf. Act 1:15-26). Paul asserts that he had seen the resurrected Christ (cf. Act 9:3; Act 9:17; Act 9:27; Act 22:14; 1Co 15:8). Paul’s call was by a special act of Christ for a special mission to the Gentiles, which demanded special revelation (cf. Act 18:9; Act 23:11).

Paul not only encountered Jesus personally on the road to Damascus, but several times during his ministry Jesus, or an angel as Jesus’ representative, appeared to him to encourage him (cf. Act 18:9-11; Act 22:17-21), in Act 27:23.

“Are you not my work in the Lord” The evidence of Paul’s apostleship was the numerous churches he had formed, of which Corinth was one (cf. 1Co 4:15; 2Co 3:1-3).

1Co 9:2 “If” This is a first class conditional sentence, which shows that Paul’s authority was rejected by several different factions in the early church (cf. Acts 15 and Galatians).

“for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord” A seal in the ancient world was a warm blob of wax into which a signet ring was pressed to seal a letter or package. It was an assurance that the contents had not been opened; it showed who owned the contents; and it showed the genuineness of the contents, that it was sent by the right person. This type of seal became a metaphor of Christian certainty (cf. Joh 3:33; Rom 4:11).

SPECIAL TOPIC: SEAL

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

not. First two and fourth occurance. App-105.

apostle. App-189. The texts transpose the first two questions.

not. Third occurance. App-105.

seen. App-133.

Jesus Christ = Jesus. App-98.

Lord. App-98.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

1-27.] He digressively illustrates the spirit of self-denial which he professed in the resolution of ch. 1Co 8:13,-by contrasting his rights as an Apostle with his actual conduct in abstaining from demanding them (1Co 9:1-22). This self-denying conduct he further exemplifies, 1Co 9:23-27, for their imitation. See Stanleys introductory note; and Conyb. and Howson, vol. i. pp. 61, 457, edn. 2.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Shall we turn in our Bibles to I Corinthians, chapter 9.

I could do a lot of things I don’t do. The reason why I don’t do them is I do not want to be an offense unto a weaker brethren and destroy his relationship with God because of my own liberty in Christ. This is essentially what Paul is saying to the Corinthians. And he is telling them that they should be careful in their exercise of their own freedom in Christ, that they would not use it in such a way as it could be a stumblingblock to a weaker brother.

Now, as Paul is continuing this line of thought and this argument, he gives an example from his own personal life. Being an apostle, he could make many demands as an apostle that he refuses to make, because he doesn’t want to cause offense to anyone. So as he is getting into this apostleship now, and his rights as an apostle, he is only showing from his own personal experience how he puts into practice the principal that he has just sought to teach them. And that is: yes, you have liberty, you have the rights, but you don’t have to always insist on your rights or exercise your liberty, especially if it hurts someone else.

So, the law that governs me is the law of love, my love for my brethren in Christ, especially those who might be weaker in the faith. My love for them is the law that governs my activities, not whether it is right or wrong. And so Paul said,

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? ( 1Co 9:1 )

That is, free to do whatever I want as an apostle.

have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are you not my work in the Lord? ( 1Co 9:1 )

So he is using as a sign of his apostleship, first of all, that he had seen Christ the Lord. One of the requirements of apostleship in the early church was the ability to bear witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by being an eyewitness of His resurrection.

Now, there are those today within the church who are seeking to claim the authority of apostles, and one of them died the other day. But they do have men who have claimed the authority of apostleship. From a New Testament standpoint, it would be a difficult kind of a claim to make, for one of the requirements was the ability to bear witness of the resurrection of Jesus Christ by being an eyewitness. Paul declares that he saw Jesus. He also refers to the proof of the apostleship their changed lives. They are his epistles of commendation known and read of all men.

He said,

If I be not an apostle unto others, doubtless I am to you: for the seal of my apostleship is your being in the Lord ( 1Co 9:2 ).

My ministry among you, the fruit of the ministry, the proof of my ministry. The fact that you are in the Lord. You are the seal of my apostleship.

Mine answer to them that do examine me in this ( 1Co 9:3 ):

He is actually saying, “This is my defense to those who would cross-examine me.” He is using in the Greek a couple of legal terms. And evidently, the divisions in Corinth led to the place where they said, “Well, we are of Apollos,” and they began as they did in many places to challenge Paul’s claim as an apostle. Paul said, “I am an apostle, not by the will of man, but by the will of God.” But they challenged his claim. They said, “Aw, he says he is an apostle, but he’s not really an apostle.” So they were challenging his apostleship. And so he said,

My defense to them that would examine me in this issue, is that have I not the power to eat and to drink? Have we not the power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and also of Peter himself? Or I only and Barnabas, have we not the power to forbear working? ( 1Co 9:3-6 )

We don’t have to work. We have the power not to work as an apostle. For those who preach the gospel have every right to live by the gospel. He said,

Who goes a warfare any time at his own expense? ( 1Co 9:7 )

If you go to war, they provide for you. You don’t go out and buy your gun and your boots, and buy your helmet and buy your ammunition. Those things are provided for you if you are in the military. You don’t have to buy your own F-15. So Paul said, “Who goes to war and pays his own expenses?”

who plants a vineyard, and does not eat the fruit of it? or who feeds the flock, and doesn’t drink the milk? Say I these things as a man? or saith the law also? ( 1Co 9:7-8 )

Am I just spouting off as a man, or does the Bible confirm this? And using as a scriptural basis for this premise, he said,

For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn. Does God take care for oxen? ( 1Co 9:9 )

So, that was a part of the law. The ox that treaded down the corn, you weren’t to put a muzzle on his mouth. As he was going through pulling the plows and all, he could eat as he went through. You weren’t to muzzle his mouth, because he is laboring. He is working.

Now he is saying, “Does God take care of oxen? Is He more interested in oxen than He is in men?” So Paul goes to the Old Testament to show that a servant has the right, or the ox has the right to eat the corn that it is treading.

Now did the Lord say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that plows should plow in hope ( 1Co 9:10 );

That is, the hope of the harvest.

and he that threshes threshes in hope that he might be the partaker of his own labor. If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap from you the carnal things? If others are partakers of this power over you, are not we even more? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ ( 1Co 9:10-12 ).

Now, again, talking about the liberty to do things, the right to do things. Paul is pointing out that, as an apostle, as being the instrument that God used to minister to these people’s spiritual life, having brought to them the Word of God and the things of the Spirit, as an apostle he had every right to be supported by them. He had every right to receive material benefits from them. However, he said, “I did not do it lest I would hinder the gospel of Christ.”

Do you not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? ( 1Co 9:13 )

The priests who offered the sacrifices got a certain portion of the meat. He got a certain portion of the flour and these things that were brought as sacrifices from the people to sacrifice to the Lord. The priests got a share of those things. He lived by these things that were brought in.

Now Paul is saying, “I have every right to receive from you material recompense for my labors among you.”

Even [he said] the Lord has ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void ( 1Co 9:14-15 ).

Now Paul said, “Yes, I have every right, but I am not exercising it. I would rather be dead than to take a penny from you.” Why did Paul have this attitude? Because, unfortunately in Paul’s day, as it is in the present day, there are many ministers that abuse this right. There are many ministries that are constantly seeking gimmicks, methods, and ways of extracting more money from the people.

If you ever get on the mailing lists of some of these evangelists, there is no end to their imaginations and the development of gimmicks to try and get you to send in your support for their ministries. You go to a lot of these services and you are exposed to a lot of the gimmickry. “The Lord has revealed to me that there are ten people here tonight that are going to give one thousand dollars for this ministry. The Lord has revealed to me that there are fifty people that are going to give five hundred dollars.” That is not so. That is putting it mildly. That is gimmickry. That is deception. That is terrible!

Now, because of this, many people have been turned away from the gospel of Jesus Christ, and they say, “All they want is your money.” And unfortunately, that is true in many places. That is the reason why here at Calvary Chapel we never have pledges. That is the reason why here at Calvary Chapel we never make any appeals for the offerings. Nothing more is ever said than, “The ushers will come forward to receive the tithes and the offerings.” But it is up to you whether you give or not, and no one will ever ask you to give. That is why that we here at Calvary Chapel love to give to people to just blow the minds of people who say the church is only out to get. That was the same with Paul. He didn’t want to be accused of being a mercenary, of just being after the people’s money. He didn’t want that to be an offense.

You know, years ago when the Lord called me into the ministry I had seen a lot of this begging for Jesus bit. I had seen these various types of offering appeals. In fact, in college I was even taught how to make a strong appeal for money, taught how to develop drives and solicit pledges and things of this nature. But, when the Lord called me to the ministry, I said, “Lord, I will make you a deal. I will serve You in the ministry as long as You provide, but I am never going to solicit my support from people. You take care of me. I am not going to ask people. I am not going to beg people for money. Money will never be an issue in my ministry.”

I feel that it is criminal and manifestly wrong for these ministers who are constantly begging people for their dollars. And you know, it is almost as bad as the time in the Roman church when they sold indulgences. “You want to get your prayer answered, send your offering in to us. You’ve got an unsaved son? Send your offering to us and God will save him. You can buy salvation for your son. You can buy healing for your mother. You can buy all kinds of indulgences.” It is made out to be that way in these phony fundraising drives. If those who were soliciting those funds would live very simple lives, not live in a lavish style, then I could accept it. But when these same ones who are begging these poor little widows to sacrifice from their social security checks to send into them, and they themselves are living a very high style of life, I find it intolerable.

Paul the apostle, I think I really identify and love this guy, because he had much the same attitude that I have as far as money is concerned. He said, “I don’t want your money. I won’t take your money. I glory in the fact that I was able to provide for myself and the needs of my party while I was there and we didn’t take anything from you. And I would rather be dead than to lose this bit of glorying that I had that I did not take money from you, though as an apostle I had every right. God has ordained that those that minister the gospel should live of the gospel. That is right. The ox is not to be muzzled. God, if He takes care of the ox, surely takes care of His servants that are out preaching His Word. The priests live by the things of the altar. I had every right to, but yet I didn’t, because I didn’t want to be an offense. I didn’t want to stumble somebody to think that I was trying to enrich myself through the preaching of the gospel.”

I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me ( 1Co 9:15 ):

I am not trying to make an appeal now, Paul said. That is not the purpose for my saying these things.

for it were better that I be dead, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is me, if I preach not the gospel! ( 1Co 9:15-16 )

I am not preaching it for the glory or for the money. There is a necessity laid on me. There is a burden on my heart. Woe is me, if I don’t preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.

For if I do this thing willingly, then I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me ( 1Co 9:17 ).

Paul said, “I am doing this willingly. Thus, I have my reward, because I am doing it willing for the Lord.”

What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel ( 1Co 9:18 ).

I love that. Jesus said, “Freely you have received, freely give.” Oh, how I thank God that our radio ministry does not depend upon the listeners for the support. How I thank God that we can go on the radio around the country and not have to spend fifteen minutes a day in urging the people to support us this week, or we won’t be on the air next week. I thank the Lord that we can just freely minister the gospel to people around the country blowing their minds because they wonder, “How in the world is this program supported?” It is supported because God has put upon the hearts of the people here to give, and it is more than we need so we just use the excess to get the gospel out around the world. And you know what? The more we give, the more the Lord sends in. That is the amazing thing. We have been trying to outgive God. And every time we take on new stations and put more money into the radio to spread the Word out further, the more God blesses, the more the supplies come in. And so, we have seen the radio ministry expand from the original twenty-five to over one hundred and twenty stations, and another one hundred stations on Sunday broadcast only, plus cable television around the country. And we can do it without charge, and that is the glorious thing. Not looking for the support of the people, but just looking to God for His supply.

Paul said,

For though I am really free from all men ( 1Co 9:19 ),

I don’t owe you anything and I haven’t taken anything from you, so I am free of all men.

yet have I made myself the servant unto all, that I might gain the more ( 1Co 9:19 ).

I am really free from you, but I made myself a servant that I might gain more.

unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; To them that are without law, as also without law, (not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I by all means might save some. And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you ( 1Co 9:20-23 ).

So Paul is seeking to identify with people. He is not setting himself above people and preaching down to people, but coming down on their level and seeking to understand where they are, seeking to identify with them in such a way that they could identify with Paul so that he could lead them to the strength and the power that they might know through Jesus Christ.

Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receives the prize? So run, that ye may obtain ( 1Co 9:24 ).

And so, again, Paul sees the Christian life as a race. He said to Timothy, “I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course” ( 2Ti 4:7 ). The idea of the race. If Paul was the author of Hebrews, and I personally feel he was, he also made reference to the race. “Wherefore laying aside every weight and sin which doth so easily beset us, let us run the race with patience looking unto Jesus the author and the finisher of our faith” ( Heb 12:1-2 ).

Now, life is as a race, but Paul says, “Run to win.” I like that. I have enough competitive spirit in me that I don’t play to lose. Whenever I go out in any sport, I go out to win. That is almost a fault. It has been a real fault in my life. My desire to win is so great that if there is any place I can lose my composure it is when there has been a bad call. I am out to win. And Paul said to be that way in your life for Christ. Go all out. So run that you might obtain the prize.

And every man that strives for the mastery ( 1Co 9:25 )

That is a term for the wrestling. The Olympics were held in Athens, but they had also the second largest athletic events in the world were held in Corinth. And so those in Corinth were very familiar with the athletes who would be training for the games of Corinth. A fellow who is working out in wrestling,

is temperate in all things ( 1Co 9:25 ).

That is, he lives a very disciplined life as he is getting his body into shape.

They are doing it for a corruptible crown ( 1Co 9:25 );

They are putting their bodies through torturous exercises in order that they might develop their athletic skills. They are watching their diet. They are living very careful, disciplined lives in order that they might win their event so that the judges may put a little laurel wreath on their head–a laurel wreath that will soon dry out, a corruptible crown.

Now, if they are willing to put in so much time, so much energy, so much effort, so much discipline to receive a gold medal, how much more effort should we be putting in to gain the incorruptible crown of glory that God has promised to His faithful servants. Run to win. And as Paul said, “I run that way.”

I therefore so run [I run to win], not as uncertainly ( 1Co 9:26 );

That is, not just careless . . . “Well, I hope I finish. Doesn’t matter.” No sir, I’m running with the intention of winning.

so fight I, not as one who is beating the air ( 1Co 9:26 ):

Not as a shadow boxer.

But I keep my body under, and bring it into subjection ( 1Co 9:27 ):

“I discipline,” Paul said, “my own body, keeping it into subjection.”

lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be disapproved ( 1Co 9:27 ).

Now, Paul talks about the discipline, keeping his body under. Man is a threefold being: body, mind, and spirit. The natural man is body, mind, and spirit. When a person is born again, he is inverted and he becomes spirit, mind, and body. The natural man, body, mind, and spirit; the mind is under the control of the body, which is uppermost. So the unregenerate man, the sinner, is a man who is aware and conscious of the body and the body needs and the body appetites, and that is all he thinks about. And all you have to do is open up your ears in the public and you hear what people talk about. What are they talking about? Their fleshly experiences. The gal they had last weekend. Some new bar that has opened up, some disco, fleshly body experiences. That is their mind. That is where their minds run in that area.

When a person is born again by the Spirit and he becomes spirit, mind, and body, then the mind is under the control of the Spirit and he is thinking about spiritual things, how he may please God. He is thinking about the Word of God. He is thinking about his walk with Jesus Christ. He is thinking about the Lord. He is singing about the Lord. His mind is on the things of the Spirit.

Now, the Bible tells us that the persons whose minds are upon the things of the flesh is dead, but the person whose mind is upon the things of the Spirit is alive, and he has peace and he has joy.

Now, when I am born again and I am now spirit, soul, and body, my body down here doesn’t like it in the basement. My body enjoyed sitting on the throne. It enjoyed ruling over me. It enjoyed its tyranny that it had over me, and it doesn’t like being underneath. And thus, my body is constantly trying to rise. I am not dead to the desires of my flesh. They are there. They are always there as long as I am living in this body. But my desires for the Lord and the things of the Lord are greater than my desires for the flesh. But I find that I have to keep my body under, for my body would love to come and begin to rule again and put the spirit under. So Paul said, “I discipline myself to keep the body under, not giving over to the things of my flesh, lest even in this area of having ministered to others I myself would be disapproved.” And there are those who say that Paul is here talking about his service to God put on the shelf so to speak.

So, it is important for us to keep the body under, to discipline ourselves in spiritual disciplines. If the athletes are willing to go through such discipline just to receive a corruptible crown, how much more should we discipline ourselves for the incorruptible crown of life that the Lord our righteous judge shall give to us and to all those who love His appearing.

Paul tells us that the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh. These are contrary. I am in a battle within, and I must discipline myself to keep the body under.

“

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

1Co 9:1. , 😉 am I not free? am I not an apostle?) There is a transposition of these two clauses in the present received reading:[68] but Paul first lays down the proposition, I am free; then, the reason of it [by aetiology. Append.], I am an apostle; and there is a hendiadys in this sense, I am entitled not only to Christian, but also to apostolic liberty. We have a chiasmus[69] in the discussion of the subject: for in it he first claims for himself the apostleship, 1Co 9:1-3, then he asserts his liberty, and that too as an apostle, 1Co 9:4-5; 1Co 9:19, [whereas in the statement of subject, 1Co 9:1, free comes first, apostle next]. That, which free is in the adjective, 1Co 9:1, , power, is in the substantive, 1Co 9:4; comp. 1Co 8:9.–, have I-not seen?) Observe the firmness of the apostle.- , my work) A testimony derived from actual facts, which is the strongest.

[68] AB Vulg. Memph. Syr. Orig. 4,266 b, support the order as in Bengel D G fg later Syr. put before , as in Rec. Reading.-ED.

[69] See Appendix.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

1Co 9:1

Am I not free?-He had just said that those who had knowledge should be ready to surrender their rights for the good of the weak. He now shows them that in matters which affected his whole life he had himself been governed by this rule. He was free and could have claimed that those to whom he preached should support him, but he deemed it wise to waive that right, and in so doing he subjected himself to great hardships and privations. (See Act 20:34; 1Th 2:9).

am I not an apostle?-Some one had gained an influence in the church at Corinth, who, in seeking to destroy Pauls influence, denied that he was an apostle. As he had refused to receive help of the church at Corinth while among them, this question indicates that they had made the facts-that he was not married and would not receive support-reasons for saying he was not an apostle. He had performed works in their midst which none but the apostles did. He says: Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works. (2Co 12:12). These signs have been wrought in their midst and he refers to them as evidence of his claims.

An idea has prevailed that Apollos was at the head of the opposition to Paul; that some of the parties at Corinth claimed to be of Apollos is made the ground of this conclusion. But this is incorrect, for the relations between Paul and Apollos were cordial. (1Co 16:12).

have I not seen Jesus our Lord?-Paul had not seen and learned of Jesus when in the flesh as the other apostles had. This difference he himself recognized and made mention of it on several occasions. But he had seen Jesus even as he appeared to the twelve after his resurrection. After having recounted these appearances, he specifies with solemn emphasis, And last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also. (1Co 15:5-8). [This manifestation of the risen and glorified Lord, which was vouchsafed to him on the way to Damascus (Act 9:17), placed him on a level, in regard to this important particular, with the twelve.]

are not ye my work in the Lord?-He had been instrumental in converting them to Christ. He says: For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. (1Co 4:15).

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

The words, “my defence to them that examine me is this,” reveal the opposition to him in Corinth. The two words, “defence” and “examine,” are purely legal, and are in the language of the courts of justice. The apostle is speaking of himself as on his defense and under examination. The apostle declares that his right in the case of the Corinthians at least is based on his work. Whatever relation he may bear to others, he is an apostle to them at least, for they are the very seal of his apostleship in that they are, as he has said previously, his children in the Gospel.

While defending his rights, he declared his abandonment of them in the power of that compulsion of the Gospel through which he became all things to all men. The same principles are here enforced by a general illustration. The apostle used the race as an illustration, and laid down this one simple principle, “So run that ye may attain.” The goal is always to be kept in view, and all present action is to be governed by the passion for reaching that goal and receiving the crown. There is ‘therefore to be self-control in all things, in order that there may be ultimate victory.

The solemn closing words reach the very heart of the argument. The apostle, speaking now of himself, again for the sake of illustration, declares that he runs not uncertainly; that he fights not as beating the air; that he brings his body into bondage, even by buffeting, and all this because he sees the terrible possibility of himself being rejected, even though he has been a herald to others; the meaning of which most evidently is that failure to regulate life so as to help others imperils our own salvation.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

9:1-27. THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF FORBEARANCE

I have not asked you to forego more rights than I forego myself. For the sake of others I surrender, not only what any Christian may claim, but what I can claim as an Apostle.

1 Can it be denied that I am a free agent, that I have the authority and independence of an Apostle? I have seen our Lord face to face and He made me His Apostle, and you who were won over to Him through me are a standing proof of my Apostleship. 2 It may be possible for other Christians to question whether I am an Apostle or not, but you at least cannot do so, for your very existence as a Christian Church is the seal which authenticates my Apostleship. 3 There you have my answer to those who challenge my claim.

4 Surely we are free to do as we think best about eating and drinking at the cost of the Churches, 5 to do as we think best about taking with us on our journey a Christian sister as a wife, as also the rest of the Apostles do, and the brethren of the Lord, and Peter. 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas that are not free to do as we think best about working no longer for a living? 7 No soldier on service finds his own outfit and rations. If you plant a vineyard, you expect to partake of the produce, and if you tend cattle, you expect to get a share of the milk.

8 I am not saying all this merely from a worldly point of view. 9 The Divine Law assumes just the same principle. In the Law of Moses it stands written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain. Do you think that it was merely out of consideration for the oxen that God caused that to be written? 10 Surely He was looking beyond them, and it is really for us preachers that He says this. No doubt it was in our interest that this law was enacted; because thus the principle is laid down that the plougher ought not to plough, and the thresher ought not to thresh, without a good prospect of sharing in the profit. 11 Well then, if it is we who in your hearts sowed the seeds of spiritual life, is it a very outrageous thing that we out of your purses shall reap some worldly benefit? 12 If others get their share of this right of maintenance from you, have not we who taught you first a still better right? Nevertheless, we did not avail ourselves of this right. On the contrary, we put up with every kind of privation, rather than cause the spread of the Glad-tidings of Christ to be in any way hampered. 13 Of course you know that those who are engaged in the temple-services are maintained out of the temple-funds; those who serve at the altar share the sacrifices with the altar. 14 On the same principle the Lord directed that those who proclaim the Glad-tidings should out of this work get enough to live on. 15 But I have availed myself of none of these pleas.

Now do not think that I write all this in order that the maintenance due to preachers should henceforth be granted in my case. Indeed not; for it would be better for me by far to die than submit to that: no one shall make void my glorying in taking nothing for my work. 16 It is quite true that I do preach the Glad-tidings; but there is no glorying about that: it is a duty which I must perform,-must, because it will be the worse for me if I do not perform it. 17 If I did this spontaneously, I should have my pay: but seeing that I do it because I must, it is a stewardship which has been entrusted to me. 18 What pay then do I get? Why, the pleasure of being a preacher who gives the Glad-tidings free of charge, so as not to use to the full a preachers right to maintenance.

19 So far from claiming my full rights, I submit to great curtailments. For, free and independent though I am from all men, yet I made myself all mens slave, in order that I might win more of them. 20 Thus to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews. That means that to those under the Mosaic Law I became like one of themselves (although, of course, I am nothing of the kind), that I might win those under the Law. 21 To the Gentiles who are free from the Law I became like one of them (although, of course, I am not free from Gods law; on the contrary, I am under Christs law), that I might win those who are free from the Law. 22 To the men of tender scruples I became like one of them, that I might win such people as these. In short, to all kinds of men I have assumed all kinds of characters, in order at all costs to save some. 23 But all this variety I practise for one and the same reason, that I may not keep the Gospel to myself but share its blessings with others.

24 You know that the competitors in a race all run, but only one gets the prize. 25 You must run like him, so as to secure it. Now, every one that competes in the games is in all directions temperate. They verily aim at winning a perishable crown, but we one that is imperishable. 26 I accordingly so run as being in no doubt about my aim; I so fight as not wasting blows on the air. 27 Far from it; I direct heavy blows against my body, and force it to be my slave, lest my preaching to others should end in my own rejection.

It is a mistake to regard this chapter as an independent section in defence of the writers claim to be an Apostle. It is part of the discussion of the question as to eating food that has been offered to idols, in the midst of which it is inserted. Christians may eat such food, without fear of pollution; but in doing so they may harm other Christians: therefore, where there is risk of harming others, they should forbear. To show that this forbearance ought not to seem hard, he points out that his habitual forbearance is greater than that which he would occasionally claim from them. As in 6:1, he begins with animated questions. The conjecture that 9:1-10:22 is part of the letter mentioned in 5:9 is not probable.

1. ; ; This is the order of the questions in the best texts (see below). Have I not the freedom of a Christian? Have I not the rights of an Apostle? Logically, this is the better order; but even if it were not, the evidence for it is too strong to be set aside on such grounds. It is the thought that he forbears to claim, not only what any Christian may claim, but also the exceptional claims of an Apostle, that makes him digress on an explanation of what an Apostle may claim. In v. 19 he glances back at his general independence. Cf. Gal 2:4, Gal 2:5.

. . . ; This question and the next vindicate the claim made in the second question. He is certainly an Apostle, for he has the essential qualification of having seen the Risen Lord (Act 1:22, Act 2:32, Act 3:15, Act 4:33, etc.), and his preaching has had the power of an Apostle (2Co 3:1 f., 2Co 12:12). The reference is to the Lords appearance to him on the way to Damascus,- (15:8); an appearance which he regarded as similar in kind to the appearances to the Eleven on the Easter Day and afterwards. Whether he is also referring to the experiences mentioned in Act 18:9, Act 22:17, and 2Co 12:2-4 is uncertain. It is a mistake to say that we are not told that he saw the Lord who spoke to him on the way to Damascus. This is expressly stated, Act 9:17 (), 27 (), 22:14 ().* Note that in this important question we have the stronger form of the negative, which is specially frequent in this argumentative Epistle (1:20, 3:3, 5:12, 6:7, 8:10, 10:16, 18). In the N.T. Epistles it is almost confined to this group of the Pauline Epistles.

Nowhere else does St Paul use the expression I have seen Jesus the Lord, and he seldom uses the name Jesus without Christ either before or after. See notes on Rom 1:1, pp. 3 f. When he does use the name Jesus he commonly refers to our Lords life on earth, especially in connexion with His Death or Resurrection (1Th 1:10, 1Th 1:4:14; 2Co 4:10-14). In Rom 4:24 we have Jesus our Lord as here, and in both cases the reference is to the risen Jesus. The use of Jesus without Christ is very rare in the later Epistles: once in Philippians (2:10), once in Ephesians (4:21), and not at all in Colossians or the Pastoral Epistles. See J. A. Robinson, Ephesians, pp. 23, 107; Milligan, Thessalonians, p. 135; Selbie, Aspects of Christ, pp. 71 f., a careful discussion of the question whether it is possible to separate the Christ of St Paul from the Jesus of history. See also the lectures of Dr. Moffatt and Dr. Milligan in Religion and the Modern World, Hodder, 1909, pp. 205-253. The Christ who appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus declared Himself to be the historic Jesus whom Saul was persecuting, and he thus not merely saw Jesus our Lord, but received a voice from His mouth (Act 22:14). That rested on his own testimony; but the fact of his conversion and the work that he had done since that day was known to all (4:15; 2Co 12:12).

. The founding of the Corinthian Church was a work worthy of an Apostle: ab effectu jam secundo loco probat suum Apostolatum (Calv.). Edwards quotes meum opus es (Seneca, Ep. 34). Lest he should seem to be claiming what he disclaims in 3:5-7, he adds in the Lord: only in that power could such a work have been accomplished (3:9, 4:15).

The order of the first two questions adopted above ( before ) is that of A B P, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth., Orig. Tert. The other is that of D E F G K L, Goth., which with P, Arm. insert either before or after . A B, Am. and other versions omit .

2. . The emphatic of the previous clause leads to an argumentum ad hominem. The Corinthians are the very last people who could reasonably question his claim to be an Apostle: at any rate to them he must be one.*. For my certificate of Apostleship are ye (2Co 3:2). They themselves are a certificate of the fact, a certificate the validity of which lies in the same sphere as the success of his work; it is in the Lord. Authentication is the idea which is specially indicated by the figurative . Nowhere in N.T. does seem to be used, as often in later writings, with reference to baptism. See notes on Rom 4:11, p. 107; Lightfoot, Epp. of Clem. ii. p. 226; Hastings, DB. Art. Seal. Preachers who were not Apostles might convert many, but the remarkable spiritual gifts which Corinthians possessed were a guarantee that one who was more than a mere preacher had been sent to them. Paulus a fructu colligit se divinitus missum esse (Calv.). The may allude to the Galatians.

with B P 17, Orig., rather than . with D E F G K L. A few inferior witnesses have .

3. . WH. follow Chrysostom and Ambrose in making this verse refer to what follows; so also AV. and the Revisers. RV. leaves it doubtful. But it is more probable that it refers to what precedes. That I have seen the Risen Lord, and that you are such a Church as you are,-there you have my defence when people ask me for the evidence of my Apostleship. What follows tells us that he refrained from making his converts maintain him, and no one disputed his right to do that: but the Judaizers did dispute his right to be accounted an Apostle. The and look back to . My reply to those who examine me is this; , not . Moreover vv. 4-11 are not so much a defence as a statement of claims. Defence begins in the middle of v. 12; but a superfluous defence. People blamed him for maintaining his independence, but they could not deny his right to do it. See Alford, Findlay, Edwards, and B. Weiss: for the other view see Bachmann.

Both and are forensic expressions, perhaps purposely chosen to indicate the high hand which the Judaizers assumed in challenging St Pauls claim. But in its strictly forensic sense, of a judicial investigation, is peculiar to Luke in N.T. See on Luk 23:14, and cf. Act 4:9, Act 12:19, etc. It does not much matter whether we take as predicate (so better), or subject: in either case it means just what I have stated. Cf. in 7:6 and 11:17, and in Joh 1:19, Joh 17:3. For the dative cf. Act 19:33; 2Co 12:19.

4. ; The is the interrogative num; the belongs to the verb. Do you mean to say that we have no right? Numquid non habemus potestatem (Vulg.): cf. 11:22; Rom 10:19. Here, as often in the Pauline Epistles, we are in doubt whether the plur. includes others with the Apostle: he may mean himself and Barnabas. Where he means himself exclusively he commonly uses the singular: but it is more certain that the singular is always personal than that the plural commonly includes some one else. See Lightfoot on 1Th 2:4.

. To eat and drink what those to whom we preach provide for us. He is not now thinking of eating idol-meats: that subject is for the moment quite in abeyance. Still less is he contending that preachers are not bound to be ascetics. He says that although he personally refuses entertainment at the cost of those to whom he ministers, yet he has a right to it. He can do as he likes ( ) about it; he has the privilege of being maintained. See Clem. Hom. iii. 71; Luk 10:7.

(or ) as 2nd aor. inf. of is well supported here and 10:7 ( B* D* F G) against (A B3 D3 E K L P), and appears everywhere as a variant, except Mat 20:22. It is frequent in MSS. of LXX. See WH. 11. Notes, p. 170.

5. . Do you mean to say that we have no right to take about (with us on our missionary journeys) a Christian person as a wife? A sister (= Christian woman) as wife is right. Even if in this construction could mean woman, it would be superfluous. The Vulgate encourages the mistranslation woman with mulierem sororem. The Apostle is not contending that a missionary had a right to take about with him a woman who was not his wife. The fact that a group of women ministered to Christ could not be supposed to justify such indiscretion. But there is an early tradition that very few of the Apostles were married, and hence the temptation to make mean woman rather than wife. Tertullian (Exhort. Cast. 8) translates rightly, licebat et apostolis nubere et uxores circumducere, and again (Monogam. 8), potestatem uxores circumducendi; but in the latter passage he suggests that only mulieres, such as ministered to the Lord, may be meant. This misinterpretation is followed by Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, and others. It led to a great abuse, not confined to the clergy, in the early ages of the Church. Some Christians contracted a sort of spiritual union with unmarried persons, and the two lived together, without marriage, for mutual spiritual benefit. The women in such cases were known as , , and . Under the last name they are strictly forbidden, in the case of any cleric, by the third Canon of the first Council of Nicaea (Hefele, Councils, p. 379; Suicer, Thesaurus, under all three words and under ).

St Paul is not here claiming that Apostles had a right to marry; no one in that age would be likely to dispute that. He is claiming that they have a right to maintenance at the cost of the Church, and that, if they are married, the wife who travels with them shares this privilege. The whole of this passage (5-18) is concerned with the privilege (of which he refused to make use in his own case) of being maintained at the charges of the congregations. But here, as in Gal 1:19 and elsewhere, we are left in doubt as to the exact meaning of : see on 15:5, 7.

The Sophists blamed Socrates and Plato for teaching gratuitously, thus confessing that their teaching was worth nothing (Xen. Mem. i. 6; Plat. Gorg. 520, Rev_20; Arist. Eth. Nic. ix. i. 5). This kind of charge may have been made by the Judaizers at Corinth. Other Apostles accepted maintenance. Why did Paul refuse it? Because he knew that he was no true Apostle; or, because he set up for being better than the Twelve; or, because he was too proud to accept hospitality.*

For transitive see 2 Mac. 6:10.

. It is probably on this that the interpolator of the Ignatian Epistles (Philad. 4) bases his statement that Peter and Paul and were married; where the words et Paulus are omitted in some Latin texts. See on 7:8. The only Apostles of whose marriage we have direct evidence on good authority are Peter and Philip (Papias in Eus. H.E. iii. 39): see Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 45. This passage would certainly lead us to suppose that most of the Apostles were married men; it contends that all had the privilege of having themselves and their wives maintained by the Church, and it implies that some used the privilege, and therefore were married. The exact meaning of is not clear: it may distinguish those who are included from the brethren of the Lord and Kephas, or from Paul and Barnabas (v. 6). In the former case the brethren of the Lord are Apostles, for the Apostolic body is divided into three parts; Kephas, the brethren, of the Lord, and the rest of the Apostles.* But it is possible that, without any strictly logical arrangement, he is mentioning persons in high position in the Church who availed themselves of the privilege of having their wives maintained as well as themselves, when they were engaged in missionary work. See Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 95. In dictating, he mentions Peter, by himself, at the end, as a specially telling instance; but we cannot safely infer from this that Peter had been in Corinth with his wife. 1:12 does not prove it. See Harnack, Mission and Expansion, i. p. 323, ii. 99.

. Here only does St Paul mention them, though he tells us (Gal 1:19) that James was one. The question of their exact relation to Christ has produced endless discussion, and the question remains undecided. There is nothing in Scripture which forbids the natural interpretation, that they were the children of Joseph and Mary born after the birth of Christ. To some students of the problem, Mat 1:25 seems to be decisive for this interpretation: see Plummer, S. Matthew, pp. 9, 10, and the literature there cited. There is wide agreement that Jeromes theory, that they were our Lords first cousins, children of a Mary who was sister to His Mother, cannot be maintained. But see Chapman, JTS. April 1906, pp. 412 f. The choice lies between the Helvidian and the Epiphanian theories. The decision does not affect the argument here. In any case they were persons whose close relationship to the Lord gave them distinction in the primitive Church: what they did constituted a precedent. , as almost always in Paul (1:12, 3:22, 15:5).

6. . The , as in 6:2, 9, puts the question from the other point of view; that it adds some degree of emotion is not so clear. Or is it only I and Barnabas that have not a right to forbear working with our hands for a living? The reason for including Barnabas is uncertain, and it seems to be an afterthought; hence the singular . It implies that Barnabas, like Paul, had refused maintenance; and it is possible that there had been an agreement between them that on their missionary journey (Act 13:3) they would not cost the Churches anything. It seems also to imply that the practice of Barnabas was well known.

. Manual labour, to earn a livelihood, is commonly meant by the word, with (4:12; 1Th 4:11) or without (Mat 21:28; Luk 13:14; Act 18:3) added. Here again Greek sentiment would be against the Apostles practice. That a teacher who claimed to lead and to rule should work with his hands for a living would be thought most unbecoming: nothing but the direst necessity excused labour in a free citizen (Arist. Pol. 3:5). Contrast 2Th 3:6-12.

7. Three illustrations add force to the argument, and they are such as are analogous to the Christian minister, who wages war upon evil, plants churches, and is a shepherd to congregations.* It is perhaps accidental that in each case the status of the worker is different; but this strengthens the argument. The soldier works for pay; the vine-planter is a proprietor; the shepherd is a slave. But to all alike the principle is applicable that labour may claim some kind of return. Cf. 2Ti 2:6.

. Though applying primarily to the soldiers food, it may cover his pay and his outfit generally. Cf. 2Co 11:8; Rom 6:23; Luk 3:14, where see note. The word is late (1 Esdr. 4:56; 1 Mac. 3:28; 14:32), and is sometimes extended to mean the supplies of an army. See Lightfoot on Rom 6:23; Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 266.

. The change of construction is perhaps intentional. A proprietor disposes of the whole of the produce; a slave gets only a portion of it. Cf. Tobit 1:10. In some texts has been corrected to (E K L, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Arm.). See Pro 27:18.

8. . Do you think that I am speaking these things by mans rule? It is not merely in accordance with human judgment of what is fitting that he lays down the principle that labour has a right to a living wage. There is higher authority than that. The expression occurs thrice in this Epistle (3:3, 15:32) and thrice in the same group (Rom 3:5; Gal 1:11, Gal 3:15), with slightly different shades of meaning: from a human point of view is the leading idea.

Or (v. 6) does the Law also not say these things? Perhaps some one had urged that is silent on the subject: it is not laid down that congregations must maintain Apostles. The change from to is perhaps intentional, the one referring to mere human expression, the other to the substance of what is said. As in (v. 4), the negative belongs to the verb.

Neither Vulg. (dico dicit) nor AV. distinguishes the verbs: they apparently follow D E F G in reading for . K L P have : F G have … Doubtless .. . A B C D E, Vulg. Copt.) is right.

9. Philo (De Humanitate) quotes this prohibition as evidence of the benevolence of the Law; and Driver (on Deu 25:4) says that it is another example of the humanity which is characteristic of Dt. Cf. Exo 20:10, Exo 20:23:12; Pro 12:10. Oxen still, as a rule, thresh unmuzzled in the East. Conder says that exceptions are rare. Near Jericho, Robinson saw the oxen of Christians muzzled, while those belonging to Mahometans were not. Driver quotes these and other instances. Cf. 2Sa 24:22; Isa 28:27 f.; Mic 4:12. Elsewhere (De Spec. Leg.) Philo says, , .

It is not easy to decide between ( A B3 C D 3 E K L P) and (B* D* F G). There is the same difference of reading 1Ti 5:18, but there is unquestionably right, as in LXX of Deu 25:4. How could be so well attested, if it were not original? If it were original it would readily be corrected to the LXX, esp. as is rare: is found in LXX (Psa 31:9; Eze 19:4, Eze 19:9), but not . Here Chrys. and Thdrt. support .

10. ; Do you suppose that it is for the oxen that God cares? St Paul does not mean that God has no care for the brutes (Psa 104:14, Psa 104:21, Psa 104:27, 145:9, Psa 104:15; Mat 6:26, Mat 10:30). Nor does he mean that in forbidding the muzzling, God was not thinking of the oxen at all. He means that the prohibition had a higher significance, in comparison with which the literal purport of it was of small moment. Jewish interpreters sometimes abandoned the literal meaning of Scripture, and turned it entirely into allegory. They not merely allegorized the words, but said that the literal meaning was untrue. In some cases they urged that the literal meaning was incredible, and that therefore the words were intended to be understood symbolically and in no other way. Thus Philo (De Somn. i. 16) says that Exo 22:27 cannot be supposed to be meant literally, for the Creator would not be interested about such a trifle as a garment: and elsewhere (De Sacrif. 1) he says that the Law was not given for the sake of irrational animals, but for the sake of those who have mind and reason. Cf. Ep. Barn. x. 1, 2, xi. 1. St Paul elsewhere allegorizes the O.T., as Hagar and Sarah (Gal 4:24), and the fading of the light on Moses face (2Co 3:13), but in neither case does he reject the literal meaning. It is not probable that he does so here; even if be rendered entirely, it need not be pressed to mean that the oxen were not cared for at all. Weinel, St Paul, p. 59.

; Or is it for our sakes, as doubtless it is, that He saith it? See RV. marg. For Vulg. has utique; Beza, omnino: utique is probably right. It emphasizes the truth of this second suggestion assuredly; cf. Luk 4:23; Act 18:21, Act 21:22, Act 28:4. In Rom 3:9, means entirely not, not at all, rather than not entirely, not altogether. See Thackeray, pp. 193 f. The probably means Christians;* but it may mean the Jewish nation, or mankind, to teach them to be just and humane. Origen prefers the former interpretation; , , . Among Christians, Christian missionaries are specially meant. We might expect , as in v. 8. B. Weiss makes the sentence categorical; Rather for our sakes absolutely (5:10) He says it.

. The , asin1 Thess. 2:20, implies an affirmative answer to the previous question. Yes indeed for our sakes it was written. It was with an eye to men rather than to oxen that this prohibition was laid down. Weinel, St Paul, P. 53; Resch, Agrapha, pp. 30, 152, 336.

. The is explanatory: to show that it is in hope that the plougher ought to plough and the thresher (ought to thresh) in the hope of having a share (of the produce). The sentence is condensed, but quite intelligible: is emphatic by position, and is then repeated for emphasis when the thing hoped for is stated. RV. renders because, as if the meaning were that the prohibition must have an eye to men, because it is in accordance with common notions of what is fair: which is unlikely. The that of AV. is too indefinite. Few particles in the N.T. give greater difficulty to the interpreter than (Ellicott). Retaining Christian teachers or Apostles as the meaning of , we must understand the ploughing and threshing as metaphors for different stages of missionary work. Such work, and indeed teaching of any kind, is often compared to agriculture. Some of the processes of agriculture represent mission-work better than others, and St Paul would perhaps have taken reaping rather than threshing, had not the quotation about threshing preceded. But threshing may represent the separation of the true converts from the rest.* To take as referring to what follows, and introducing another quotation, is a most improbable construction: there is no such Scripture.

. . ( A B C P 17, Vulg., Orig. Eus.) is to be preferred to . . . ( 3 D 2 K L, Chrys. Thdrt.), where the desire to make still more emphatic has influenced the order. Other texts are much confused.

(* A B C P 17, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth., Orig. Eus.) is to be preferred to . . ( 3 D 3 E K L, Chrys. Thdrt.) and to . . (D* F G, Ambst.). Some scribe did not see that must be understood, and thus took to be the verb after , making alterations to suit this construction.

11. . The in both places is emphatic and by juxtaposition is brought into contrast with the pronoun which follows. Cf. (Joh 13:6). There is possibly a slight vein of banter in the question. If it is we who in your hearts sowed spiritual blessings, is it an exorbitant thing that we out of your possessions shall reap material blessings? What the Apostle gave was incalculable in its richness, what he might have claimed but never took, was a trivial advantage: was it worth disputing about? Was a little bodily sustenance to be compared with the blessings of the Gospel? With cf. 2Co 11:15: with cf. (6:3); all that is necessary for our bodily sustenance.

( A B K) seems preferable to (C D E F G L P). The future indicative marks the reaping as more certain to follow, for which reason Evans prefers the subjunctive. The Apostle refused to reap. See Lightfoot on Php 3:11: he thinks that there is only one decisive instance of with subj. in N.T.

12. . If others (the Judaizing teachers) have a share of the privilege which you bestow, viz. the privilege of being maintained by the congregation. It seems better to make the subjective genitive. Yet most commentators make it the objective genitive; have a share of the right exercised over you (Mar 6:7). But throughout the passage the is looked at from the Apostles side, the advantage which rightly belongs to them. This implies power over the Corinthians to make them supply the maintenance; but that is not the side under consideration. And to have a share in power over people is a somewhat strange expression to have a share of a privilege which people allow is natural enough. But the sense is the same, however the genitive is interpreted. We have a better claim than others to the right of maintenance. Some conjecture for .

. Nevertheless, he triumphantly exclaims, we never availed ourselves of this privilege; after elaborately demonstrating his right to the privilege, as if he were about to say, Therefore I hope that you will recognize the right and give the necessary maintenance for us in future, he declares that he has never accepted it and never means to do so.* and he seems to include Silvanus and Timothy.

. On the contrary, we endure all things; we bear up under all kinds of privations and deprivations, sooner than make use of this privilege. The verb may mean we are proof against, but it may be doubted whether means all pressure of temptation to avail ourselves of maintenance. See on 13:7, and Milligan on 1Th 3:1. Beza needlessly conjectures .

. In order that we may not furnish any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ. Neither in LXX nor elsewhere in N.T. does occur, and the word is rare in class. Grk. It is literally an incision, and hence an interruption or violent break, as . It is perhaps a metaphor from breaking bridges or roads to stop the march of an enemy. The English hamper had a similar origin, of impeding by means of cutting. That we may not in any way hamper the progress of the Gospel is therefore the meaning. Obviously, if he took maintenance, he might be suspected of preaching merely for the sake of what he got by it. Moreover, those who had to maintain him might resent the burden, and be unwilling to listen to him. Chrysostom uses , a mound thrown up to stop progress, as equivalent to . St Pauls passionate determination to keep himself independent, especially at Corinth, appears in various places; 2Co 11:9, 2Co 11:10; 1Th 2:9; 2Th 3:8. He must be free to rebuke, and his praise must be above the suspicion of being bought. While labouring at Corinth, he could accept help from Macedonians, but not from Corinthians. When Ignatius (Philad. 6) says that no one can accuse him of having been oppressive (), he probably refers to the suppression of opinion rather than the enforcing of maintenance. Cf. , 1Th 2:18.

The MSS. vary between ( A B C D E F G P) and . : between . ( A B C) and . : between (A C D 3 F G K P), (B* F G) and ( D* L). There is no authority for .

13. He has reminded them that he has never in the past taken maintenance. Before stating what he means to do in the future, he strengthens the proof that he has a right to it. There is a higher and closer analogy than that of the soldier or of the different kinds of husbandmen. The other analogies may have escaped their notice, but surely they must be aware of the usages of the Temple, which in this matter did not differ from heathen usage. See Gray on Num 28:8-20.

; Do you not know that those who perform the temple-rites eat the food that comes out of the temple, those who constantly attend on the altar share with the altar what is offered thereon? The second half is not an additional fact; it repeats the first half in a more definite form. See Num 18:8-20 of the priests portions, and 21-24 of the Levites tithe, and contrast Deu 14:23 (see Driver, p. 169). Nowhere else in N.T. does occur.

( B D* F G, Copt.) is preferable to , without (A C D 3 E K L P, Syrr. Arm.): and (* A B C D E F G P) to ( 3 K L). Neither verb occurs elsewhere in N.T., and there is little difference of meaning between them. See LXX of Pro 1:21, Pro 8:3.

14. Just as God appointed that the priests and Levites should be supported out of what the people offered to Him, so did Christ also appoint that missionaries should be supported out of the proceeds of missions. For the parallel between Christian preachers and Jewish priests see Rom 15:16. It is clear that . means Christ; the Lord also, just as Jehovah had done. St Paul was familiar with what is recorded Mat 10:10; Luk 10:7, Luk 10:8. See on 7:10 and 11:23.

15. . He repeats, in a stronger form, the statement of v. 12. The change of tense brings it down to the present moment: I did not avail myself, , and I have not availed myself, . Moreover the addition of the pronoun makes the statement more emphatic; I, however, have not availed myself of any of these advantages. Others may have done so, but he has not. He now thinks no longer of Silvanus and Timothy, who were perhaps included in . (v. 12), and speaks only of himself. Even the close analogy of the maintenance of the priests has not induced him to do that. He has now completely justified the plea that he is not asking them to forego more than he foregoes himself. Si ego propter aliorum salutem a debitis sumptibus abstinui, saltem vos ab immolatis carnibus abstinete, ne multos fratrum praecipitetis in interitum (Herv.). But v. 13 may possibly have been introduced for the sake of another parallel. Like the priests who partake of what has been sacrificed, I have a right to partake of offerings, but for the sake of others I forbear. Then may I not ask you, although you have a right to partake of what has been sacrificed, for the sake of others to forbear?

Having emphatically reminded them of his practice in the past, he now declares that he means to make no change. All this argument is not a prelude to requiring maintenance from them in future.

. Now I did not write all this, viz. all the pleas which he has been urging (vv. 4-14). Or may be yet, however, and may be the epistolary aorist, like and (Php 2:25, Php 2:28), and (Phm 1:11, Phm 1:19, Phm 1:21); Yet I am not writing all this Winer, P. 347. Deissmann gives examples from papyri, Light, pp. 157, 164.

. That it may be so done (for the future) in my case: not unto me as A.V. Vulg. has in me rightly, and in eo, Mat 17:12, where both AV. and RV. have unto him.

. Both reading and construction are doubtful. WH. make a rather violent aposiopesis after : For a happy thing (it were) for me rather to die than-No one shall make void my glorying, i.e. his repeated declaration that he has never used his privilege of free maintenance. Lachmanns punctuation is still more violent; For a happy thing it were for me rather to die than that my glorying should do so: no one shall make it void.* The alternative is mentally to supply , which with the fut. indic. is unusual, but not impossible (see v. 18). This difficulty led to the reading . It is impossible to get a satisfactory construction out of what seems to be the true text.

(* A B C D* E F G P 17) may safely be adopted: other texts vary the order, and some have from v. 12. And (* B D* 17) is to be preferred to or ( 3 C D 2 K L P). But whatever text or construction we adopt the sense remains the same; I would rather die than be deprived of my independence. But rather die of hunger than accept food is not the meaning. For see Swete on Mar 9:43; Winer, p. 302: the construction is not rare in LXX.

16. There must be no misunderstanding as to what he considers a matter for glorying. There can be no glory in doing what one is forced to do; and he is forced to preach the Gospel, because if he refused to do so, God would punish him. But he is not forced to preach the Gospel gratis; and he does preach gratis. In this there is room for glorying. See Chadwick, Pastoral Teaching, pp. 306 f.

. He refers to the special commission which he had received on the way to Damascus (Act 9:6). He was a chosen vessel to bear Christs name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel (Act 9:15); he was separated for the work to which the Holy Spirit had called him (Act 13:2); and this commission had been repeated in the Temple (Act 22:21). It was impossible for him to reject it: Rom 1:14; Gal 1:15f.; Eze 3:17 f. Is laid (AV., RV.) is not accurate for : lies or presses upon me is the meaning (Luk 5:1, Luk 5:23:23; Act 27:20) (1 Mae. 6:57); (Hom. Il. vi. 458). But St Pauls is the call of God, not the Greeks driving of blind fate.

17, 18. Various explanations have been given of these rather obscure verses, and it is not worth while to discuss them all. The following is close to the Greek and fits the context. For if by my own choice I make a business of this (as other teachers do), I get a reward (as they do). As a matter of fact the Apostle does not do this; he preaches because he must, and does not make a business of it or take any reward. But in order to make the argument complete, he states an alternative which might be a fact. He then states what is a fact. If, however, it is not of my own choice, then it is a stewardship that has been entrusted to me. What, then, is the reward that comes to me? Why, that in preaching the Gospel I shall render the Gospel free of charge, so as not to use to the uttermost my privilege in the Gospel. Or we may explain thus: (1) St Paul had a (v. 18); therefore is not a rejected alternative; (2) his is practically the same as his (v. 15). Thus the alternatives of v. 17 are both true. He preached of obligation, but also in a way he was not obliged to adopt, i.e. without pay. The latter, not the former, secured him a reward. If he wished to exercise his privilege as an Apostle for all that it was worth (), he would insist upon full maintenance as his . But the which he prefers and gets is the delight of preaching without pay, of giving the Glad-tidings for nought, and taking no money for them. The idea of his being the commendation which he will receive at the Day of Judgment is quite foreign to the passage. Some editors carry the interrogation on to . This makes a question of awkward length, and leaves the question to answer itself. To put the question at , and make what follows the answer to it, is more pointed. What is the pay that I get? Why, the pleasure of refusing pay. An was often a slave (Luk 12:42). With compare Gal 2:7 and Lukyn Williams note there; also 1Ti 1:11; Tit 1:3; and see Deissmann, Light, P. 379. Nowhere else in the Bible does occur, and nowhere else in N.T. does occur. See on 7:31 for .

( 3 B L P) rather than (D3 E), or ( A C K), or (D* F G). After , D 2 E F G K L P, Syrr. add : A B C D*, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Aeth. omit.

19. . For although I am free from all, yet I made myself a bondservant to all, in order that I might gain the more.* He is about to show other ways in which he, waives his rights, in order to serve others and help the spread of the Gospel. Others take these verses (19-23) as explaining the ways in which he gets his recompense by refusing recompense. But seems to look back to v. 1 and to prepare the way for further instances of his forgoing his . Note the emphatic juxtaposition of by chiasmus. Both and are ambiguous as regards gender; but is almost certainly masculine, and that makes it almost certain that is masculine; all men (AV., RV.); jedermann (Luther); so also Calvin, though he regards the neuter as possible. Origen adopts the neuter as if it were certain. To be free , he says, is the mark of a perfect Apostle. A man may be free from unchastity but be a slave to anger, free from avarice but a slave to vanity; he may be free from one sin but a slave to another sin. But to say, Although I am free from all, is the mark of a perfect Apostle and such was Paul. Strange that Origen should suppose that the Apostle would make any such claim. He rightly points out that there was no harm in Pauls going to Jewish synagogues and observing Jewish customs, for he did not do this deceitfully, . In interpreting, Origen inserts the article before , and each time writes . He says that people asked what was the difference between and , and he thinks that the latter refers to such people as the Samaritans. But, in quoting, he omits the article. He points out that St Paul does not say , for he was a Jew, although : but he does say , for he was not a Samaritan. The meaning of it all is, that he could find in all men something with which he could sympathize, and he used this to win them. This was hard work for one with so strong and pronounced an individuality as he had.

. He could not expect to win all; but does not mean the majority of mankind, nor more than any other Apostle, but more than I should have gained if I had not made myself a slave to all. This is best expressed by the more (AV., RV.). With Cf. Mat 18:15; 1Pe 3:1.*

20. He now gives examples of his becoming a slave to all. He is the slave of Christ, and becomes a slave to others, in order, like a faithful , to make gains for his Master. An (see above) might be a slave. And ( epexegetic) I behaved to the Jews as a Jew, e.g. in circumcising Timothy at Lystra (Act 16:3.). Cf. Act 21:26.

. To them that are under Law I behaved as one under Law. The context shows clearly that here means the Mosaic Law as a whole: but the sentence is not a mere explication of the preceding one. The one refers to nationality, the other to religion; and there were some who were under the Mosaic Law who were not Jews by race. The Apostle includes all who are not heathen.

. Though I knew that I was not myself under Law. He does not say , which might refer to a fact of which he was not aware: but with participles is rare in N.T. The parenthesis is remarkable as showing how completely St Paul had broken with Judaism. See Dobschitz, Probleme, p. 82. In commenting on this verse Origen indicates that he was not the first to do so; . See on 1:24.

This parenthesis is omitted in D3 K, Copt. Aeth. AV., but is clearly to be inserted with A B C D* E F G P, Vulg. Arm. RV. The omission is probably due to homoeoteleuton, to .

21. . He goes a good deal further, and says that he was willing to behave as a heathen to heathen (cf. Gal 2:19). He did this, as Origen remarks, when he quoted heathen poets, and took as a text the inscription on a heathen altar, . See also Act 14:15, Act 24:25, where his arguments are such as a heathen would appreciate. Here does not mean lawless in the sense of disregarding and transgressing law (Luk 22:37; Act 2:23; 1Ti 1:9), but = , those who were outside Law; Rom 2:14. Evans (following Estius, exlex, inlex) translates, To Gods outlaws I behaved as an outlaw, not being (as I well knew) an outlaw of God, but an inlaw of Christ; and Origen explains the latter as meaning . But even outlaw has too much of the idea of lawlessness to be quite satisfactory. The genitives, and mean in relation to. Qui est est etiam : qui est est : and (on Gal 6:2) lex Christi, lex amoris (Beng.). It was the lex amoris, as followed by himself, that the Apostle would enforce on the Corinthians with regard to eating idol-meats; and this thought brings him to the last illustration of his forbearing conformity, . The Law of Christ, while freeing him from the Law of Moses, did not leave him free to do as he pleased: it restrained him, and kept him from wandering to other objects than the service of God and man (2Co 5:14).

and ( A B C D* F G P, Latt. Copt., Orig. Chrys.) rather than and (D3 K L, Arm. Thdrt.): see Blass, 36. II. or (* A B C F G P 17) rather than (* D E K L Orig. Chrys. Thdrt.), which is from vv. 19, 20. ( A B C D E P 17, Orig.) rather than (3 F G K L, Chrys. Thdrt.), perhaps to conform with ,

22. . To the weaklings I became a weakling (no ). When he had to deal with the over-scrupulous, he sympathized with their scruples, abstaining from things which seemed to them (though not to him) to be wrong. Cf. 2Co 11:29; Rom 14:1, Rom 15:1. Certainly this is the meaning, not those who had not strength to believe the Gospel. Origen says that he was weak to the weak when he allowed those who burn to marry. He points out that Paul does not say , which would have been and : Yet surely not so much so as Origens own interpretation of (see on v. 19). See Resch, Agrapha, p. 132.

. To them all I am become all things. The change from aorist to perfect is significant; this is the permanent result of his past action; he is always all-sided in all relations. His accommodation has no limit excepting the one just stated, that he is . See Lightfoot on Gal 2:5, where we see this limit operating; also On Revision, p. 92. Tarsus taught him to be many-sided. (Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, pp. 346 f.)

. Another significant change; from to . When he sums up the various conciliations and accommodations he states the ultimate aim;-not merely to win this or that class to his side, but, by every method that was admissible, to save their souls. Peter sacrificed a Christian principle to save himself from Jewish criticism (Gal 2:12-14). Cf. for the Tobit 14:8; 2 Mal 3:13. See the remarkable comment on vv. 20-22 in Cassian, Conf. xvi. 20.

Before , 3 C D F G K L P, Syrr. Copt. Arm. Aeth. insert from vv. 20, 21: * A B, Latt. Orig. omit. Before , D2 K L P, Orig. Thdrt. insert : A B C D* F G omit. For some texts (D E F G, Latt.) have , or (17, Clem-Alex.) . Clem. Alex. (Strom. v. 3) has three variations from the true text; . Orig, varies between , , and . Calv., rejecting ut omnes facerem salvos (Vulg.) for ut omnino aliquos servem, remarks; quia successu interdum caret indulgentia cujus Paulus meminit, optime convenit haec restrictio: quamvis non proficeret apud omnes, non tamen destitisse, quin paucorum saltem utilitati consuleret.

23. . Yet all that I do, I do because of the Gospel.* Not, for the Gospels sake, in order to help its progress, but because the Gospel is so precious to himself. He has just been stating how much he does for the salvation of others; he now adds that he is also careful of his own salvation, and thus anticipates the conclusion of v. 27. What follows shows that this is the meaning; he must secure his share in that eternal life which the Gospel offers.

. In order that I may prove to be a fellow-partaker thereof, i.e. not lose his share in the salvation which he tries to bring to others. Even in speaking of his own salvation he does not regard it as the main thing, or as something apart by itself. Salvation is offered by the Gospel to all; and he must strive to be one of those who receive it. The prize is not yet won: et magnam habent modestiam (Beng.).

24. The thought of possible failure, where failure would be so disastrous, suggests an exhortation to great exertion, which is illustrated by the practice of runners and boxers in the Isthmian games. These were held once in three years close to Corinth. See Hastings, DB. art. Games; Smith, D. of Grk, and Rom. Ant. art. Isthmia. The reference to the games is certain; such contests were common everywhere. The reference to the Isthmian games is much less certain. See Ramsay, Pauline Studies, p. 332, Pictures of the Apostolic Church, p. 363.

. The runners in a race-course all of them run, but one taketh the prize.* Does that mean, asks Origen, that only one Christian is saved, while the rest of us are lost? Not so, for all who are in the way of salvation are one, one body. It is the Christian Church that runs, and there is a prize for each of its members. But the prize is not in all cases the same: God gives to each according to his merit. The derivation of (brabeum, brabium, bravium) is unknown. It occurs Php 3:14; Clem. Rom. Cor. 5; Tatian, Ad Graec. 33.

25. , . So run, that ye may secure it. The may look back to the successful competitor; run as he does: or it may simply anticipate the . The change from to marks the difference between mere receiving and securing as ones own possession, and this play on words cannot be reproduced in English. Evans suggests take and overtake. This would be excellent, if we had , , for and are common correlatives for pursue and overtake. But here the idea of one Christian overtaking another is alien to the context, and to overtake a prize is not a natural expression. In Php 3:12 we have the same play on words, but there we have , as also in Rom 9:30.

. It is easy to talk about securing the prize, but every one who enters for a contest, in everything practises self-control; he goes into strict training, which for a Greek athlete lasted ten months. . occurs 7:9, and nowhere else in N.T. Cf. Hor. Ars Poet. 412 f. AV. puts a colon, RV. a full stop, here, so that what follows is an independent sentence. More probably, and are two classes which make up the whole company of athletes, . With WH. put only a comma after . Emphasis on and .

. In the Isthmian games a pine-wreath: cf. 1Pe 5:4; Wisd. 4:2. Philo (De Migr. Abr. 6), Thou hast proved thyself to me a perfect athlete, and hast been deemed worthy of prizes and wreaths ( ), while Virtue presides over the games and holds forth to thee rewards of victory. Even Pindar has not succeeded in making the wreath of glory : the victors in the games are not those who are remembered in history. Non solum corona, sed etiam memoria ejus perit (Beng.). The is independent of the , which anticipates the following (contrast 5:4, 7); they verily, or they of course, in order to receive a perishable crown.

. The exact expression is not found elsewhere in N.T., but we have (1Pe 5:4), where made of immortelles is perhaps the meaning rather than which fadeth not away: see Bigg ad loc. But amaranth and immortelles are flowers that do not fade, so that the meaning is much the same. Elsewhere we have (Jam 1:12; Rev 2:10), (2Ti 4:8). In all these places, as here, it is a crown of victory that is meant, rather than a royal crown, (Rev 12:3, 19:12; 62:3, 1 Esdr. 4:30, 1Mac. 8:13, 8:32). The contrast between and occurs in 1Pe 1:23. In LXX of Zec 6:14 we have : but more to the point is the description of Virtue in Wisd. 4:2, , . The figure is frequent in 4 Mac.

Lightfoot (St Paul and Seneca) quotes from Seneca (Ep. Mor. lxxviii. 16) a remarkable parallel; What blows do athletes receive in their face, what blows all over their body. Yet they bear all the torture from thirst of glory. Let us also overcome all things, for our reward is not a crown or a palm branch or the trumpeter proclaiming silence for the announcement of our name, but virtue and strength of mind and peace acquired ever after.

Epictetus also (Dis. iii. 21) has a fine passage on the qualifications and responsibilities of teachers; The thing is great, it is mystical, not a common thing, nor is it given to every man. But not even wisdom perhaps is enough to enables a man to take care of youths: a man must have a certain readiness and fitness for this purpose; and above all things he must have God to advise him to occupy this office (vv. 16, 17; 7:40), as God advised Socrates to occupy the place of one who confutes error. Why then do you act at hazard in things of the greatest importance? Leave it to those who are able to do it, and to do it well. And again (3:22), He who without God attempts so great a matter, is hateful to God.

26. . Instead of going on with his exhortation to others, he looks to himself. He cannot dispense with painful effort. I for my part, therefore, am so running, as one with no uncertain course. He knew the goal quite well, and he knew the road which led to it (Gal 2:2). Here anticipates (4:1), which adds weight to the view that in v. 24 anticipates . But does not make it probable that is indicative. To render not without certainty of reaching the goal makes it almost contradict the fear expressed in . Scio quod petam et quomodo (Beng.) is better. In N.T., generally begins a sentence (see on Luk 20:25 and cf. Heb 8:13): St Paul has the usual classical order (cf. Wisd. 1:11, 8:9). Nowhere else in the Bible is found: but see 2 Mac. 7:34; Php 3:14.

. I so box as smiting not the air. It is unlikely that he means I do not smite the air, but I beat my body, in which case would have preceded , and it is rash to say that negatives , because the negative of would have been . We may regard as one term, no air-smiter: he uses his fists as one in deadly earnest, and does not miss: he plants his blow. And with participles still survives in N.T., where the writer feels that the proper negative for a statement of downright fact is .

There are eleven other instances in Paul: four in 2Co 4:8, 2Co 4:9; two in a quotation in Gal 4:27; one each in Rom 9:25; Gal 4:8; Php 3:3; Col 2:19; 1Th 2:4. See also Mat 22:11; Luk 6:42; Joh 10:12; Act 7:5, Act 7:26:22, Act 7:28:17, Act 7:19; Heb 11:1, Heb 11:35; Heb_1 Pet, 1:8 (see Hort), and a quotation in 2:10. J. H. Moulton (Gr. i. p. 231) gives numerous illustrations from papyri, and concludes with a remark which applies to this passage. The closeness of the participle to the indicative in the kinds of sentence found in this list makes the survival of natural. See Blass, 75.5.

Beating the air, whether literally or metaphorically, is common in literature. Virgils Dares (Aen, v. 377), verberat ictibus auras, and Entellus vices in ventum effudit (446) may occur to any one; also ventosque lacessit ictibus (12:105; Geor. iii. 233). Ovid, Met. vii. 786, vacuos exercet in aera morsus. Valerious Flaccus, Arg. iv. 302, vacuas agit inconsulta per auras brachia. Hom. Il. xx. 446, – . Cf. also (14:9). But we are not to understand the Apostle as speaking of practising boxing: both and refer to the actual contest. We see the close of it in 2Ti 4:7, 2Ti 4:8.

27. . But I bruise my body black and blue and lead it along as a bond-servant. The renderings of (lit. give a black eye by hitting ) are various; castigo (Vulg.), lividum facio (d), contundo (Beza), subigo (Calv.). See on Luk 18:5, where Vulg. has sugillo.* It is perhaps too much to say that St Paul regards his body as an antagonist. Rather, it is something which becomes a bad master, if it is not made to be a good servant. It is like the horses in a chariot race, which must be kept well in hand by whip and rein if the prize is to be secured. The Apostle was no Gnostic, regarding the body as incurably evil, and here he says not . But the body must be made the of the spirit. Nowhere else in the Bible does occur: cf. in Rom 6:18, Rom 6:22. The purpose of is (Rom 6:6). Ignatius recalls what follows (Trall. 12). See Lietzmann, Greek Papyri, p. 6.

. The thought of possible failure, which is just discernible in v. 23, is here expressed with full distinctness, and the metaphor of contests in the games perhaps still continues. There was a at the games who announced the coming contest and called out the competitors: Then our herald, in accordance with the prevailing practice, will first summon the runner (Plat. Laws, viii. p. 833). This the Apostle had done in preaching the Gospel; he had proclaimed, , . But he was not only the herald to summon competitors and teach them the conditions of the contest; he was a competitor himself. How tragic, therefore, if one who had instructed others as to the rules to be observed for winning the prize, should himself be rejected for having transgressed them! Excepting Heb 6:8, is found only in Paul: 2Co 13:5-7; Rom 1:28; Tit 1:16, 2Ti 3:8: also (11:19) is mainly Pauline. Manifestly exclusion from the contest, as not being qualified, is not the meaning; he represents himself as running and fighting: it is exclusion from the prize that is meant. He might prove to be disqualified. His effective preaching and his miracles (10:9-11, 14:18, 19; 2Co 12:12; Rom 15:18, Rom 15:19; Gal 3:5) will avail nothing if he has broken the rules of the course (see on Mat 7:22, Mat 7:23). In quo monentur omnes, ut timendo sperent et sperando timeant, quatenus spes foveat laborantes et timor incitet negligentes (Atto). Ita certus est de praemio, ut timeat illud amittere; et ita metuit amittere, ut certus sit de eo (Herv.). Potest etiam conjungi cum superiore dicto, in hunc modum; Ne Evangelio defrauder, cujus alii mea opera fiunt participes (Calv.).

(A B C D* 17) is to be preferred to (F G K L P), (D3), or (22). Keep under (AV.) is from . For F has . For , reprobus (Vulg.), rejectaneus (Beza). Schmiedel suspects vv. 24-27 as an interpolation.

* See Weinel, St Paul, pp. 79 f.; A. T. Robertson, Epochs in the Life of St Paul, pp. 39 f., a valuable chapter.

(Fourth century.) The Sinaitic MS., now at St Petersburg, the only MS. containing the whole N.T.

A A (Fifth century.) The Codex Alexandrinus; now at the British Museum.

B B (Fourth century.) The Vatican MS.

P P (Ninth century). Porfirianus Chiovensis. A palimpsest acquired in the East by Porphyrius Bishop of Kiew. Lacks 7:15 -17 : 12:23 -13:5 -: 14:23 . A good type of text in St Pauls Epistles.

D D (Sixth century.) Codex Clarmontanus; now at Paris. A Graeco-Latin MS. 14:13 -22 is supplied by a later but ancient hand. Many subsequent hands (sixth to ninth centuries) have corrected the MS. (See Gregory, Prolegomena , pp. 418-422).

E E (Ninth century). At Petrograd. A copy of D, and unimportant

F F (Late ninth century). Codex Augiensis (from Reichenau); now at Trin. Coll. Cambr. Probably a copy of G in any case, secondary to G, from which it very rarely varies (see Gregory, p. 429).

G G (Late ninth century). Codex Boernerianus; at Dresden. Interlined with the Latin (in minluscules). Lacks 1Co 3:8-16, 1Co 6:7-14 (F).

K K (Ninth century). Codex S. Synod. xcviii. Lacks 1:1-6:13 : 8:7 -8:11 .

L L (Ninth century). Codex Angelicus; At Rome.

* occurs nowhere else in N.T., except Luk 24:21, where see footnote, p. 553. He could not prove to any one that he had seen the Lord; but Corinthians at any rate had no need of such evidence to convince them that he was an Apostle. He seems to be glancing at the rival teachers who questioned his claim to the title. See Dobschtz, Probleme des Ap. Zeitalters, p. 105; Fletcher, The Conversion of St Paul, pp. 63 f.; Ramsay, Pictures of the Apostolic Age, pp. 102 f.

17 17. (Ev. 33, Act_13. Ninth century.) At Paris (Nat. Gr. 14). See Westcott and Hort., Introd. 211, 212.

* There was, of course, another reason. Owing to the influence of St Paul, a good deal of money that had previously supported Judaism now went. elsewhere. The Jews said that he was making a fortune out of his new religion. Hence his protests that he never took maintenance.

Here, as in 12:13 and Luk 24:10, AV. ignores the article; other apostles, other churches, other women.

With compare , 1Th 2:14: it introduces and argument from induction; v. 7 is an argument from analogy; v 8 is an appeal to authority.

* Origen points out that it is as a disciple of the Good Shepherd, who laid down His life for the sheep, that the Apostle uses this illustration.

C C (Fifth century). The Codex Ephraem, a Palimpsest; now at Paris. Lacks 7:18 -9:6 : 13:8 -14:40 .

* The record of what was preparatory to the Gospel was made for the sake of those who received the Gospel.

* Cf. the separation of the fruit of the Spirit from the works of the flesh, Gal 5:19-23.

* Dix fois il revient avec fiert sur ce dtail, en apparence puril, quil na rien coult personne, quoique il et bien pu faire comme les autres et vivre de l autel. Le mobile de son zle tail un amour des ames en quelque sorte infini (Renan, S. Paul, 237).

* Lachmann conjectures : cf. 15:31. Michelsen conjectures . .

* The expresses more strongly than (Rom 7:3) that he is freed out of all dependence on others; he is extricated from entangling ties.

* It is just possible that there is an allusion to the charge of making a gain (2Co 11:12, 2Co 12:17): his only gain was winning souls.

* This I do (AV.) comes from a wrong reading; (K L, Syrr.), instead of .

This gives some support to the view that, in 3:9, means sharers in work for God, but it does not make that view probable.

* Compare the contrast between and (x. I. 5).

In any case it means perseveranter nec respicientes retro.-Recte dictum est, Deum adverbia, non verba remunerare; nempe eos qui fortiter et juste, non autem qui fortia et justa operatur (Salmeron in Denton).

* Cf. Cic. Tusc. ii. 17, Inde pugiles caestibus contusi ne ingemiscunt quidem, gladiatores quas plagas perferunt, accipere plagam malunt quam turpiter vitare.

There is one that is wise and teacheth many, and yet is unprofitable to his own soul (Ecclus. 37:19), (Menander).

There was a herald who proclaimed the victors, and was himself crowned for his services. Nero proclaimed his own success at the games, and thus compected with the heralds. Victorem se ipse pronunciabat: qua de causa et praeconio ubique contendit (Suet. Nero, 24).

Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament

Rights and Their Surrender

1Co 9:1-15

Pauls claim to an equality with Peter and the other Apostles was violently disputed by his enemies at Corinth, because in several matters he differed from them. Unlike Peter, he had no wife to support, and he worked for his livelihood, instead of being supported by the churches. In this chapter he strongly asserts his rights in this particular; but he is equally strong in saying that he had refused to avail himself of his right, that he might influence a wider circle of men. He was a soldier, a vineyard-keeper, a shepherd, and could claim his maintenance. But he desired to be free from the slightest imputation of self-seeking. He knew that jealous critics were watching his every action and seeking to weigh his secret motives. These were the very men he desired to win, and for their sakes he voluntarily surrendered his undoubted rights.

What a lesson for all of us and especially for those who are called to be ministers of Christs gospel! We must be above suspicion. If we do or permit anything that might prove a hindrance to the acceptance of Christ by others, we must forego it, though reasonable in itself, that we may win them to our Savior.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

Servant Of All

1Co 9:1-23

Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working? Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. And this I do for the gospels sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. (vv. 1-23)

Everywhere the apostle went his steps were dogged by legalistic men who hated the doctrine of grace and who sought in every way possible to shake the confidence of his converts. His commission had been called in question and they denied that he was a true apostle. In order to be an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ in an official sense, it was necessary that one should have seen the Lord and have been commissioned by Him. More than that the signs of an apostle, the working of wonders, should be manifested in him, and these enemies of Pauls intimated that he could not be a true apostle, for he had not been connected with the testimony when the Lord was here on earth; he had not seen the Lord, they said, and he did not work the signs of an apostle, having no true commission. He answered them like this, Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?

Certainly Paul had seen the Lord. He saw Him in the glory that day when he was thrown to the ground on the Damascus turnpike and he beheld the risen Savior seated on the throne of God. That was the time when he received his commission, for the Lord said: I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me (Act 26:16-18). That was the time he saw the Lord, and it was then he received his commission. And had not the signs of an apostle been manifest in him? He does not even deign to speak of the miracles. He had wrought miracles as had the Twelve, but there was a far greater sign that ever accompanied his ministry, and so he says to those who had been turned to the Lord through the preaching of the Word from his mouth, If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. The evidence that he was a truly God-sent servant was found in this, that wherever he went the Spirit of God confirmed the message that he carried, convicted men of their sin, led them to definite faith in Christ, and gave them the assurance of forgiveness and justification, that afterward by a new life they might demonstrate the reality of the work that had taken place in their souls. And so he says, Do you listen to men who impugn my apostleship? Are you prepared to believe that possibly the signs of an apostle are not found in me? What about yourselves? Who brought you to Christ? To whom are you indebted under God for the knowledge of His grace? My answer to them that do examine me is this.

Others said, Well, you can see he does not have the same confidence that the rest have, he does not even have a wife, he goes about alone. Many believe those people are mistaken who tell us that Paul was a bachelor and that this possibly accounts for some things that he has to say in this letter and elsewhere in regard to the ministry of women. They think this is a mistake because when the blood of the martyr Stephen was shed, he gave his voice (or literally, his vote) against him. That seems to imply that he was a member of the Sanhedrin, the high council of the Jews, and that he voted for the death of Stephen. He could not have been a member of the Sanhedrin if he had not attained the age of thirty years and if he had not been a married man. So he may have been married in his earlier life, but now was a widower and chose to devote his life in widowhood to the service of the Lord Jesus Christ, not because he thought it was wrong for a minister of Christ to have a wife. The idea that those who preach the gospel should live the celibate life was unknown in apostolic days; that was a superstitious fiction of later years, when men came to believe that the unmarried monk and the childless nun were holier than the Christian father or mother.

The apostle says, I have full authority to lead about a sister in Christ as a wife, I have full authority to marry a sister in Christ if I desire to do so. The other apostles did. This of course shows that the celibacy of the clergy, so-called, was unknown in those days. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? That is, James and Jude were married men, and Cephas, Simon Peter, was a married man! Some people tell us that he was the first Pope. Well, then, he was a married Pope. Or, says the apostle, should only I and Barnabas live this celibate life? They chose that life that they might be untrammeled in their missionary work as they traveled from land to land enduring hardships one should not expect a wife to endure with them.

Others objected on this ground, He knows he is not a real apostle for he does not depend on his ministry for his temporal support. I suppose if he were living today, there would be those who would say, He degrades the cloth by working for a living. He was a tentmaker, and some said, He would never soil his hands making tents if he knew that he was a genuinely appointed apostle; he would never stoop to anything like that. But he says, Oh, no, I have a perfect right to be supported in the same way as others, but I have reasons why I refuse to permit you to support me. He came to them when they were heathens, when they were pagans and living vile ungodly lives, and he did not intend to pass the collection plate and ask them to contribute toward his support; he would rather go among them and labor, working with his own hands to support himself and his companions and keep the gospel absolutely without charge. I wish the church of God had never given up that position. It is a great reproach on the church of God when its representatives turn to a Christless world and beg and wheedle money out of ungodly men to support the work of the Lord. The divine method is that the gospel of God should be supported by the people of God who give out of love for Christ, and when a servant of Christ under certain circumstances is not thus properly supported, he should not be above working with his own hands while he continues to minister the gospel as occasion presents itself.

The apostle here shows that it is quite right and proper that the Lords servants should be supported by the church of God. Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? If a man is a soldier, he is not expected to support himself; the country for whom he is fighting takes care of him. Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? And then he uses an apt illustration from the law of Moses. It is written in the book of Deuteronomy, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn (25:4). The reference is to the old-fashioned way of threshing corn or wheat. The ox goes around and around and treads it out. How inhuman it would be if the ox becoming hungry would not be permitted to munch a little of the grain as he treads it out. The law permitted him to have some for himself. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written. There is an admonition here, something for the people of God to take note of: That he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

And so he lays this down as a principle, If we have sown unto you spiritual things, that is, if the servant of Christ gives his whole time and energy to the study of the Word of God in order to prepare himself the better to minister the things of the Lord, if he turns from what people call secular life, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? Just as the ox finds its food in the work it is doing, so the Lord has appointed that His servants should be cared for by those who receive benefit from the ministry that they give. If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power-we prefer to forego our own rights in order that you may see that our service is an unselfish one and in order that the heathen may not say that we are in the ministry for what we can get out of it. Lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

It is perfectly true that they that minister about holy things should live of them. These words refer to the priests in Judaism for they were sustained by tithes and offerings. They which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar. In our dispensation while there is no distinct priesthood, and all believers are priests, yet they that give themselves to ministering the Word are to be sustained by the people of God in that work. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But if a servant of Christ says, I choose to forego that privilege, I am able to support myself and still carry on the work of the Lord, he is free to do it. Paul says, I have chosen that path, I do not want one of you to say that a selfish motive actuated me. I preach the gospel, but I have nothing to glory in; I am a servant. My Master sent me to preach it. He put necessity upon me, yea, I find myself in trouble if I do not preach it. Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! I wonder if that word has been forgotten by many who once gave themselves to the ministry of the gospel, but today seldom mention the great truths whereby men and women are saved. Is it not a sad fact that many today who are looked upon as evangelistic preachers never tell sinners that Christ died for the ungodly, never proclaim the saving power of the Lord Jesus, never exalt the cross as the only means of redemption for poor sinners? What an account to face before the Lord someday! I wish that a minister of Christ who gives himself to what he calls a social program, merely ethical preaching, might be awakened through these words of the apostle, Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! Our responsibility is to make Christ known as the only Savior of sinners. If I do this thing willingly, if I gladly go forward preaching the gospel for the names sake of the Lord Jesus, by-and-by when I stand at the judgment seat I shall be rewarded.

Never mind whether people appreciate me now, never mind whether I get my reward down here, I can leave it until that day when the Lord will estimate everything aright. But even if I do not preach the gospel willingly, still the message is going out, and God will bless the message, but I myself will lose the reward. A dispensation [a stewardship]is committed unto me, and I must fulfill it. What is my present reward? That I make money in preaching it? No! That I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. I will not go to dying men and say, Give me your money, and if you do, I will preach to you, but I will go and preach the Word freely whether I ever receive a penny for it or not. After they become converted it remains with them and the Lord: it is my business to give out the message. The apostle takes a very high and noble position. It is a most obnoxious thing to God when those of us who profess to be ministers of the Word commercialize His truth by setting a price upon our service. Only so much preaching for so much money. Paul says, It is my joy to preach whether supported by men or not; I make the gospel without charge.

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. I am not concerned about what men think of me, but I have deliberately and of my own volition made myself to be the servant of men. What does he mean by that? Simply this, I am the servant of Christ, but Christ has sent me to minister His Word, and I seek to do so in such a way as best to reach men in their need, and in this sense I put myself under bondage to men in order that I may make the gospel clear to all men. Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews. When he preached to the Jews, you will find instance after instance in the book of Acts where he turned them back to the Old Testament, to their Jewish ceremonies and laws, and based everything upon the Jews hope of the Messiah, showing how all has been fulfilled in Christ. On the other hand, when speaking to the Gentiles, men who did not know the law of Moses, he put himself on a level with those to whom he spoke. He talked of God, the Creator of all things, who gives us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness (Act 14:17). The God who does all this cannot be an image, an idol made with mans hands, He created the heavens and the earth. And then he undertakes to show how God has sent His Son to save men who have sinned against Him; he puts the gospel in a way that the Gentiles may understand it.

Verse 21 is very interesting and should be a help to many who may not quite understand the Christians relation to the law. Reading from the latter part of verse 20, To them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law. Here we have two classes of men. There are those that are under the law, they are the Jews or, in our day, any to whom the law of God has come. But here is the other class, To them that are without law, as without law, that is, the Gentile nations, the pagan nations. They have never heard the law of God. If Paul himself were under the law, as some Christians think a believer is, he would not say, I became as under the law. Where was Paul? He was not under the law nor was he without law. He was neither subject to some legal ritual nor was he lawless. Where did he stand? Between the two, Being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ. He says, as it were, I am not under the law of Moses, neither am I lawless, but I am under law to God, being legitimately subject to Christ. Do you see the place of the believer? Neither under law nor without law, but legitimately subject to Christ. And where has Christ expressed His mind for me? In the four Gospels and in the Epistles. Somebody says, You do not mean the four Gospels! Do you not know that they are altogether Jewish? I know some have said that, but I remember that the Spirit of God has said something very serious in regard to such. He says in 1 Timothy, If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings (6:3-4). Let us be very careful that we do not teach otherwise than in accordance with the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The words of our Lord are found in the four Gospels, nowhere else excepting in the first part of the book of Revelation and in one or two sentences in the book of Acts, and there the Lord shows us the kind of life Christians should live. Paul says, I seek to be legitimately subject to Christ. And then the Lord has further given His will in what we call the Epistles. Through the Holy Spirit He has shown us the heavenly calling and the lives that should correspond. We should be very careful if we say we are not under the law, which is true, lest we are found to be lawless, which is antinomianism and repugnant to God. We are to be en-lawed, or legitimately subject to Christ.

To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak. That is, in ministering the Word of God Paul delighted to enter into the circumstances of the people to whom he spoke. Possibly you make up a sermon in the quiet of your study, working it all out carefully, your introduction, your firstly, secondly, thirdly, and as many other numbers as you like, and then your conclusion, and you say, There, I have a sermon on such and such a text. And then you go to the pulpit without taking the needs of the people into consideration, and you just pour out the sermon that you have made up for them in the study. That was not Pauls way; he had the needs of men before him and he preached the Word. A minister told me about a difficult position in which he found himself at one time. He always read his sermons, and he had been asked to go and preach to a certain congregation, and so, looking through the barrel, he selected one and shoved it into his briefcase with his Bible. When he got on the platform, he pulled it out, spread it before him, and found that he had brought a different sermon than the one he intended taking. It was a Memorial Day sermon, and this was some time in the fall of the year. So he said, I am very sorry, dear friends, I have made a mistake, but I am going to give you a sermon I preached on Memorial Day and hope you will get something out of it. Is it any wonder that people get so little edification when they listen to things like that? As a minister of Christ Pauls great object was to get to the hearts of men and give them the Word as they needed it. To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak. He did not try to astonish people with his eloquence, he gave them the Word to convict and help and bless and cheer and make things plain to them, that he might gain the weak. In fact he says, I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. This should be the object of all gospel testimony. We have been commissioned to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets

1Co 9:16

It is a ministry of necessity that Christ calls for, that the world needs, that a revived Church supplies today. We need not ministers that may or that will, but ministers that must preach the gospel. We need members not that may or that will, but that must live the gospel.

I. The work. They preach the gospel. (1) Without opening his lips to preach, or putting his hand to missionary work, every one who bears Christ’s name either helps or hinders the gospel by his spirit and his life. Thousands of opportunities are thrown away through thoughtlessness and a self-pleasing, worldly habit of mind. (2) Another department of ministry is word and work directly contributed to the kingdom of Christ. The methods and opportunities are manifold and various as the characters and circumstances of Christians. “She hath done what she could,” is the standard of measurement.

II. The motive. It is worthy of remark that the Apostle confesses frankly that he was kept at his work as a slave is by the sound of the whip behind him. Look at some of the particular forces that press a human soul to diligence in the work of the Lord. (1) The love of Christ constraining it; (2) the new appetite of the new creature; (3) the need of a sinning, suffering world. The life that is placed under the play of these three kindred powers will be an active life. These three may well stir the stiffest out of all his fastenings to the earth, and send him off, like flaming fire or stormy winds, on errands of mercy at God’s command and for man’s good.

W. Arnot, The Anchor of the Soul, p. 182.

References: 1Co 9:17.-F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. vi., p. 207. 1Co 9:22.-E. Jenkins, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxiii., p. 280. 1Co 9:24.-J. Edmunds, Sixty Sermons, p. 81; F. W. Farrar, In the Days of thy Youth, p. 275; H. E. Manning, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. i., p. 145; T. Kelly, Pulpit Trees, p. 283.

1Co 9:24-27

The Race and the Prize.

I. The prize, in the contest that St. Paul speaks of, is a different kind of prize from that which these Corinthians were seeking after in their games. It was not a light thing, as men call lightness, which these racers sought after. The man who seeks to be wondered at because he is so rich, or because he is so learned, or even because he is so kind and charitable,-this man seeks just the same sort of reward that the runners and the wrestlers and the leapers and the throwers among the Corinthians coveted. St. Paul was a man who had as hard a fight to fight in this world as you have. Dreams would not have satisfied him any more than they would you; he wanted realities, he complained of the things men in general are seeking after, not because they are too substantial, but because they are not substantial enough, because there is no food in them to content the appetites of hungry men. He desired to know God, and desiring this he did not desire a vain thing; he desired the most real of all things-he desired that which the spirit of you and of me and of every man on this earth is desiring, and which we must have, or perish discontented and miserable.

II. I have shown you how this race differed from the race to which St. Paul compared it. Now I will show you wherein they are both alike. (1) They are alike in this, that the prize is set before all. (2) All run, but some only receive the prize. (3) The races resemble each other in the conduct of those who do win the race and obtain the prize. They keep under their bodies and bring them into subjection. St. Paul does not make it any merit to restrain the body from its indulgences and lusts: it is merely a point of wisdom which no one who is really in earnest, really means to seek God and His glory, can neglect. We do neglect it, alas! but we do it at our peril; we neglect it, because we neglect, at the same time, the thought of the glorious prize which God is offering us, that prize of being found in Christ, that prize of awaking up in His likeness, and of being satisfied with it.

F. D. Maurice, Christmas Day and Other Sermons, p. 89.

1Co 9:25

I. We may take it as an undoubted fact that Christianity does make a vast difference as regards self-denial, by strengthening and multiplying the motives which induce us to submit to it, and by infusing into each man a higher nature offering a Divine help which tends to make self-denial easy and delightful. But does Christianity, which so much increases our power to endure self-denial, make any alteration in our conception of the nature of self-denial? Does it turn it from a means into an end, or condemn pleasure as being in itself evil?

II. Before answering this I will revert to another consideration which distinguishes the self-denial of the believer from that of the unbeliever. While the agnostic recognises a comparatively superficial duty to man alone, the Christian recognises besides a paramount and exhaustless duty to God. The secret of the Christian’s strength is faith, the sight of Him who is invisible. But to maintain this faith with vigour much self-denial is required. With the Christian, as with other men, what is out of sight is in danger of being out of mind, and strong resolution and steady perseverance are needed to overcome this tendency. And besides the self-denial which is thus deliberately chosen, there is the self-denial which is impulsive. It was no thought either of duty or expediency which prompted David’s refusal to drink of the water of the well of Bethlehem when his soldiers brought it to him at the hazard of their lives. So it was neither duty nor expediency which caused St. Paul to rejoice that he was allowed to share in the sufferings of Christians; it was that delight to which none of us can be entirely strangers, the delight of sacrificing something for a friend, and so giving a deeper utterance to our affection, and, as it were, realising it to ourselves. I return now to the question I asked before. Must not a change like this, in the scope of self-denial, necessitate a change also in our conception of self-denial? The question is, which is the truer form of Christianity, ascetic Christianity in either of its developments, puritanic or monastic, or what we may call Shakespearian Christianity? In the Bible we never find the ascetic disposition reckoned among the fruits of the Spirit, nor do ascetic practices form a prominent portion of the Christian’s armour. The virtues and duties on which our Lord and His apostles lay stress are the virtues and duties of everyday life. The great mischief of wrong asceticism is that it confounds men’s ideas of right and wrong, and shuts them up in a little ecclesiastical world of their own, where vice and virtue are thrust into the background by a crowd of imaginary sins and imaginary virtues. Of such a system it may be said that Christianity has had few more dangerous enemies, whether we regard it in its effect on those who have accepted it or on those who have been repelled by it.

J. B. Mayor, Oxford and Cambridge Journal, Feb. 26th, 1880.

1Co 9:25

Christian Temperance.

I. To be temperate, in the primary sense of the word, is to be under command, self-governed, to feel the reins of our desires, and to be able to check them. It is obvious that this of itself implies a certain amount of prudence, to know when, at what point, to exercise this control. There is such a thing as negative as well as positive intemperance. God made His world for our use; He gave us our faculties to be employed. If we use not the one and employ not the other, then, though we do not usually call such an insensibility by the name of intemperance, it certainly is a breach of temperance, the very essence of which is to use God’s bounties in moderation, to employ our faculties and desires, but so as to retain the guidance and check over them. And such being the pure moral definition of temperance, let us proceed to base it on Christian grounds, to ask why and how the disciple of Christ must be temperate.

II. Our text will give us ample reason why. The disciple of Christ is a combatant, contending in a conflict in which he has need of all the exercise of all his powers. He has ever, in the midst of a visible world, to be ruled and guided by his sense of a world invisible. For this purpose he needs to be vigilant and active. He cannot afford to have his faculties dulled by excess, or his energies relaxed by sloth. He strives for the mastery, and therefore he must be temperate in all things.

III. A Christian man must be temperate in his religion. It is not a passion, carrying him out of his place in life and its appointed duties; nor a fancy, leading him to all kinds of wild notions, requiring constant novelty to feed it and keep it from wearying him; nor, again, is it a charm, to be sedulously gone through as a balm to his conscience. It is a matter demanding the best use of his best faculties. Temperance must also be shown in the intellectual life, in opinions and in language. The end of all is our sanctification by God’s Spirit to God’s glory; the perfection, not of stoical morality, but of Christian holiness.

H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. v., p. 199.

References: 1Co 9:26.-E. M. Goulburn, Thoughts on Personal Religion, p. 191. 1Co 9:27.-C. S. Robinson, Sermons on Neglected Texts, p. 108. 1Co 10:1.-G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 141. 1Co 10:1-5.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 481; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. iv., p. 89. 1Co 10:1-6.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. i., p. 22; vol. viii., p. 88. 1Co 10:3, 1Co 10:4.-J. Edmunds, Fifteen Sermons, p. 164. 1Co 10:4.-C. Kingsley, Town and Country Sermons, p. 282; W. C. E. Newbolt, Counsels of Faith and Practice, p. 176; C. J. Elliott, Church of England Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 53; Plain Sermons by Contributors to “Tracts for the Times,” vol. iii., p. 87. 1Co 10:6.-Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Church of England Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 109. 1Co 10:7.-T. Wilkinson, Thursday Penny Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 1; R. L. Browne, Sussex Sermons, p. 95.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

6. Pauls Gracious Example.

CHAPTER 9

1. The Apostles rights. (1Co 9:1-14).

2. He waives his rights for the Gospels sake. (1Co 9:15-23).

3. The race-course and the crown. (1Co 9:24-27).

The great principle laid down in the previous chapter to forego ones Christian liberty, the Apostle Paul enforced by his own example. He was an Apostle and had seen the Lord Jesus, from whom he had received his apostleship (Gal 1:1). From the second verse we learn that some had not recognized him as an Apostle; these must have been false teachers. But the Corinthians knew he was an Apostle. Through his testimony they had been converted so that he could say for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord. As an Apostle he had certain rights, but he did not make use of them. All his rights and his privileges had been given up by him. The law also affirmed his claim, for it forbad the muzzling of the oxen that treadeth the corn. Those that sow spiritual things are perfectly entitled to reap carnal (material) things. Other teachers used this God-given right and accepted their material things; and he had a greater claim for this upon the Corinthians, for he taught them first. Nevertheless we have not used this power, but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ. The Lord certainly had ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. All this he had not used; he had not made use of what was his right. Nor did he write these words that his claims might be satisfied. He did not want his glorying made void. What was his glory? Not the preaching of the Gospel in itself. Necessity was laid upon him and Woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel! For if I do this of mine own will, I have a reward; but if not of mine own will, I am entrusted with a stewardship. (The translation of (1Co 9:17 in the Authorized Version is faulty.)

What is his reward? In what does he glory? His answer is that when I preach the gospel, I make the gospel without charge, so as not to use, as belonging to me, my right in the gospel. In this way the gospel was not hindered; it was made more effective. For being free from all, free from the control of any person, he had made himself the servant of all, that he might win as many as he could. This was his reward, to preach the gospel gratuitously. Governed by love he had become a servant of all. His rights were given up, but he did not insist upon his Christian freedom, but gave up his liberty in order that I might by all means save some. He did not seek his own things but the things of Christ. The most blessed self-sacrifice on behalf of Christ and the Gospel of Christ marked his service. How few such servants, who give up, self-denying, self-sacrificing, waiving their rights for the Gospel sake, are found today in Christendom. But how many are seeking their own!

The concluding paragraph is fully in line with these statements of the Apostle. He uses as an illustration the Greek stadium, the race-course, well known to the Corinthians on account of the games on the isthmus of Corinth. In order to run successfully and obtain the prize, self-denial was necessary. There was a prize for him who won. Spiritually, not one, but all may obtain the prize, if all run well. And in the race every man that striveth for the mastery, to obtain the victory, is temperate in all things. They do it to obtain a fading crown, a wreath; but we have the promise of a crown that fadeth not away, an everlasting crown.

And if those who strive for earthly honor deny themselves, how much more should we practice self-denial in view of the crown of glory! I therefore so run not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air; but I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, having preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. What did the Apostle mean by the latter statement? The word castaway is found also in the following passages: Rom 1:28; 2Co 13:5-7; 2Ti 3:8; and Tit 1:16. In these passages it is translated by reprobate. In Heb 6:8 it is translated rejected. Did he mean that he feared to be lost himself? Or did he only fear disapproval as a workman, whose service is rejected and to be counted unworthy of a crown? The statement does not clash with the teaching of the eternal security of the believer. The Apostle personally does not fear for himself, as no true believer needs to fear, but he applies an important principle to himself. Salvation and a holy walk are inseparably connected. Preaching alone will not do, but the truth must be lived.

There would be difficulty indeed, if the apostle spoke of having been born again and afterwards becoming a castaway: in this case life would not be eternal. But he says nothing of the sort. He only shows the solemn danger and certain ruin of preaching without a practice according to it. This the Corinthians needed to hear. Preaching or teaching truth to men without reality, self-judgment and self-denial before God, is ruinous. It is to deceive ourselves, not Him who is not mocked. Nor do any Christians more deeply need to watch and pray than those who are much occupied with handling the word of God or guiding others in the ways of the Lord. How easy for such to forget that doing the truth is the common responsibility of all, and that speaking it to others ever so earnestly is no substitute for their own obeying it as in the sight of God! (William Kelly)

It is a warning against an empty profession of Christianity without the manifestation of the power. Where there is true salvation and eternal life, it is proved by a godly walk. The Apostle in these personal statements shows that all the blessed knowledge he had and with it the most positive assurance of eternal glory, did not make him careless, but prompted him to still greater earnestness and continued self-denial. He knew nothing in his life of the self-indulgence which characterized so many in the Corinthian assembly; he kept his body under. But he also knew, as every Christian should know, that the grace which had saved him, which taught him to live soberly, righteously and godly, would also keep him and enable him to persevere through all hindrances.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

I not an: 1Co 9:2, 1Co 9:3, 1Co 1:1, 1Co 15:8, 1Co 15:9, Act 9:15, Act 13:2, Act 14:4, Act 22:14, Act 22:15, Act 16:17, Act 16:18, Rom 1:1, Rom 1:5, Rom 11:13, 2Co 11:5, 2Co 12:11, 2Co 12:12, Gal 1:1, Gal 1:15-17, Gal 2:7, Gal 2:8, 1Ti 2:7, 2Ti 1:11, Tit 1:1-3

am I not free: 1Co 9:19, Gal 5:1

have: 1Co 15:8, Act 9:3, Act 9:5, Act 9:17, Act 18:9, Act 22:6-8, Act 22:14-21, Act 23:11, Act 26:16-18

are: 1Co 3:6, 1Co 4:14, 1Co 4:15, Act 18:8-11, 2Co 6:1

Reciprocal: 1Co 7:40 – I think 2Co 3:2 – are 2Co 10:7 – even 2Co 10:14 – we stretch not 2Co 13:3 – which 1Th 2:6 – as the Phm 1:19 – how thou 2Pe 1:1 – an apostle

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

CHAPTER 8 CLOSES with Pauls considerate willingness to forego his undoubted rights, if thereby he might save one of his weaker brethren from a spiritual disaster. Chapter 9 opens with a very forcible assertion of his apostolic position and its privileges. The two things are entirely consistent, but he knew only too well that the adversaries of himself and of his Lord would attempt to score a point off him in this matter. They would insinuate that this gracious consideration of his was merely a piece of camoufiage, intended to disguise the fact that he was no real apostle at all, but just an unaccredited upstart. The Corinthians had evidently been impressed by the pretentious claims of the adversaries, and their minds somewhat warped as a consequence. Hence Paul had to speak plainly as to his divinely-given authority.

He was indeed an apostle; and he had full liberty as to the matters just discussed. He had not been with Christ in the days of His flesh, as had the twelve, but he had seen the Lord in His glory. Moreover the Corinthians themselves were the fruit of his apostolic labours. Verse 1Co 9:2 delivers a crushing answer to any among them who, influenced by the adversaries, were inclined to question his apostleship. Why, they were themselves the proof of the validity of his work! To throw doubt on the reality of his work was to throw doubt on the reality of their own conversion. At the end of his second epistle he reverts to this argument, and he amplifies it. See 1Co 13:3-5.

Hence, if any wished to cross-examine him on the point, he had an answer that could not be gainsaid. His adversaries thought any stick good enough to beat him with. Again and again he did not eat or drink this or that out of consideration for others. He did not, like other apostles, have a wife to help him and share his travels. He and Barnabas had travelled and laboured unceasingly, without those breaks for rest which others enjoyed. And further, instead of being chargeable to others in respect of his bodily needs, he had laboured with his own hands for a living and taken nothing from anybody at Corinth. Every one of these things was seized upon in the endeavour to discredit him. As a matter of fact they were heavily to his credit; for each was within his rights. He was foregoing things that were properly his, as a man and as a servant of the Lord, because of his utter devotion to his Masters interests.

Paul was thus forced to speak of his own case. But the Holy Spirit who inspired him took occasion to lay down what is the Lords will and pleasure as regards those whose whole time, by His call, is devoted to the Gospel, and the service of Gods holy things. It is ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. That evidently is the normal thing. If any who thus labour have means of their own and do not need such help, or if any are found who though needing it are great enough, like Paul, to do without it, that is another matter. Only there is just this difference, that there is no virtue in the declining of help by those who have enough: the virtue is when those who have nothing forego their rights.

The principle that the Apostle lays down is supported by spiritual reasoning in verse 1Co 9:7. But then it was not merely the word of a man-even of a spiritual man: the law spoke in exactly the same way. The little piece of legislation, which seems so strangely interjected, in Deu 25:4, established the principle in connection with a humble beast of burden. Moreover it was also enforced practically in connection with the temple service and Jewish altars. Finally, it was definitely so ordained by the Lord Himself for the present moment. Mat 10:10, and other passages in the Gospels show this. 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 consequently be great losers ourselves.

In passing, let us notice that the way in which Deu 25:1-19 is quoted here leads us to expect that we shall find in the law, both enshrined and illustrated, many a principle of conduct which the New Testament enjoins upon us as well pleasing to God. There is nothing surprising in this for God Himself is ever the Same. We shall however find new principles of conduct in the New Testament which are not found in the Old. Just one word of caution is needful. Keep a tight rein on the imagination when thus searching the law. The dreamy mind can produce seeming analogies, which though piously intended, are nothing but fancy running riot!

The last clause of verse 1Co 9:10 is somewhat obscure. The New Translation runs, and he that treads out corn, in hope of partaking of it, which makes it quite plain. Only the application is, that he who labours to share with us spiritual things must not be debarred from sharing in our carnal things-things that have to do with the needs of our flesh.

Has ever another lived during the churchs history like unto Paul- entitled to so much, yet claiming so little? His mind was to suffer all things rather than be the least hindrance to the progress of the Gospel. He would rather die than fail as to this. Blessed man! No wonder he could exhort the saints saying, Be imitators of me.

See, too, how tremendously real to him was the call of God to preach the Gospel. He knew that a dispensation (or an administration) was committed to him, and it was woe to him should he be wanting in it. It might have been displeasing to him and against his will, as it was against Jonahs will to preach to Nineveh; but then necessity was laid upon him.

He would have been compelled to serve through a good deal of woe, even as Jonah was. Of course it was not distasteful. He gloried in it, though in doing it he had nothing to glory of. And doing it willingly he knew that his reward was sure. It was part of his reward to be able to preach the Gospel without charge. How lovely to be able to declare the salvation which is without money and without price, raising no questions as to money or price in return for preaching it!

But the Apostles zeal for the Gospel carried him further even than this. He was perfectly free. He lay under obligations to no man. Yet in calculating love he made himself servant to all that he might gain the more, or, the most possible. He was out to win as many as possible, so, within the limits of the will of God, he adapted himself to those he sought to win. He specifies four classes, the Jews, those under law, those without law and the weak. He accommodated himself to each class as he approached them, but of course without doing anything contrary to the revealed will of God. Testimony to this is found in the short parenthesis which occur in verses 1Co 9:20-21.

The parenthesis in verse 1Co 9:20 does not appear in our Authorized Version. But it should be there. As under the law (not being myself under law) that I might gain them that are under the law. In verse 1Co 9:21 the parenthesis is quite evident, being printed in brackets. In the New Translation it is rendered, not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ. This signifies that when Paul approached the man under law, he observed the conventions which the law imposed, so as not to offend their susceptibilities-everything in fact, so long as it did not deny the fact that he himself was not under the law. When he approached the man without law he did so on that basis. Only he was always careful to let it be seen that he himself was not a lawless man but rightly subject to the Lord. It is evident then that the Apostle really studied the people that he approached, and their idiosyncracies, so that he might avoid everything which would needlessly prejudice them against the Message that he brought. He was far removed from that mistaken spirit that would say, God can save and take care of His own elect, and as a result almost hurl the Gospel at peoples heads, without much care as to the result.

Fancy the Apostle becoming as weak to the weak-talking in very simple and elementary terms for people of small intellect! No easy task that for a man of giant intellect! Yet he did it. This is the holy art which every really devoted and efficient teacher in a Sunday School has to learn. They need to become as a child to gain the children. This does not mean that they become childish. No, but they should become child-like, and study the mind of a child. And the one end in view is, salvation.

When we come to verse 1Co 9:24 we can see how the Apostles thoughts began to expand and take in the whole spirit and character which should mark the servant of the Lord. We are viewed as athletes contending in the games, whether running or fighting. Hence we should be marked by zeal, directness of purpose, and a temperate, self-denying life in all things. The athlete, whether in the Grecian games of two thousand years ago, or in the contests today, is careful not to let his body get the mastery of him. The very opposite. He masters his body, brings it into subjection to a very strict regime, even buffets it with continual exercises. And all this to the winning of a crown that quickly fades. Let us aim at the same things, only of a spiritual sort, that we may be invested in due season with a fadeless crown; for, alternatively, it is possible to ignore these things, and though a very eloquent preacher to others, to be rejected oneself.

Our chapter ends upon a very unpleasing word, castaway, or, rejected, or reprobate. A good deal of controversy has raged around it. Many have seized upon it to prove that the true believer may yet be rejected, and lost for ever. Others realizing that other passages plainly negative this, have sought to explain it as simply signifying disapproved and rejected as to service, as to receiving a prize-disqualified, in fact.

We believe, however, that the true force of the expression is seen if we allow the word to have the full and weighty meaning which is proper to it, and read it in connection with the first twelve verses of chapter 10. In our version the first word of the chapter is, Moreover. It appears however that really the word is simply, For. This indicated that what follows directly illustrates the point in question. For… all our fathers were under the cloud… but with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. The great mass of Israel had the externals of their holy religion, yet they totally missed its vital power, having no faith. They did not keep under their bodies but gave themselves up to their lusts, and miserably perished. From this point of view they were types of people who, though well fortified in the profession of the Christian religion, are yet not true believers and perish.

The meaning of castaway, seems clearly fixed thus by the character of its context. But the difficulty remains-why did Paul speak of himself in this way? Why be so emphatic, I MYSELF should be a castaway? The answer is, we believe, that in so writing Paul had in view not only the Corinthians, whom he had just been blaming for great laxity of life, but also-and perhaps mainly-the mischief-making adversaries who had been leading them astray. These adversaries were unquestionably men who were lax self-pleasers, the very opposite of such as keep under their body, though great preachers to others. Yet Paul did not name them directly, any more than he directly named the leaders of parties earlier in the epistle. Then he transferred the matter to himself and to Apollos. Here he does not even bring Apollos into the matter, but just transfers it to himself alone. It is after all a very common figure of speech. Many a preacher has said, When I owe a years rent, and cannot pay a penny of it, then… so and so. The good man never owed any rent in his life, but to illustrate his point he transfers the matter to himself. Delicacy forbids that he should transfer it to his hearers, and suggest that they had rent which they could not pay.

Paul had no doubt about himself. In just the verse before he had said I therefore so run, not as uncertainly. But he had many grave doubts about the adversaries, and some about the Corinthians. And he made his warning the more effective by applying it to himself. The mere fact that one is a preacher guarantees nothing.

Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary

Am I not an apostle? Verse 2 indicates that some had questioned the apostleship of Paul. He will name some of the reasons for claiming to be an apostle, in both the present and the next verse. Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? It was one of the qualifications required of an apostle that he had seen Christ alive after the crucifixion. Ye my work in the Lord: Paul started this church (Act 18:1-11).

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

1Co 9:1. Am I not free? am I not an apostle? In this order these two questions should undoubtedly stand, not only on the ground of textual evidence, but from the nature of the case. The subject to be handled being his own Christian freedom, he naturally starts with this, while the second and third questions are so closely connected that the third one comes in as the indispensable sequel to the second.

have I not seen Jesus our Lord? The word Christ added here in the received text is out of place, not only because insufficiently attested, but because the clear allusion to the thrilling words heard by him on his way to DamascusI am Jesus whom thou persecutestwould be lost by the insertion.are ye not my work in the Lord?

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The first instance which the apostle gives of his freedom and liberty was this, That when he preached the gospel amongst them at Corinth, he had a liberty either to live on the gospel, and take maintenance of them for preaching, or to live upon his labour, following his trade of tent-making, according as he saw it best for the furtherance of the gospel.

Am I not free? As if he had said, “Have not I as good a claim to freedom and Christian liberty as any man?

For, Am I not an apostle? or an extraordinary messenger of Jesus Christ? And though I never saw the face of Christ upon earth, yet have I not seen him and heard him speaking to me from heaven? And is not the conversion of you, the Corinthians, to the Christian faith by my ministry, a fruit and seal of my ministry, a fruit and seal of my apostleship? Now if I be all this, certainly I have as great a right and claim to the use of Christian liberty as any of you can pretend to have; yet will I only make use of it for the benefit of others, and for the furtherance of the gospel.”

Learn we from the apostle’s example in abstaining form that liberty and power which God had given him for receiving maintenance from them to whom he preached the gospel, how much it is the duty and concern of all Christians, to the end of the world, to abstain from the exercise of that liberty and rightful power granted to them by Christ, for avoiding the scandal of the weak, and promoting men’s spiritual welfare.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Paul’s Defense of His Apostleship

Apparently false teachers had come to Corinth. It seems they were trying to discredit Paul as an apostle. First, they wanted to know why he refused pay, perhaps asserting it was because he knew he was not an apostle and did not deserve an apostle’s pay. All freed men are entitled to wages for work. Apostles would have been entitled to more pay as more qualified teachers.

One qualification of an apostle was seeing Jesus. So, second, someone questioned whether Paul had seen Jesus. Of course he had ( Act 1:22 ; Act 26:15-18 ; 1Co 15:5-8 ). The Corinthians were further proof of Paul’s apostleship since they were the fruits of his labors. A seal vouches for the validity of a document. In the same way, the Corinthian church’s existence vouched for Paul’s validity as an apostle. If he was a fake, so were they. Paul’s defense of his apostleship was, as above, that he had seen Jesus and his labors were being rewarded with a fruitful return. This argument had satisfied the apostles ( 1Co 4:15 ; 1Co 9:1-3 ; Gal 2:6-10 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

1Co 9:1-2. Am I not, &c. It appears from this, and several other passages of the epistles to the Corinthians, that some of them, influenced probably by false teachers, who had crept in among them, objected to St. Pauls being an apostle, because he had not asserted his privilege in demanding and receiving such maintenance from the churches as was due to that office, inferring from this circumstance that he did not judge himself entitled to any such privilege, and therefore had wrought at a trade, to support himself thereby. Hence, after deciding some very difficult questions, which the Corinthians had proposed to him, and particularly after affirming, in the end of chap. 7., that he had decided these questions by the inspiration of the Spirit; and after showing himself a faithful apostle of Christ, by declaring, in the end of the last chapter, his resolution on all occasions to abstain from things indifferent, rather than, by using his liberty respecting them, to lead his fellow-Christians into sin; he with great propriety introduces the proof of his apostleship, and answers all the objections and calumnies whereby his enemies endeavoured to discredit him in the eyes of the Corinthians. Am I not As truly as any man living; an apostle? Divinely appointed and commissioned by the Lord Jesus? Am I not free To act as I think best, with regard to receiving a maintenance from those to whom I minister or not? Have I not the liberty of a common Christian, yea, and that of an apostle, so as to have a right to preach the gospel without reward, if I think fit so to do? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord After his resurrection, so as to be able to bear witness to that important fact on my own knowledge, as confidently as those who saw him before I did? Unless he had seen Christ, he could not have been one of his first grand witnesses, could not have borne testimony to his resurrection on his own knowledge thereof. Are not you In respect of your conversion, gifts, graces, privileges; my work in the Lord The fruit of my ministry as an apostle among you, by means of Gods grace and power working with me? If I be not an apostle to others So visibly and demonstratively; yet doubtless I am to you Who, of all people in the world, can show the least excuse for questioning my mission; for the seal of my apostleship The certain evidence of my divine call; are ye in the Lord Who have not only received faith by my mouth, but all the gifts of the Spirit by my hands.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

3. The example of abnegation given by Paul. 9:1-22.

IT is easy, from what we have just said, to understand the link which connects the following passage with the question treated by the apostle. It is nevertheless true that the subject which he proceeds to handle receives so considerable a development, that it is difficult to resist the idea that he had special reasons for expounding it here with so many details. This supposition is confirmed by the allusions to a secret hostility against his apostleship, which occur in abundance in the first three verses of the chapter, and still more clearly by a passage in the Second Epistle, where the odious accusations of his adversaries, in regard to this disinterested conduct on the part of the apostle, are dragged to the light of day. We see, in fact, from 2Co 12:11-18, that instead of admiring St. Paul’s abnegation, his enemies at Corinth turned it into a weapon against him, alleging that if he did not make his Churches maintain him, it was because he did not feel himself to be the equal of the true apostles, and that, moreover, he found other ways of indemnifying himself for the self-denial which he seemed to exercise. Our First Epistle to the Corinthians already assumes all this; but for prudential reasons Paul as yet lets it barely appear. In 1Co 9:1-3 he establishes the reality of his apostleship; then he deduces from it, 1Co 9:4-14, his apostolical right to maintenance. He afterwards explains, 1Co 9:15-18, the real motive which had led him to decline the exercise of this right; finally, in 1Co 9:19-22, he shows how the principle of abnegation which he has just professed extends to his whole mode of acting in the exercise of his ministry.

Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)

[False or factional teachers coming to Corinth expected to be supported by the church according to the usual custom, but were hampered by the example of Paul, who had taken nothing for his services. To justify themselves and to discredit Paul, some of them appear to have gone so far as to deny Paul’s appointment as an apostle, and to use his failure to demand wages as an evidence of their assertion. They argued that he knew he was not an apostle, and so forbore through shame to ask an apostle’s pay. To settle this controversy, the Corinthians asked some such question as this: “Explain why, being an apostle, you did not take the wages due you as such.” Paul begins his answer with four questions which show both surprise and indignation.] Am I not free? [All free men were entitled to wages for work done. Only slaves worked without compensation. See 1Co 9:19] Am I not an apostle? [and so more entitled to wages than an ordinary, less approved Christian teacher.] Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? [Apostles were to be witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (Act 1:22; Act 2:32; Act 10:4), and so it was necessary that they should have seen the risen Christ. But Paul had seen more; on the way to Damascus, not only the risen, but the glorified, Christ had appeared to him. This was Paul’s first proof of apostleship.] Are not ye my work in the Lord? [The presence of a church in Corinth, having in it Christians converted by Paul and living in the Lord, was the second proof of his apostleship. Such work could not be done by impostors– Mat 7:15-20]

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

1 Corinthians Chapter 9

The apostle was exposed to the accusations of false teachers, who asserted that he carried on his evangelisation and his labours from interested motives, and that he took the property of Christians, availing himself of their devotedness. He speaks therefore of his ministry. He declares openly that he is an apostle, an eye-witness of the glory of Christ, having seen the Lord. Moreover, if he was not an apostle to others, doubtless he was to the Corinthians, for he had been the means of their conversion. Now the will of the Lord was that they who preached the gospel should live of the gospel. He had a right to take with him a sister as his wife, even as Peter did, and the brethren of the Lord. Nevertheless he had not used this right. Obliged by the call of the Lord to preach the gospel, woe unto him if he failed to do it! His glory was to do it gratuitously, so as to take away all occasion from those who sought it. For, being free from all, he had made himself the servant of all, that he might win as many as he could. Observe that this was in his service; it was not accommodating himself to the world, in order to escape the offence of the cross. He put this plainly forward (chap. 2:2); but in preaching it, he adapted himself to the religious capacity and to the modes of thought belonging to the one and to the other, in order to gain access for the truth into their minds; and he did the same in his manner of conduct among them. It was the power of charity which denied itself in all things, in order to be the servant of all, and not the selfishness which indulged itself under the pretence of gaining others. He did so in every respect for the sake of the gospel, desiring, as he said, to be a partaker with it, for he personifies it as doing the work of Gods love in the world.

It was thus they should run; and, in order to run thus, one must deny oneself. In this way the apostle acted. He did not run with uncertain steps, as one who did not see the true end, or who did not pursue it seriously as a known thing. He knew well what he was pursuing, and he pursued it really, evidently, according to its nature. Every one could judge by his walk. He did not trifle as a man who beats the air-easy prowess. In seeking that which was holy and glorious, he knew the difficulties he resisted in the personal conflict with the evil that sought to obstruct his victory. As a vigorous wrestler, he kept under his body, which would have hindered him. There was reality in his pursuit of heaven: he would tolerate nothing that opposed it. Preaching to others was not all. He might do that, and it might be, as regards himself, labour in vain; he might lose everything-be rejected afterwards himself, if not personally a Christian. He was a Christian first of all, then a preacher, and a good preacher, because he was a Christian first. Thus, also (for the beginning of chapter 10 connects itself with the close of chapter 9), others might makes a profession, partake of the initiatory and other ordinances, as he might be a preacher, and after all not be owned of God. This warning is a testimony to the condition to which, in part at least, the assembly of God was already reduced: a warning always useful, but which supposes that those who bear the name of Christian, and have partaken of the ordinances of the church, no longer inspire that confidence which would receive them without question as the true sheep of Christ. The passage distinguishes between participation in Christian ordinances and the possession of salvation: a distinction always true, but which it is not necessary to make when Christian life is bright in those who have part in the outward privileges of the assembly.

Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament

1-10. Though he had never seen Jesus during His earthly ministry, having completed his education at Jerusalem and returned to Cilicia before our Lord began His public ministry, and coming into Judea soon after Pentecost, yet he had seen Him on the Damascus road and in the temple at Jerusalem. Hence here he boldly claims to have seen Him. The literal meaning of apostle is one sent forth; i. e., the pioneer into any field. Hence as Paul well says, he was an apostle to them if not to others, as he was the pioneer who came first of all and preached eighteen months in the Providence of God, becoming their spiritual father. He proceeds to vindicate his rights, though he had not availed himself of them all, e. g., to lead about with him a sister (in the Lord, not a sinner) or a wife, like Peter, who had been there and preached to them, all recognizing him as an apostle, because of the original twelve, and the brothers of the Lord, i. e., James, the Jerusalem pastor, and the author of the epistle, and Jude his brother. Though Paul lived and died in celibacy, he here boldly claims his right to holy wedlock. He now proceeds to boldly advocate his right to temporal support, though he did not avail himself of it, but made tents at Corinth. Good reason for this; where he began there was no church to support him till God raised it up through his instrumentality. He shows plainly that Gods command not to muzzle the ox that treadeth out the wheat means ministerial support. When I was in Palestine it was harvest time, and I everywhere saw the oxen treading out the wheat, barley and other cereal grains. Why do they continue thus since the steam engine has come to that country? It is a verification of the Scriptures.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

1Co 9:1. Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not you my work in the Lord? Having illustrated the legal customs of the jews respecting meats, he introduces another subject, his right to temporal support for his spiritual labours. Some jews, it would seem, ever hostile to Paul, had insinuated that because, for the most part, he had eaten his own bread at Corinth, he had no fair claims on the funds of churches. This point he argues with decision. He had seen the Lord in the way to Damascus, and in the temple. Acts 9, Act 22:21. He was commissioned by the Lord, and the church of Corinth was the chief sphere of his labours in Greece, where he had many seals to his ministry.

1Co 9:5. A sister, or a wife. The Greek word gyne, in this place is obscure. The Vulgate reads, a woman sister, and the papists avail themselves of it to prove the celibacy of the first preachers. Ambrose translates it in the plural, women, meaning wife, mother, or a young and unprotected sister. It designates a deaconess, as in Rom 16:1. The private duties of the synagogue were discharged by matrons, who alone could have access to their afflicted sisters.

1Co 9:13. They that wait at the altar, whether priests, levites, or servants, are partakers with the altar of all the fruits, the vows, and offerings of Israel. They not only have support, but liberal support. In like manner, ministers serving churches which are poor, should not be burdensome to them; but when those churches become numerous and rich, the members should abound in liberality to their ministers as God has favoured them with success in commerce and wealth. The rich man who sees his minister unable to pursue his studies for want of books, and want of clothes, or to provide for his children trades, and does not assist him, must give account another day. Who can count the blessings which a congregation receive from an enlightened ministry, or estimate the debt they owe?

1Co 9:15. It were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. Paul as a Hebrew scholar, and as a Roman gentleman, preserved his dignity in the church at Corinth, which at first was weak and poor, as was the case with most of the primitive churches. He assigns another reason for his disinterestedness; he would cut off occasion from the false apostles, who sought occasion. What can we say of a man so illustrious, but that he was covetous of the great reward in heaven.

1Co 9:18. That I abuse not: , I use not my power. That is, says Tirinus, minus bene uti; less or not fully use my power to live by the gospel.

1Co 9:26. So fight I, not as one that beateth the air. St. Paul here refers to the Greek and Roman games, one part of which was the cestus, from the Greek word , belt. Montfaucon has given us a splendid engraving of the conflict. Because bruising with the fist maimed the hand, and often disjointed the thumbs of the combatants, they invented the cest. The two pugilists held a ball of leather in each hand, attached by a strap to the zone or belt, loaded with weighty matter, and in latter times with iron or lead. With these balls the combatants often gave each other fatal blows, to which the apostle alludes when he speaks of resisting unto blood. But the dexterous combatant often had the address to elude the blow of his antagonist, and then he only beat the air.

1Co 9:27. Lest I myself should be a castaway. Saurin has a good thought here, that St. Pauls having the full assurance of faith, had no fear of falling from God, and perishing at last. But yet, to touch the loose professors of the age, he, by a sort of abstraction of thought, supposes himself not only to be in very great danger of falling from God, but of falling into hell, and perishing at last. Therefore he would keep his body in all the habits of temperance and exercise. He would run the race with equal steps; he would fight the good fight of faith, that at last he might receive the crown. He speaks to others by word and deed: So run that ye may obtain. Let the professors of the present age, who dress and feast, and smoke and drink, and cannot lift up their little finger in the way of self-denial, think of this.

REFLECTIONS.

The arguments in this chapter turn on the purity of Paul as a minister, and purity surpassing that of all other ministers; so much so that some began to count him a fool for Christs sake. The studies and labours of the christian ministry are arduous. Who is sufficient for these things? Hence the people to whom ministers preach should relieve their minds of the solicitudes of acquiring food and raiment. It is a shame for rich men to realize fortunes, build villas, and aggrandize their houses, while their ministers are suffering many domestic privations. The right to maintenance is guaranteed to ministers by the law of nature and of nations. On this principle a thousand arguments arise. What general goes to war at his own charge? What man plants a vineyard, without expecting that the fruits will remunerate his toil? What shepherd attends his sheep and his goats, without a daily supply of milk? Where is the Hebrew or Grecian priest of the lowest order surrounding the altar, that is not a partaker of a joint with the altar? It is just the same with the ox that treadeth out the corn, and the husbandman who plows his field. And shall christianity, the most philanthropic religion on earth, be cold to its ministers? Shall families hear the language of heaven on earth, see vice repressed, morality and conversion enforced, and the dying comforted, and forget the man who sheds all these blessings on a whole district?

The working of Paul and Barnabas with their own hands was voluntary and partial. Paul gratefully acknowledges the present of the Grecian saints as a sweet odour unto God. Still to roll away the reproach of the jews, he gloried in labour, and no entreaty to desist could make his glorying void. But he blamed not the other apostles and ministers who did not labour. Besides, the fisher-men had not a trade as St. Paul had; they could not fish on the dry land. And we must allow to this day, that it is a privilege to those who have both the means and the heart to preach a free gospel. The purity of their motive adds lustre to their ministry, though the heart of a poor minister may be equally pure.

We must next admire the sincere prudence of St. Paul in his endeavours to become all things to all men, in observing or not observing indifferent customs. He well knew that the kingdom of God was not meats and drinks, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Let all ministers hence learn to aim at hallowed sociality. The shepherd must walk with his flock, and the physician converse with his patient. So must the servant of Christ visit and teach from house to house, and gain the affections of his people.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1 Corinthians 9. This chapter is not a digression, and is not primarily concerned with a vindication of Pauls apostolic status and rights. He enforces his plea that the enlightened should not ride roughshod over scruples they despised, by his own refusal to insist on his apostolic rights. He too was free, was an apostle, had received his commission from the risen Lord, his apostleship to the Corinthians was indubitably attested by his work among them. He (? and his colleagues) may accept maintenance, travel with a Christian wife like other apostles and the Lords brethren. Must he and Barnabas alone be compelled to work for their living? That would be against human precedent, against the Law also, for by its prohibition of muzzling the ox as he treads out the corn on the threshing-floor, God meant that the preachers of the Gospel should be supported in return for their work. If the Corinthians profited by the apostolic sowing, it is no extravagant claim that the apostles shall reap some material advantage from them. They have a prior right. But they make no use of it, that their alleged self-seeking may not hinder the progress of the Gospel. Temple attendants get their living from the Temple, altar attendants their share from the sacrifices. The Lord laid it down (Mat 10:10, Luk 10:7) that preachers should be maintained by their preaching. But Paul has waived the principle, and does not mention it to insinuate a claim for support, he would rather die than make void his proud boast of independence. He does not boast of his preaching; that is not a vocation he has chosen, but one imposed on him by the will of God. If he had voluntarily adopted the calling he would have had a right to reward. But since God has forced it on him, he has a stewardship, and as Gods slave has no right to payment. The pay which he claims is to renounce his title to support. Free from all control, he had yet become the slave of all to win the more. To Jews he became as a Jew, to those under the Law he became as they were, although he was free, to those without law as they were also, though under law to Christ, to the weak similarly: yes, everything to everybody, to gain converts by every method. He does all for the Gospels sake that he may be a joint partaker with his converts in its blessings. What effort is needed to achieve that result! In the races all the competitors run, but only one wins the prize. Let them run so as to win, exercising, like the athletes, self-control at every point, and for no corruptible crown like theirs. He himself runs the unswerving race; he boxes, landing every blow on the antagonist; he beats his body black and blue (Luk 18:5 mg.*) and leads it about as his slave, lest, having preached to others, he should miss the prize himself.

1Co 9:6. As we should infer also from Col 4:10, 2Ti 4:11, Paul and Barnabas were not permanently estranged by their quarrel about Mark (Act 15:36-39).

1Co 9:9 f. Paul seems to mean that the allegorical interpretation was that originally and exclusively intended.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

Because of the lowliness and grace on the part of the apostle, such as chapter 8 shows in the consideration of his brethren, there were some who would use this as an occasion to belittle him. He made no arrogant show of his liberty or of his authority as an apostle, as did “false apostles” (2Co 11:13-20); and evidently some, on this account, moved by fleshly vanity, dared to question whether he were an apostle at all.

Behind this was the subtle enmity of Satan; for in order to nullify the truth of the unity, order, and discipline of the assembly, he uses this means of discrediting the chosen vessel whom God is using to communicate these truths.

Paul appeals therefore to their consciences. Did he not have the credentials of an apostle? They could not honorably dispute the fact that he had seen the Lord, nor certainly that they themselves had been converted through him. Not that one of these facts alone was proof of apostleship, but these, together with the fact of his own witness of God’s definite designation of him as such, was certainly evidence that their consciences could not ignore. His very character was contrary to that of a man of false pretences. Therefore, their own state as Christians was proof of his apostleship. Whether others recognized this or not, they ought to.

Did they think that an apostle should throw his weight about, as would a mere politician among the Gentiles? Was it because Paul had no right to eat and drink that he did not make himself dependent upon the support of the Corinthians? Did he not have a right to be married to a sister in the Lord, and take her with him on his journeys, as did Peter, and other brethren? And since he did not do this, did this make him inferior to them? Or, of all the apostles, did Paul and Barnabas alone have no right to forbear working with their hands for their own support? How sad that all of these things, the fruit of devotion to the Lord, were interpreted by some as evidence of Paul’s insignificance!

If a man’s country call him to war, is he expected to pay all his own expenses? Typically of course, this is the declaring of the gospel in an enemy’s country, and it is thoroughly right that one should be supported by such labour. 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 sustenance of the labourer.

And the apostle asks, is this merely human reasoning? Did not the law, the Old Testament, affirm the same? And here is another strong confirmation of the fact that the Old Testament Scriptures were written particularly for our benefit in this present day. This quotation from Deu 25:4 is shown to apply with far more emphasis to the Church than to the case of a literal ox. Not that verse 9 implies that it had no literal reference to an ox; for of course the Jews were expected to have proper concern for the life of their beasts; yet this was only minor compared to the spiritual significance of it.

For the one who ploughed should certainly do so in hope of an eventual harvest; if there were no such prospect, why plough at all? And he who threshes, is he to have no part whatever in the results of his threshing? He certainly threshes in hope of some yield of grain, and should himself be partaker in that hope.

The apostle had sown spiritual things to the Corinthians, and there were results. Would it have been any large return if he had reaped their support in temporal things? It was only normal and right. Others had used this right, and if so, was Paul not even more entitled to it than they? But he had not used it, rather had suffered all things in desire to avoid every possible hindrance to the prospering of the gospel of Christ.

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; Lev 7:6; Lev 7:14). In this way provision was made for their support. And similarly God had ordained that the gospel preacher should “live of the gospel.” This does not mean that the preacher himself is at liberty to take collections or to make any charge for his preaching. This is written, not to the servant, but the assembly, to stress the assembly’s responsibility of willingly providing such support, not as a salary, but entirely by voluntary exercise. The servant in preaching is to practice the principle, “Freely ye have received; freely give.” And the saints are to practice the same principle in their temporal care for the servant.

But Paul had used none of these things: though entitled to it, he had taken no support at all from the Corinthians. Nor did he now write with the object that this might be the case. Indeed, he would rather die than have taken away his rejoicing in this self-sacrifice for the sake of the gospel. For as to the preaching of the gospel itself, this was nothing for him to boast of. He had no choice whatever in this matter: necessity was laid upon him. God had called him, and he had no alternative. “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel.” Such being the case, one might as well have a willing heart in this matter, and Paul considers that a spirit of willingness will reap reward. If, on the other hand, he should be unwilling, this does not change the fact that he was responsible for the administration of the gospel committed to him: he is still required to prove faithful in this.

But let us mark well what Paul considers his reward, as given in the New Translation: “That in announcing the glad tidings I make the glad tidings costless (to others), so as not to have made use, as belonging to me, of my right in (announcing) the glad tidings.” This is the opposite of mere material reward: he would willingly forego all material benefits connected with the gospel, thinking of this self-sacrifice itself as a reward. For his own soul rejoiced in doing this for the sake of others. Personally free from all men, made free by the boundless grace of God in Christ Jesus, yet he had made himself a bond-servant to all, with the object of gaining every soul he possibly could for Christ.

And this spirit of service went even further; for he would use every effort to adapt himself to the circumstances of those to whom he brought the gospel. If theirs was a Jewish background and culture, he would adapt himself to this. If they were under law, he would from this viewpoint deal with them, with the object of presenting Christ. If they were without law, he would leave aside the question of the law’s claims in his contacts with them, but use their own viewpoint by which to win them to Christ. Not that he would be lawless, “but in lawful subjection to Christ,” as is a more exact translation. If they were weak, he would come down beside them, to show them the weakness that finds its answer of strength in Christ, and to gain them for Him. Being “made all things to all men” was by no means giving up proper moral principles but sacrificing his own comfort and natural preferences in order to enter into the circumstances of others.

This he did for the sake of the gospel (which was so exceedingly precious to him), that the gospel might produce much fruit, and Paul himself have the joy of being “partaker with it,” that is, have part with the gospel in its fruitfulness. He is no mere salesman, but his heart is vitally bound up in the preciousness and value of the message of grace entrusted to him.

There may be many running in the race of Christianity, but not all will receive the prize, that which is eternal, incorruptible. The fact of running is not enough to obtain the prize: certainly one must run in such a way that he will finish the course. If a runner is really striving for victory, he will be “temperate in all things,” not self-indulgent, but self disciplined. If one knows nothing of self-discipline, though he may be running, he is not a Christian at all, though he would like to pass as one. He is running uncertainly, as one who beats the air. He does not have the proper end in view, nor does he make true progress. His fleshly appetites master him, rather than he keeping them in control. He can even preach to others, and eventually be cast away himself, for eternity.

But Paul makes it clear that he had no slightest fear of this as to himself. It was not his character to run uncertainly, as one who beats the air. If he had been merely this (and the principle applies to anyone who professes Christianity), merely an uncertain, undisciplined professor of Christianity, as was the case with “false apostles” (2Co 11:13), then he would be eternally cast away, even after preaching to others. It was infinitely more important to be a true Christian than to be a preacher. The true servant runs certainly, he does not beat the air, he keeps his body under subjection.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

Verse 1

The subject here changes, this chapter consisting of the apostle’s vindication of himself, and of the elevation and disinterestedness of his motives, against certain aspersions which, it would seem, (1 Corinthians 9:3,) had been cast upon him by some persons at Corinth

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

SECTION 15 PAUL’S OWN EXAMPLE. HE HAS A CLAIM TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CHURCH CH. 9:1-14

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Jesus our Lord, have I not seen? My work, are not you, in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least to you I am. For my seal of the apostleship you are in the Lord. My defence to those who examine me is this.

Have we not a right* (*Or, authority) to eat and drink? Have we not a right* (*Or, authority) to lead about a sister as wife, as do also the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Or, I only and Barnabas, have we no right* (*Or, authority) not to work?

Who serves as soldier ever with his own rations? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or, who shepherds a flock and does not eat from the milk of the flock? Is it as a man that I speak these things? Or, the Law also, does it not say these things? For, in the Law of Moses it is written Thou shalt not muzzle an ox while thrashing. (Deu 25:4.) Is it for the oxen that God cares? Or, because of us altogether does He say it? For, because of us it was written; because in hope he who ploughs ought to plough, and he who thrashes, in hope of partaking If we for you have sown spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your fleshly things? If others partake the authority** (**Or, right) over you, do not we more? But we have not made use of this right; (Or, authority) but we bear all things, that we may not cause any hindrance to the Gospel of Christ. Do you not know that they who perform the sacred things eat the things from the sanctuary? that they who give attendance at the altar receive a portion together with the altar? In this way, also the Lord ordained for those who announce the Gospel that they should live from the Gospel.

At the end of 14 Paul supported his warning to beware lest by eating idol-sacrifices those who have knowledge injure the weaker ones, by the example of his own firm purpose to abstain from all meat rather than ensnare a brother. The force of this example he will not increase by expounding the principles of his own entire conduct, and specially his reasons for refusing to be maintained by the church. For this exposition, which occupies 16, he prepares the way by asserting and proving, in 15, his right to maintenance.

1Co 9:1-3. Free: further expounded in 1Co 9:19. In view of his purpose to lay a restriction on his own food because of the weaker brethren, Paul asserts virtually in this question his full liberty to eat what he likes.

An apostle: the first rank (1Co 12:28) in the church, and therefore least likely to be under restrictions. See note, Rom 1:1.

Seen Jesus our Lord; supports the assertion implied in Am I not an apostle? Doubtless it refers specially, though perhaps not exclusively, (cp. Act 22:18-21,) to the appearance of Christ on the way to Damascus. Then (Act 26:16 ff) or shortly afterwards (Act 22:14) he received his commission to the Gentiles. Cp. Gal 1:1; Gal 1:16. This question suggests that they only were apostles who received a commission immediately from the lips of Christ.

Are not you etc.; proof, from evident matter-of-fact, that Paul was indeed an apostle.

In the Lord: objectively and subjectively; as in 1Co 1:2. The historic facts of Christ were the basis upon which, and the living presence of Christ was the spiritual element in which, were wrought the results attained by Paul at Corinth. 1Co 9:2 Develops the proof implied in the foregoing question.

Others may doubt my claims: you cannot. Of this, 1Co 9:2 b is proof.

Seal: a visible, solemn, authoritative attestation. See Rom 4:11. The church at Corinth being evidently God’s work, was a conspicuous and divine attestation of Paul’s often repeated claim that by the immediate voice of Christ he had been called to be an apostle. For, no impostor or fanatic could produce the abiding and blessed results which had followed Paul’s preaching. Similar argument in 1Co 15:15.

To those who examine (same word as in 1Co 4:3 f) me. The present tense suggests that Paul’s apostleship was frequently called in question. Cp. 2Co 11:22.

Is this; refers probably to 1Co 9:1-3, in which Paul has given complete proof of an important point, viz. his apostleship, rather than to 1Co 9:4 ff, where Paul, on the ground of the proof given in 1Co 9:1-3, merely claims equal rights with the other apostles.

Fuente: Beet’s Commentary on Selected Books of the New Testament

1 Corinthians 9.

Having in the previous chapter maintained the liberty of the believer in the use of meats, and warned us against its abuse, the apostle in this chapter passes on to speak of the liberty and rights of the servants of the Lord, and again warns against any abuse of these privileges. But, while establishing the rights of the Lord’s servants in such matters, he establishes the important principle that such rights are subservient to the interests of Christ and His people, and not for self-glorification or the indulgence of the body.

(Vv. 1, 2). We know from the Second Epistle that some were calling in question the apostleship of Paul, so he opens this portion of his letter by briefly asserting his apostleship, as well as his liberty. He had the outstanding mark of an apostle, for he had seen Jesus Christ, our Lord. Moreover, how could the Corinthians have any doubt as to his apostleship, for were they not the seal and proof of it, as their existence as an assembly was the outcome of his work in the Lord? There were those who, in their jealousy of the apostle, were ready to suggest that he preached from interested motives, seeking to make a gain out of his service (2Co 11:9-12). The apostle answers such suggestions, first, by asserting the rights of the servant (verses 3-14) and, secondly, by showing the way in which he had used these rights (verses 15-27).

(Vv. 3-7). As to the rights of the servant of the Lord, Paul, in common with other apostles, had a perfect right to partake of the ordinary mercies of the present life, a right to eat and drink, a right to lead about a sister as wife, a right to forbear working with his own hands. Moreover, he had a right to receive help in carnal things in return for his ministry in spiritual things. That this is so nature and common sense would show, for, asks the apostle, 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? (N.Tn.).

(Vv. 8-11). Further, not only nature but Scripture affirms these rights, For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. In speaking thus God is not thinking only of the oxen. For our sakes it is written to teach us that, if the plougher and the thresher benefit by their labours, so the servants of the Lord, if they have sown spiritual things, have a perfect right to receive in return carnal things.

(V. 12). If others availed themselves of this right to take of their carnal things, how much more could the apostle, who had served them so faithfully? If he refrained from taking of their carnal things, it was no proof that he was not an apostle, nor that he had no right to receive from them, but rather that he judged, in their case, the interests of the gospel of Christ would best be served by his suffering all things, rather than by taking of their carnal things. In his service the apostle was not governed by the thought of gain, but by the interests of Christ and His gospel.

(Vv. 13, 14). Nevertheless, the rights of the servant remained, according to the typical teaching of the service in connection with the temple and its altar. Above all, the apostle asserts that these rights are according to that which the Lord has ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. Whether it was nature (verse 7), or Scripture (verses 9, 10), or the direct ordinance of the Lord (verses 13, 14), all concur in maintaining the rights of the one ministering in spiritual things to receive the carnal things of the saints.

(V. 15). Having carefully asserted the rights of the servant, the apostle, in the remaining verses of the chapter, shows how he personally had used his rights in the assembly at Corinth. He had turned them into an occasion for sacrificing himself in the interests of Christ and His gospel. As one has said, This privilege is transformed in his hands into another kind of privilege altogether; that is the privilege of sacrificing himself for Christ and for His service. He gave up one privilege to enjoy a higher privilege. He can thus say, I have used none of these things. Nor did he write this letter to seek from them any help in temporal things. He would not receive help from them and thus allow any man to make void his glorying in this respect.

(Vv. 16, 17). If, however, he speaks of glorying, he is at once careful to state that he was not seeking to glorify himself because he preached the gospel, but did so freely. An administration had been committed to him to preach, and, whether he did so willingly or not, he was responsible to carry out the work entrusted to him. His reward would not be for doing his appointed work, but for doing it willingly.

(V. 18). What, then, was his reward? This – that in preaching the gospel he gave up his rights, so that the gospel might be without charge. He did not use his rights as belonging to him, to be used according to his own will, without regard to the directions of the Lord. It may be well to note that the word abuse, used in this passage and also in 1Co 7:31, has in neither case the meaning with which we generally use the word. The force of the word is to use as one that has possession of a thing, or a person using it as he likes, as his own (J.N.D.). The apostle was sent by the Lord to preach, and it was ordained by the Lord that he had a right to be supported. He did not, however, use this right as if it were a possession that he could use as he liked. He thought of Christ and His glory, and so used, or refrained from the use of, this right according as he judged he had the mind of the Lord in carrying out his service in a way that would be best for the glory of Christ.

(Vv. 19-23). Thus, entirely free from all, he used his freedom to become the servant of all. When preaching to the Jews he could meet them on their own ground, adapt himself to their modes of thought, and avoid wounding their scruples. With those under law he could appeal to them as entering into all their exercises as one under law, though he is careful to add, not being myself under law (N.Tn.). As to those without law, he could appeal to them on their ground, though again he guards himself by saying that he was not as without law to God, but as legitimately subject to Christ (N.Tn.). To the weak he could become as one weak. He was made all things to all men, that he might by all means save some. Moreover, he acted thus for the sake of the glad tidings, which he personifies when he says, that I may be fellow-partaker with them (N.Tn.).

(Vv. 24-27). In his thus speaking it must not be inferred that the apostle accommodated himself to the world in order to escape reproach and spare the flesh. To dispel any such misconception, the apostle shows in the closing verses that the path of service is one of self-denial. There is, indeed, a reward for service far better than the prize to be obtained in the world’s games; there they run for a corruptible crown, but the Christian for an incorruptible. Nevertheless, if to obtain an earthly crown requires a temperate life, how much more necessary it is to be temperate in all things to obtain the incorruptible crown. The apostle ran with no uncertainty as to the glorious end of the path. The conflict for him was no mere trifling, like beating the air. He was careful not to indulge the body, but rather to keep it in subjection, that it might be no hindrance to him in his service. The saints at Corinth were boasting in their gifts and seeking their ease (1Co 4:6-8). Let us beware of preaching without practice, for the apostle warns us that it is possible to preach and yet be a castaway. We know that the believer will never perish, and the apostle does not say it is possible to be born again, or converted, and be a castaway. Preaching to others is not everything. First we must be a Christian and then a preacher, if called of the Lord.

Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible

CHAPTER 9

SYNOPSIS OF THE CHAPTER

i. He proceeds to show by his own example how offences are to be avoided, and he says that he had refused to accept payment, or the maintenance due to a preacher of the Gospel, both to gain greater merit and for the sake of edification.

ii. He then (ver. 7) proves by six arguments (summarised on the notes to ver. 12) that this maintenance is due to himself and other preachers of the Gospel.

iii. He shows (ver, 20) that for the same reason he had become all things to all men, that the Corinthians might learn how each one must care for his own edification and the salvation of his neighbour.

iv. He urges them (ver. 24) to that same edification, pointing out that our life is a race and trial of virtue, and in them we must run and strive after better things, and after the prize, buy abstinence and bodily mortification.

Ver. 1.-Am I not an apostle? am I not free? It may be asked what connection this has with the preceding chapter: it seems to be an abrupt transition to another subject. I reply that Paul had spoken at the end of the last chapter of the necessity of avoiding all that might cause offence. Now, that he may enforce this, he puts himself forward as an example, and points to his having refused to receive any payment for his preaching, and his having earned his bread by his own labours; this cession of his rights he made, both to void causing any to offend, and to give an example of singular virtue. He would so teach the Corinthians not to stand upon their rights, especially in the matter of eating idol-sacrifices, out of regard for their neighbours, if they saw that they were thus made to stumble, or led into sin. Yet at the same time Paul, by implication, guards in this declaration the sincerity and authority of his preaching against the false apostles who impugned them; he points indirectly to his having preached the Gospel without money and without price, while the false apostles made gain out of it. He says therefore: “Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? Am I not within my rights, as the Apostle of Christ, if I demand and receive from you means for my maintenance? Yet this I do not so, because I wish to show you what our neighbour’s salvation demands from us, and how you ought, therefore, to avoid all causes of offence.” Cf. Chrysostom’s homily on this text (No. 20).

Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Are not ye my work in the Lord? It is clear that I am an Apostle, for I have seen Christ, and been sent by Him to preach the Gospel. Cf. Act 9:5; Act 22:18.

Ye are my work in the Lord, because I begat you by the Gospel in Christ. Your Church was built up by me: ye are my building.

Ver. 2.-For the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord. A proof of my apostleship may be seen in you, in my preaching, in my miracles, in the toil and the dangers which I have either borne or performed amongst you for your conversion; by such things as by Divine seals have I sealed, confirmed, and proved my apostleship. All these things loudly testify that I am a true Apostle, sent by God to teach and save you.

Ver. 3.-Mine answer to them that do examine me is this, Those who ask about my Apostleship may take what I have said as their answer. So Anselm. But Chrysostom and Ambrose just as suitably refer this to the following verse.

To examine of interrogate in a judicial term, and is purposely used by S. Paul to point to the audacity of those who called in question his jurisdiction.

Ver. 4.-Have we not power to eat and to drink? Viz., at your expense. This is the glory and defence of me and my apostleship, that it is gratuitous, unlike that of the false apostles. Notwithstanding I have the same right, the same power to look for means from you for my eating and drinking.

Ver. 5.-Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles? The Greek is , which the Latin version turns mulierem sororem; and Beza, Peter Martyr, Vatablus, and Valle render sororem uxorem. They argue from this that Paul was married, urging that, though the Greek word stands both for woman and wife, yet here its meaning is fixed to the latter by the term “lead about.” Men do not, they say, lead about sisters but wives.

They mistake: 1. Christ led about women, not as a husband might a wife, but as a teacher is accompanied by disciples and handmaidens, who see to his necessities. Cf. Luk 8:3.

2. It would be absurd to call a sister a wife, and the term sister would be superfluous.

3. The definite article is wanting in the Greek, which would be required if a certain woman, as, e.g., a wife, were designated.

4. It is evident from 1 Cor. vii. 8 that Paul was unmarried. This passage is explained at length is the sense I have given by Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. iv.), Jerome (contra Jovin. lib. i.), Chrysostom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact in their comments on the verse, and by other Fathers generally, except by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, lib. iii.) S. Jerome indeed says that, among the Apostles, Peter was the only one that had a wife, and that only before his conversion. Tertullian’s words (de Monogamia) are: “I find that Peter alone was a husband.”

I say, then, that the phrase here is literally “sister woman,” and denotes a Christian matron who ministered to Paul’s necessities from her means. We have a similar phrase in Acts xiii. 26, “men brethren,” i.e., Christian men. S. Paul says then that he might, if he so saw fit, lead about a matron to support him, as much as Peter; but he does not do so, because it might be a cause of offence to the Gentiles, whose Apostle he was, and might only cause evil surmisings. So Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theodoret, cumenius, Anselm.

It may be said that Ignatius, in his letter to the Philadelphians, classes Paul among the married. Baronius (A.D. 57, p. 518) and others well reply that Paul’s name was inserted there by later Greek copyists, to serve as an excuse for themselves being married. The oldest and best copies of the Epistles of S. Ignatius, including that of the Vatican and of Sfort, have not S. Paul’s name.

It may be said again that Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.) understands this passage of a wife of Paul. I reply, firstly, that that is true, but that he goes on to say that after he became an Apostle she was to him as a sister, not as a wife, which is against the heretics, and in the second place that all the Fathers are against Clement.

And the Brethren of the Lord. Brethren is a common Hebraism for kinsmen. James, John, and Judas are here meant. So Anselm.

And Cephas. Nay, as well as Peter, the prince of the Apostles and of the Church.

Ver. 7.-Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Just as it is right for soldiers to be paid and to live in their pay; just as it is right for a vine-grower to eat of the fruit of his vine, for a shepherd of the milk of the flock that he feeds, so is it right for the preachers of the Gospel to live of the Gospel, of their vineyard the Church, and of their flock, the members of Christ. The Apostle is beginning here to prove in various ways his right to receive payment for his preaching, that all after him might know that this is owing to preachers of the Word of God, and that he may show how undeniable and how clear is the right that he has freely given up by refusing to receive payment out of regard to the Corinthians. He so acted in order that by this generosity of his he might draw them to Christ and help forward their salvation. I will summarise his reasons at ver. 12.

Ver. 8.-Say I these things as a man? Do I prove or strengthen my arguments by human reasons merely, and by similitudes drawn from the life of the soldier, the vine-grower, the shepherd. By no means. Nay, rather I establish and fortify them from the law of God.

Ver. 9.-For it is written in the law of Moses, &c. Deu 25:4. The reason doubtless was that it was right that the animals who laboured should also eat. Hence God forbade that the mouths of the oxen that trod out the corn should be muzzled, to prevent them from eating of what they trod out. It was the custom in Palestine, as it is now in some places, for the oxen to thresh out the grain by treading the corn-ears with their hoofs. That this is the literal meaning appears from the words in which it is enjoined on the hard-hearted Jews.

It may be objected that the Apostle seems here to exclude this meaning, by saying, “Doth God take care for oxen?” Abulensis, commenting in Deut. xxv., says that the literal sense of the verse is twofold: (1.) It refers to oxen, as has just been said, but not principally; (2.) The sense which is uppermost and chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit is that given by the Apostle here when he speaks of preachers. God, he says, takes care for oxen in the second place, but for teachers in the first; and therefore it is more the literal sense of the injunction that preachers should be maintained than that oxen should. But it is evident that the first only of these two is the literal sense. For the word ox denotes a preacher typically only, and not literally. Otherwise the literal sense would be wholly allegorical, which is absurd. For the literal sense is that which is the first meaning of any sentence; the allegorical or typical is that which is derived from the literal. As then the shadow of a body is not the body itself, so the typical sense cannot be the literal, but is merely shadowed forth by the literal.

The literal meaning therefore if the verse in Deuteronomy is that which I have given, but the mystical is that which is given by the Apostle, that preachers must be maintained, and that they are to live of the Gospel, just as the ox is fed on what he treads out; and since God’s chief care is for the former, the mystical meaning of the text is, as the Apostle says, the one that is uppermost.

Notice that it is a matter of faith that God takes care for oxen: for by His providence He cares for the sparrows (S. Matt. x. 29), and for the young ravens that call upon Him (Psa 147:9), and for all animals, as the Psalmist frequently says, and especially throughout Psalm civ. The Apostle means, therefore, that in this precept God’s chief care was not for oxen, but for preachers like S. Paul, who are like oxen in labouring and treading out the corn in the Lord’s field and threshing-floor, and are to be allowed to live of the Gospel.

Ver. 10.-Or saith He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes no doubt this is written. The argument is here, as so often in S. Paul’s writings, from the mystical, not the literal sense; or rather it is an fortiori argument from the literal to the mystical sense, thus: If the ox lives of what he treads out, much more may an Apostle live of the Gospel. Cf. Tertullian (contra Marcion, lib. v. c. 7) and Theodoret (qu. xxi. in Deut.). Observe here that, though the literal sense in the first in time, yet the mystical is the first in importance, and the one chiefly intended by the Holy Spirit.

That he that ploweth should plow in hope. Just as those that plough and thresh do so in hope of being partakers of what is reaped and threshed out, so too the preacher may hope for suppoet because of his preaching. If this hope Ovid speaks (Ep. ex Ponto, lib. i. vi. 30): “Hope it is that gives courage to the farmer, and intrusts the seeds to the ploughed-up furrows, to be returned with heavy interest by the kindly earth.”

From this passage we may argue fortiori that to work is hope of an eternal reward is an act of virtue, and that this act therefore is meritorious. Hence the Sorbonne, as Claudius Guiliandus testifies in his remarks on this passage, has defined as erroneous the proposition the “he that strives for the sake of a reward, and would not strive unless he know that a reward would be given, deprives himself of the reward.” The Council of Trent has the same definition (Sess. vi. can. 31).

Ver. 12.-If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? The Apostle proves by six arguments that that he and other ministers of the Word of God and the Church may receive their expenses from their flocks: (a) By the examples of the other Apostles (ver. 5); (b) by comparisons drawn from the practice of soldiers, shepherds, and agriculturists (ver. 7); (c) from the law of Moses (ver. 9); (d) from the example of the priests and Levites of the Old Testament, who lived on the sacrifices offered on the altar that they served (ver. 13); (e) from the ordinance of God and of Christ (ver. 14); (f) from the very nature of the case, from the positive command of God, as well as from the law of mature, which declared that, as payment is due to a workman, so is support to a minister of the Word, not as the price of sacred things, which would be dishonouring to them and simoniacal, but as what is necessary for them to fitly discharge their sacred functions for the people’s sake. Hence this support is owing to them as a matter of justice. So Chrysostom.

Nevertheless we have not used this power, but suffer all things. We have not claimed out right to maintenance, but endure the utmost poverty, and undertake every kind of evil to relieve that poverty by working with our hands.

Lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. He would not receive money for his support, lest he should give occasion to covetous or injudicious men to hinder the Gospel and bring obloquy upon it. That there was no cause of offence given here by the Apostle, but that it was received from others, and that it was in him a work of supererogation to refuse to receive payment, appears from what has gone before, and from ver. 15, where he says, “It were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying void.”

Ver. 13.-Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? The priests and Levites partake of the victims offered, and the tithes and firstfruits. The Greek for “minister” is “labour.” The office of the priest was to labour at killing, cutting up, skinning, boiling, and burning the victims, all of which are laborious, and under other circumstances would be the work of butchers.

And they which wait at the altar. He does not say, says S. Chrysostom, the priests, but they which wait at the altar, that we may see that constant attendance of sacred things is required from the ministers of the temple of Christ, who partake of the good things of the Temple. On the other hand, now-a-days, none are less often at the altar than some who derive the greatest profit from the altar and from tithes. These are condemned by the Council of Trent.

Ver. 14.-Even so hath the Lord ordained. S. Luk 10:7; S. Mat 10:10-11, and Mat 10:14.

Ver. 15.-For it were better for me to die than that any man should make my glorying void. His glorying has for its subject the preaching of the Gospel without charge, or his work of liberality, free grace, and supererogation, as is evident from ver. 18. It appears from this that it is an Evangelical counsel to preach the Gospel without charge, as is now done by some apostolic and religious men. So Theophylact, Theodoret, and Anselm. Cf. also Chrysostom and Anselm.

Observe that S. Paul does not speak of his glory but his glorying, viz., that which he could make before God and before men, especially before the false apostles, who were held of great account and sumptuously maintained by the Corinthians. Cf. 2Co 11:7, for similar “glorying.”

Ver. 16.-Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. It appears from this that strict injunctions were given to the Apostles (S. Mat 28:19) to preach the Gospel and teach all nations, insomuch that, if they had neglected to do so, they would have sinned mortally. For on those that neglect this their duty he pronounces the woe of the wrath of God and of hell. By the same injunctions all pasters, Bishops, and Archbishops are now bound. Cf. chap. i. 17.

Ver. 17.-For if I do this thing willingly I have a reward. That is, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, cumenius, and Anselm say, if I freely preach without charge, I have not merely the reward given to a work that has been enjoined on me, as other Apostles have, but the exceeding reward of abounding glory given to a work not enjoined, but heroically undertaken by a soul that is of its own accord generous towards God.

But if against my will. Compelled by a command of God, or under fear of punishment. Willingly here denotes the doing a thing of one’s own motion, one’s own accord, and free will; unwillingly, the doing it under order, being moved and forced by the will of another.

A dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. I shall not have that supreme glory I spoke of, but neither shall I sin, because I fulfil my duty, and do what I am ordered. For this commission of preaching the Gospel was intrusted to me. But though I do not sin, yet I act as a slave, or as a steward in matters intrusted to his care, not of his own accord, but merely doing what he ought to do, because compelled to it by his Lord’s command. Cf. S. Luk 17:8. So the Fathers cited understand this passage, and that this is the meaning appears also from the context.

Some explain it differently in this way: If I preach the Gospel willingly I have merit and reward, because of my own free will I fulfil the command of Christ; but if I do it unwillingly, I fail to attain merit and reward, because I act under compulsion. A dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me, and so by me, though unwilling, Christ’s Gospel is propagated, and others profit, though I do not. This seems to be the simple meaning of the words by themselves. This explanation is favoured by S. Thomas, Lyranus, and the Ambrosian commentary; but the context requires the former sense.

Ver. 18.-What is my reward then? That glorious and supreme reward spoken of.

Observe that reward is put by metonymy for merit, or for a heroic and meritorious work, that calls for a great reward. This work, he goes of to say, is to preach the Gospel without charge.

From these words it is evident that not all good works are matters of precept, but that some are works of counsel and supererogation, and that such merit with God an illustrious crown of glory. So S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, S. Augustine (de Opere Monach. c. 5), and Bellarmine (de Monach. lib. ii. c. 9).

The other Apostles, being full of zeal for God, would as well as Paul have preached the Gospel freely, if they might thence have hoped for a greater harvest of souls, and greater glory before God. But this they might not hope for, for the faithful were generous to them, and the Jews devoted to them, and of their own accord they supplied their needs. Cf. Acts iv. 34. But Paul, as one outside the order and number of the twelve apostles, called to the apostolate after the death of Christ, had to gain a recognition of his authority, and he judged it useful to that end that he should preach the Gospel without charge. Moreover, the Corinthians, though rich, were covetous; and, therefore, Paul preached freely to prevent them from supposing that he sought their goods instead of themselves; but from the more generous Thessalonians and Philippians he accepted support. In short, Paul wished by this course of action to shut the mouth of the Jews, who hated him, and of the false Apostles. He says this indeed in 2Co 11:12.

That I abuse not my power in the Gospel. That I may not use my undoubted right and liberty to the detriment of the Gospel. Not that it really is an abuse to receive money for preaching he Gospel, but that it is the employment of a lesser good. Abuse is used here for use to the full, as it is in chap. vii. 31. Cf. a similar use of the word in S. Paulinus (Ep. ii.).

It may be said that Ambrose here understands the word to mean literal abuse, which is sin, when he says: “They who use their right, when it is inexpedient to do so, or when another suffers loss, are guilty, and therefore sin.” I reply that this is true when they can easily give up their right, and when others suffer great loss by their not yielding; for charity then bids us give way. These conditions, the Ambrosian commentary seems to think, existed with Paul and the Corinthians.

But the opposite is far more true. It was a very difficult matter for the Apostle to yield his right of maintenance at the hands of the Corinthians, because by so yielding he has to spend nights without sleep, while he laboured with his hands to procure food for himself and his companions; while the Corinthians, who were numerous and rich, might easily have maintained him. Nor ought they to have taken offence at this, for the other Apostles were maintained by their flocks, and all law and reason say that he who labours for another should be maintained by him. The Apostle, therefore, wished to set a noble example of poverty, sincerity, and zeal, for the greater commendation and spread of the faith among those who were young in it, and the avaricious rich. But such a heroic work as this is not a precept, but a counsel of charity. Therefore, on the next verse, he says that in such matters he is free.

Ver. 19.-For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all. I humbled myself to all things, even to want and hunger; I accommodated myself to the weaknesses of all, insomuch that, when I saw the Corinthians slow and niggardly in their support of the Apostles, I refused to accept any payment from them, that I might gain all by condescending to their infirmity.

Ver. 20.-To them that are under the law, as under the law. To the Jews I became as one under the Mosaic law. This took place, e.g., says cumenius, when he circumcised Timothy, when, after purifying himself, he went to the Temple, because he had a vow (Act 21:26).

Ver. 21.-To them that are without law, as without law. To the Gentiles I became as though I followed nature only as my light and leader, as the Gentiles do. So cumenius, Theophylact, and Chrysostom.

Ver. 22.-I am made all things to all men. Not by acting deceitfully or sinfully, but through sympathy and compassion, which made me suit myself to the dispositions of all men, so, as far as honesty and God’s law allow, that I might be able to heal the indispositions of all. Cf. S. Augustine (Epp. 9 and 19): “Not by lying, but by sympathy; not by cunning craftiness, but by large-hearted compassion was Paul made all things to all men.”

The Apostle does not sanction what men of the world wish for and do, viz., the accommodating ourselves through right and wrong to all men, feigning to be heretics with heretics, Turks with Turks, pure with the pure, and unclean with those that are unclean. This he condemns (Gal 2:11 et seq.). The advice of S. Ephrem (Attende tibi, c. 10) is sound: “Have charity with all and abstain from all;” and again the apophthegm of S. Bernard, which embraces every virtue: “Live so as to be prudent for yourself, useful to others, pleasing to God.” S. Jordan, S. Dominic’s successor in the Generalship of the Order, used to say, as his life related: “If I had devoted myself as closely to any branch of learning as I have to that sentence of S. Paul’s, ‘I am made all things to all men,’ I should be mist learned and eminent in it. Throughout the whole of my life I have studied to accommodate myself to every one: to the soldier I was a soldier, to the nobleman as a nobleman, to the plebeian as a plebeian; and thus I always endeavoured to do them good in this way, while on the watch that I did not lose or hurt my soul while benefitting them.”

Ver. 23.-And this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you. That I may with other preachers receive, in fu time, fruit of the Gospel that I have preached. The Greek denotes a partaker with others. Hence in the second place Chrysostom understands “partaker thereof” to mean a fellow-sharer of the faithful in the Gospel, i.e., of the crowns laid up for the faithful. And Chrysostom rightly points to the wonderful humility of Paul, in putting himself on a level with even ordinary Christians, when he had surpassed not only the faithful, but all the other Apostles in his labours for the Gospel. Cf. 1Co 15:10.

Ver. 24.-Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? For this I preach the Gospel without charge, for this I am made all things to all men; for this I labour, that I may obtain that best prize of all, given to those who run in this race.

As it is in a race, so is it in the Christian course: it is not all that run that receive the prize, but those only that run well and duly reach the appointed goal. I say duly, or according to the laws of the course which Christ the Judge has laid down for those that run, and according to which he has promised the prize to those that tun well. When, therefore, one is mentioned, more are not excluded, for the Apostle does not mean to say, as Chrysostom well remarks, that only one Christian surpasses the rest, and is more zealous of good works, and will receive the prize; for a similitude does not hold good in all points, but only in that one which is expressed. The comparison here is that, as in a race he who runs well receives the prize, so in Christianity he who runs well will receive a crown of glory. And this is evident from what is added, “So run that ye may obtain,” i.e., not one, but each one. Moreover, in a race it is often not only the first, not the second, third, or fourth who also receives a prize.

Still the Apostle says one, not three or four, because he is chiefly looking at that glory and superexcellent reward given, not to all the elect, but to those few heroic souls that follow, not only the precepts, but also the counsels of Christ. For he is looking to the prize which he is expecting for himself, in having been the only Apostle to preach the Gospel without charge, in having surpassed all the other Apostles in the greatness of his labour and his charity, in having become all things to all men. He says in effect: O Christians, do not merely run duly, that ye may obtain, but run most well and most swiftly, that you may carry off the first and most splendid prize of glory. It is a sluggish soul that says, “It is enough for me to be saved and reach heaven.” for each one, says Chrysostom, ought to strive to be first in heaven, and receive the first prize there.

Some understand this passage to refer to the mansions or crowns and prizes prepared for each of the elect, and would read it, “Let each so run that he may obtain his prize.” But this explanation is more acute than simple.

Anselm again takes it a little differently. Heathens, heretics, reprobates, he says, run, but the one people of elect Christians receives the prize. But the apostle is speaking to Christians only as running, and he urges them to so run that they may obtain the prize to which they are called by the Gospel of Christ.

So run that ye may obtain. I.e., obtain the crown of glory and the prize of victory. The allusion is to those that ran in the public games for a crown as the prize, with which they were crowned when victorious. Cf. notes to Rev. iii. 2. The word so denotes the rectitude, the diligence, the swiftness, and the perseverance especially required on order to win the prize. The course of Christ was marked by these qualities, that course which all ought to put before themselves for imitation. S. Bernard (Ep. 254) says: “The Creator Himself of man and of the world, did he, while he dwelt here below with men, stand still? Nay, as the Scripture testifies, ‘He want about doing good and healing all.’ He went through the world not unfruitfully, carelessly, lazily, or with laggers step, but so as it was written of Him, ‘He rejoiced as a giant to run his course.’ No one catches the runner but he that runs equally fast; and what avails it to stretch out after Christ if you do not lay hold of Him? Therefore is it that Paul said, ‘So run that ye may obtain.’ There, O Christian, set the goal of your course and your journeying where Christ placed His. ‘He was made obedient unto death,’ However long then you may have run, you will not obtain the prize if you do not persevere even unto death. The prize is Christ.” He then goes on to point out that in the race of virtue not to run, to stand still, is to fail and go back, “But if while He runs you stand still, you come no nearer to Christ, nay, you recede from Him, and should fear for yourself what David said, ‘Lo, they that are far from Thee shall perish.’ Therefore, if to go forward is to run, when you cease to go forward you cease to run: when you are not running you begin to go back. Hence we may plainly see that not to wish to go forward is nothing but to go back. Jacob saw a ladder, and on the ladder angels, where none was sitting down, none standing still; but all seemed to be either ascending or descending, that w might be plainly given to understand that in this mortal course no mean is to be found between going forward and going back, but that in the same way as our bodies are known to be continuously either increasing or decreasing, so must our spirit be always either going forward or going back.”

Ver. 25.-And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in al things. Every wrestler, &c., refrains from everything that may 212 endanger his success. 1. The allusion is t the Isthmian games, celebrated at Corinth in honour of Neptune and Palmon, in which the victor was crowned with a pine-wreath. Of these games the poet Archias this sings:-

“Four Argive towns the sacred contests see,

And two to men, and two to gods belong;

Jove gives the olive, Phbus sunny fruit,

Palmon poppy, and Archemorus the pine.”

2. There is consequently an allusion also to the athletes, the wrestlers, and boxers, who fought with their fists; to the runners, who strine for the prize for speed; to all who contested, whether with hand, or foot, or the whole body, for the prize.

3. All these abstained from luxurious living, and only lived of the necessities of life. This is what the Apostle alludes to when he says, is temperate in all things. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. iii.), following Plato (de Leg. lib. viii.), adds that they also refrained from all sexual intercourse. For as lust weakens, enervates, and exhausts the body, so do continence and chastity strengthen the body, and much more the mind, S. Ephrem, too, in his tractate on the words, “It is better to marry than to burn,” explains this abstinence from all things spoken of here to be abstinence from all lust.

4. The course is this present life, of each one’s state in the Church, and especially that of an evangelist; the runner or wrestler is each Christian. Hence, S. Dioysius (de Eccles. Hierarch. cvii.) says that those who are baptized are anointed to be Christ’s athletes, and are consequently called to fight a holy fight for faith and godliness. He adds that it is the practice, too, to anoint them when dead, as athletes perfected by death. He says: “The first anointing called him to a holy fight; the second shows that he has finished his course and been perfected by death.”

5. In this course and contest the antagonist is the world, the flesh, and the devil; the athlete’s diet is moderate food tempered with fasting; the fight consists in the castigation of the body, and all the arduous offices of virtue, which are accomplished with a conflict, whether external or internal;-especially is the preaching and spreading of the Gospel such a fight; and from such arises the victory over the world, the flesh, and the devil. The prize is the incorruptible crown of eternal glory for which Paul expresses his longing in 2 Tim. iv. 8. The punishment inflicted on the conquered is rejection and eternal confusion (ver. 27). As the athlete, by abstinence, exercise, and toil, subdues and exercises his body, and prepares it for the race-course or the contest, that he may conquer by lawful and generous effort, and may obtain a corruptible crown, so much more to obtain the eternal crown do we Christians, and especially I, your Apostle, keep under and exercise my body by fasting, labour, and weariness, and so much more severely do I, as an athlete in the Divine contest, exact from myself all the offices of those that fight. I do this, lest my body lose the strength derived from continency and a hard life by luxurious living, and then dwindle down into the helplessness of a self-indulgent life. But as I have to fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil, let me rather imitate the athletes, and so conquer and be crowned. Come, then, O Corinthians, run with me in this course; abstain not only from things offered to idols, because of scandal, but also from luxuries-from wine and lust-that you may gain the victory and carry off the prize. This exhortation to abstinence was occasioned by the question of idol-sacrifices, as I sain at the beginning of chapter viii.

Epaminondas, leader of the Thebans, having fought most bravely in battle, and being wounded, even to death, asked, as he was dying, whether his shield were safe and the enemy slain; and when they answered “Yes” to both questions, he said: “Now is the end of my life; but a better and higher beginning is as hand: now is Epaminondas being born in so dying.” So Valerius Maximus relates. If Epaminondas so strove for a temporal victory, for praise and glory that are evanescent, and died so joyfully and gloriously, what shall the soldier of Christ do for the crown that fadeth not 214 away, for the glory that knows no ending? Tertullian (ad Martyred, c. iv.) says excellently: “If earthly glories can so overcome bodily and mental delights as to throw contempt on the sword, fire, crucifixion, wild beasts, and torments, in order to obtain the reward of human praise, I may well say that these sufferings are but little to undergo to obtain the glories of heaven, Is glass worth as much as true pearls? Who therefore would not most joyfully suffer for the true glory as much as others suffer for the false.”

Virgil says of Junius Brutus, who ordered his sons to be put to death for conspiring against the Romans with the Tarquins-

“The love of Rome him mastered with boundless thirst for praise;”

so we may say of the Christian-

“The love of Christ will conquer, and heaven’s unquenchable thirst,”

Listen to what S. Chrysostom says (de Martyr. vol. iii.): “You are but a feather-bed soldier if you think that you can conquer without a fight, triumph without a battle. Exert your strength, fight strenuously, strive to the death in this battle. Look at the covenant, attend to the conditions, know the warfare-the covenant that you have entered into, the conditions on which you have enrolled yourself, the warfare into which you have thrown youself.”

It is clear from this, says S. Chrysostom, that faith alone is not sufficient for salvation, but that works also are requisite, and heroic efforts, and especially no small abstinence from all the allurements of the world. For, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 34 ad Julian): “It is difficult, nay, it is impossible for any one to enjoy both the present and the future, to fill here his belly and there his soul, to pass from one delight to the other, to show himself glorious both in heaven and in earth.”

S. Augustine piously consoles and animates Christ’s athletes by reminding them of the help that God gives (Serm, 105). He says: “he who ordered the strife helps them that strive. God does not look upon you in your contest as the spectators do on the athlete: for the populace warms him by shouts, but cannot lend him any help. He who arranged the contest can provide the crown, but cannot lend strength; buy God, when He sees His servants striving, helps them when they call upon Him. For it is the voice of the combatant himself in Psalm xciv. 18, who says, ‘When I said, my foot slippeth, Thy mercy, O Lord, held me up.'” S. Dionysius too (de Eccl. Hier. cii.) says: “To them that strive the Lord promises crowns as God. He has laid down the rules of the contest by His wisdom. He has appointed rewards most fair and beautiful for the conquerors; and, what is surely more Divine, He Himself, as supreme living-kindness and goodness, conquers in His warriors; and while He indwells within them, He fights for their safety and victory against the forces of death and corruption.”

Ver. 26.-So fight I, not as one that beateth the air. The comparison is still maintained. I fight as an athlete, but I do not spend my toil for nought, but I wound my enemy, i.e., I subdue my body and my flesh; and when I have subdued this foe, the remaining two, the world and the devil, are easily overcome. For the world and the devil cannot kill us, wound us, strike us, tempt us, approach us, except through the body and its organs, the eyes and ears and tongue and other members.

Ver. 27.-But I keep under my body and bring it into subjection. I keep under means, says S. Ambrose, “I repress it by fastings;” “I wound it with stripes,” says S. Basil (de Virginitate); “I starve it,” says Origen. S. Augustine (de Utilit. Jejun.) says: “The devil often takes it upon him to protect the flesh against the soul, and to say, ‘Why do you thus fast?-you are laying up punishment in store for yourself, you are your own torturer and murderer.’ Answer him, ‘I keep it under, lest this beast of burden throw me headlong.'” For our flesh is the devil’s instrument; it is, says S. Bernard, “the snare of the devil” (Serm. 8 in Ps. xci.). Erasmus, following Theophylact and Paulinus (Ep. 58 ad. Aug.), renders the Greek verb, “I make it black and blue,” or “I make the eyes of a black and bloody colour.” This last is, as Hesychius and Suidas say, the literal rendering of the word. But all others in general take the word to mean subdue, coerce, bruise. Castigate in the Latin, or “keep under,” as the text, suits both renderings, but the second is better, as being at once plainer and more near to the Greek-taking to be synonymous the .

This keeping under or castigation of the body is effected by fastings, hair-shirts, humiliations, scourgings, and other mortifications of the flesh. Hence some think that Paul was in the habit of scourging his body. This is certainly the literal meaning of the Greek, which is rendered by Beza, Melancthon, Castalion, and Henry Stephen “bruise.” but a bruise is not caused except by a blow, whether from a stick, or a scourge, or some other instrument. Moreover, fasting (which some, as, e.g., Ambrose, Gregory, and Chrysostom, think was Paul’s discipline) is not so much a strife and contest as a preparation for them; for of it he has already said, “Every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.” Cf. also Jacob Gretser (de Discipl. lib. i. c. 4).

Moreover, as Anselm remarks, as well as Gregory, in a passage to be quoted directly, the Apostle, while he keeps under and scourges his body, at the same time scourges and wounds the devil, his antagonist, who is in alliance with our carnal concupiscence, and lies in hiding within the foul jungle of the flesh, and through it tempts and attacks us.

Lest I myself should be a castaway. Lest I be a reprobate from God and excluded from heaven, Maldonatus (Not Manusc.) learnedly says that, as the comparison is still with the arena, a castaway here is one who is conquered in the fight; and that S. Paul’s meaning is, “Lest while I teach others to conquer I myself be conquered.” The Apostle is speaking not of eternal reprobation, which is in the mind of God, but of that temporal reprobation which is the execution of the eternal. He is referring to Jer. vi. 30: “Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.”

1. Hence it is clear that the Apostle is not speaking (as in 2Co 13:7), as some think, of the reprobation of men, as if his meaning were, “What I preach that I practise: I do not fare sumptuously, but I keep under my body, lest I be a cast away and reprobate of men, and regarded as one not doing what he teaches.” For Jeremiah clearly speaks of God’s rejection, not men’s; and reprobation and reprobate always refer to this when they are spoken of absolutely, and not restricted to men, as they are restricted in 2Co 13:7. Hence appears the uncertainty to us of grace and predestination. Paul feared being condemned, and will you believe that your faith cannot but save you?

2. It also follows that Paul had no revelation of his salvation. Cf. S. Gregory (lib. vi. Ep. 22, ad Gregoriam).

3. And that he was not so strong in grace not that he might fall from it.

From this passage, it is evident that the Christian’s fight consists especially in bringing the body into subjection. For this foe is an inward foe, and one most hard to withstand, and therefore the snares of the flesh are to be dreaded more than all others. We ought also to get ourselves ready for this fight by the athlete’s training, that is, by temperance, and in this temperance we should begin the fight, and in it daily increase, grow strong, and cone to perfection. The Christian, therefore, must begin with conquering gluttony. When that is done, it will be easier for him to conquer other vices, as Cassianus and others say. Hence it appears that the Christian fighter must keep under his body, lest its lusts make him a castaway; and that, therefore, bodily mortification, by watchings, fastings, and other afflictions, is the right way to salvation, and is the most suitable instrument for perfecting virtue, and for the complete subdual of vices, if it be done with discretion, and in proportion to one’s strength and health. Cf. S. Thomas (ii. ii. qu. 188, art. 7).

But let us hear what the ancient doctors of the Church have to say on this head. Ambrose (Ep. ad Eccl. Vercell.) says: “I hear that there are men who say that there is no merit in fasting, and who scoff at those who mortify their flesh, that they nay subdue it to the mind. This S. Paul would never have done or said if he had thought it folly” (let our Protestant friends observe this); “for he says, as though boasting, ‘I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.’ Therefore, those who do not mortify their body, and who wish to preach to others, are themselves regarded as reprobates, What new school has sent forth these Epicureans to preach pleasure and advise luxury? The Lord Jesus, wishing to strengthen us against the temptations of the devil, fasted before He strove with him, that we might know that we cannot in any other way overcome the blandishments of the evil one. Let these men say why Christ fasted if it were not to give us an example to do likewise,”

S. Gregory (Morals, lib. xxx. c. 26) says: “Nebuzaradan, the chief of the cooks, destroyed the walls of Jerusalem as he destroys the virtues of the soul when the belly is not kept in check. Hence it is that Paul took away his power from the chief of the cooks, i.e., the belly, in its assault on the walls of Jerusalem, when he said, ‘I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.’ Hence it is that he had said just before, ‘So fight I, not as one that beateth the air.’ When we retrain the flesh, it is not the air but the unclean spirits that we wound with the blows of our abstinence; and in subduing what is within we deal blows to the foes without, Hence is it that, when the King of Babylon orders the furnace to be heated, he has a heap of tow and pitch thrown into it, but nevertheless the fire has no power over the children of abstinence; for though our old enemy put before our eyes a countless number of delicacies t increase the fire of our lust, yet the grace of the Spirit from on high whispers to us, bidding us stand our ground, untouched by the burning lusts of the flesh.”

S. Basil (Hom. de Legend. Gentil. Libris) says: “The body must be mortified and kept in check like a wild beast, and the passions that take their rise from it to the soul’s hurt must be kept in order by the scourge reason, lest by giving free rein to pleasure the mind become like a drover of restive and unbroken horses, and be run away with and list. Amongst other sayings there is one of Pythagoras which deserves to be remembered. When he saw a certain man looking after himself with great care, and fattening himself by sumptuous living and exercise, he said: ‘Unhappy man! you are ever engaged in building for yourself a worse and worse prison!’ It is said too of Plato, that owing to his vivid realisation of the harm that arises from the body, he fixed his Academy at Athens in an unhealthy spot, that he might reduce the excessive prosperity of the body, as a gardener prunes a vine whose boughs stretch too far. I too have often heard physicians say that extremely good health is fallacious. Since, therefore, care for the body seems to be harmful to body and soul alike, to hug this burden and to be a slave to it is evident proof of madness. But if we study to despise it, we shall not easily lose ourselves in admiration of anything human.” S. Basil again (in Reg. Fusius Disp. Reg. 17) says: “As a muscular build and good complexion put a stamp of superiority on the athlete, so is the Christian distinguished from others by bodily emaciation and pallid complexion, which are ever the companions of abstinence. He is thereby proved to be a wrestler indeed, following the commands of Christ, and in weakness of body he lays his adversary low on the ground, and shows how powerful he is in the contests of godliness according to the words, ‘When I am weak, than am I strong!'”

S. Chrysostom says here: “‘I mortify my body’ means that I undergo much labour to live temperately. Although desire is intractable, the belly clamorous, yet I rein them in, and do not surrender myself to my passion, but repress them, and with wearisome effort bring under nature herself. I say this that no one may lose heart in his struggle for virtue, for it is an arduous fight. Wherefore he says, ‘I keep under my body and bring it into subjection.’ He did not say, ‘I destroy and punish it,’ for the flesh is not an enemy, but ‘I keep it under and bring it into subjection,’ because it is the property of my Lord, not of an enemy; of a trainer, not a foe; ‘lest by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway,’ If Paul feared this, being such a teacher as he was; if he has any dread, after having preached to the whole world, what are we to say?”

S. Jerome, writing against Jovinian, a heretic, an opponent of fasting, of chastity, and asceticism, ably defends these duties, and about the end of lib. ii. he says: “The fact that many agree with your opinions is a mark of luxuriousness; and you think it adds to your reputation for wisdom to have more pigs running after you to be fed with the food or the flames of hell. Basilides, a teacher of luxury and filthy practices, has after these many years now been transformed into Jovinian, as into Euphorbus, that the Latin race might know his heresy, It was the banner of the Cross and the severity of preaching” (let the Protestants mark this) “which destroyed the idol-temples. Impurity, gluttony, and drunkenness are endeavouring to overthrow the fortitude taught by the Cross. False prophets always promise pleasant things, but they give not much satisfaction. Truth is bitter, and those who preach it are filled with bitterness.”

Cassianus (de Instit. Renunt. lib. v. c. xvii. et seq.) says: “Do you want to listen to the true athlete of Christ striving according to the lawful rules of the contest? He says, ‘I therefore so run not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air, but I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others I myself should be a castaway.’ Seest thou how he has placed in himself, that is in his flesh, the hottest part of the battle, and has thus put it on a firm base, and how he has made the fight consist in simple bodily mortification and in the subjection of his flesh?” And then a little afterwards he repeats these words of the Apostle, and adds: “This properly has to do with the sufferings of continence, and bodily fasting, and mortification of the flesh. He describes himself as a strenuous combatant of the flesh, and points out that the blows of abstinence that he directs against it are not in vain, but that he has gained a triumph by mortifying his body. That body, having been punished by the blows of continence and wounded by the bruises of fastings, has given to the victorious spirit the crown of immortality and the palm that never fadeth. . . . So fights he by fastings and affliction of the flesh, not as one that beateth the air, i.e., that deals in vain the blows of continence; but he wounds the spirits who dwell in the air, by mortifying his body. For he that says, ‘not as one that beateth the air,’ declares that he strikes some one that is in the air.”

Further, not only for the sake of lust, but to subdue pride and break down all vices, and to cultivate every virtue, the body must be mortified, as S. Jerome says (Ep. 14 ad Celantiam): “They who are taught by experience and knowledge to hold fast the virtue of abstinence mortify their flesh to break the soul’s pride, in order that so they may descent from the pinnacle of their haughty arrogance to fulfil the will of God, which is most perfectly fulfilled in humility. Therefore so they withdraw their mind from hankering after variety of foods, that they may devote all their strength to the pursuit of virtue, By degrees the flesh feels less and less the burden of fastings, as the soul more hungers after righteousness. For that chosen vessel, Paul, in mortifying his body and bringing it into subjection, was not seeking after chastity alone, as some ignorant persons suppose: for fasting helps not only this virtue but every virtue.”

Lastly, the holy hermits of old, in their zeal after perfection, mortified their bodies to a degree that seems incredible. And that this was pleasing to God is seen from the holiness, the happiness, and the length of their lives. We may read for this Jerome, in his life of S. Hilarion, S. Paul, S. Malchus; Athanasius in his life of S. Antony; Theodoret in his life of S. Simeon Stylites, who for eighty years stood under the open sky night and day, hardly taking food or sleep. sagacious men have observed in their lives of the Saints that scarcely any Saints have been illustrious for their miracles and for their actions but such as were eminent for their fastings and asceticism, or who afflicted their bodies, or were afflicted by God with diseases, or by enemies and tyrants with tortures and troubles; that other Saints, who led an ordinary life, were of great benefit to the Church, but seldom if ever performed any miracles.

Fuente: Cornelius Lapide Commentary

9:1 Am {1} I not an apostle? am I not free? {2} have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye {a} my work in the Lord?

(1) Before he proceeds any further in his purposed matter of things offered to idols, he would show the cause of all this evil, and also take it away. That is, that the Corinthians thought that they did not have to depart from the least amount of their liberty for any man’s pleasure. Therefore he propounds himself for an example, and that in a matter almost necessary. And yet he speaks of both, but first of his own person. If (he says) you allege for yourselves that you are free, and therefore will use your liberty, am I not also free, seeing I am an apostle?

(2) He proves his apostleship by the effects, in that he was appointed by Christ himself, and the authority of his function was sufficiently confirmed to him among them by their conversion. And all these things he sets before their eyes, to make them ashamed because they would not in the least way that might be, debase themselves for the sake of the weak, whereas the apostle himself did all the he could to win them to God, when they were utterly reprobate and without God.

(a) By the Lord.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

Apostolic identity 9:1-2

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The apostle’s four rhetorical questions all expect a positive answer, and they become increasingly specific. Certainly he enjoyed the liberty that every other believer had. Furthermore he possessed the rights and privileges of an apostle. The proof of his apostleship was twofold. He had seen the risen Christ (Act 1:21-22) on the Damascus road (Act 22:14-15; Act 26:15-18), and he had founded the church in Corinth, which was apostolic work (cf. Rom 15:15-21). Clearly Paul’s apostleship was at stake in Corinth (cf. 1Co 1:1; 1Co 1:12; 1Co 4:1-5; 1Co 4:8-21; 1Co 5:1-2).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

Chapter 13

MAINTENANCE OF THE MINISTRY

IN the preceding chapter Paul has disposed of the question put to him regarding meats offered in sacrifice to idols. He has taken occasion to point out that in matters morally indifferent Christian men will consider the scruples of weak, and prejudiced, and superstitious people. He has inculcated the duty of accommodating ourselves to the consciences of less enlightened persons, if we can do so without violating our own. For his own part, he is prepared, while the world standeth, to abridge his Christian liberty, if by his using that liberty he may imperil the conscience of any weak brother. But keeping pace, as Paul always does, with the thought of those he writes to, he no sooner makes this emphatic statement than it occurs to him that those in Corinth who are ill-affected towards him will make a handle even of his self-denial, and will whisper or boldly declare that it is all very fine for Paul to use this language, but that, in point of fact, the precarious position he holds in the Church makes it incumbent on him to deny himself and become all things to all men. His apostleship stands on so insecure a basis that he has no option in the matter, but must curry favour with all parties. He is not on the same platform as the original Apostles, who may reasonably stand upon their apostleship, and claim exemption from manual labour, and demand maintenance both for themselves and their wives. Paul remains unmarried, and works with his hands to support himself, and makes himself weak among the weak, because he has no claim to maintenance and is aware that his apostleship is doubtful. He proceeds, therefore, with some pardonable warmth and righteous indignation, to assert his freedom and apostleship (1Co 9:1-2), and to prove his right to the same privileges and maintenance as the other Apostles (1Co 9:3-14); and then from the fifteenth to the eighteenth verse he gives the true reason for his foregoing his rightful claim; and in vv. 1Co 9:19-22 he reaffirms the principle on which he uniformly acted, becoming “all things to all men,” suiting himself to the innocent prejudices and weaknesses of all, “that he might by all means save some.”

Paul then had certain rights which he was resolved should be acknowledged, although he waived them. He maintains that if he saw fit, he might require the Church to maintain him, and to maintain him not merely in the bare way in which he was content to live, but to furnish him with the ordinary comforts of life. He might, for example, he says, require the Church to enable him to keep a wife and to pay not only his own, but her, travelling expenses. The other Apostles apparently took their wives with them on their apostolic journeys, and may have found them useful in gaining access for the Gospel to the secluded women of Eastern and Greek cities. He might also, he says, “forbear working”; might cease, that is to say. from his tent making and look to his converts for support. He is indignant at the sordid, or malicious, or mistaken spirit which could deny him such support.

This claim to support and privilege Paul rests on several grounds. 1. He is an apostle, and the other Apostles enjoyed these privileges. “Have we not power to take with us a Christian woman as a wife, as well as other Apostles? Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?” His proof of his apostleship is summary: “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?” No one could be an apostle who had not seen Jesus Christ after His resurrection. The Apostles were to be witnesses to the Resurrection, and were qualified to be so by seeing the Lord alive after death. But it seems to have been commonly urged against Paul that he had not been among those to whom Christ showed Himself after He rose from the dead. Paul therefore both in his reported speeches and in his letters insists upon the fact that on the way to Damascus he had seen the risen Lord.

But not everyone who had seen the Lord after His resurrection was an apostle, but those only who by Him were commissioned to witness to it; and that Paul had been thus commissioned he thinks the Corinthians may conclude from the results among themselves of his preaching. The Church at Corinth was the seal of his apostleship. What was the use of quibbling about the time and manner of his ordination, when the reality and success of his apostolic work were so apparent? The Lord had acknowledged his work. In presence of the finished structure that draws the world to gaze, it is too late to ask if he who built it is an architect. Would that every minister could so prove the validity of his orders!

2. Paul maintains his right to support on the principle of remuneration everywhere observed in human affairs. The soldier does not go to war at his own expense, but expects to be equipped and maintained in efficiency by those for whom he fights. The vine dresser, the shepherd, every labourer, expects, and is certainly warranted in expecting, that the toil he expends will at least have the result of keeping him comfortably in life.

However difficult it is to lay down an absolute law of wages, this may at least be affirmed as a natural principle: that labour of all kinds must be so paid as to maintain the labourer in life and efficiency; and it may be added that there are certain inalienable human rights, such as the right to bring up a family the members of which shall be useful and not burdensome to society, the right to some reserve of leisure and of strength which the labourer may use for his own enjoyment and advantage, which rights will be admitted and provided for when out of the confused war of theories, and strikes, and competition a just law of wages has been won. Happily no one now needs to be told that one of the most striking results of our modern civilisation is that the nineteenth-century labourer has less of the joy of life than the ancient slave, and that we have forgotten the fundamental law that the husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.

And lest anyone should sanctimoniously or ignorantly say, “These secular principles have no application to sacred things,” Paul anticipates the objection, and dismisses it: “Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also?” I am not introducing into a sacred religion principles which rule only in secular matters. Does not the Law say, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn”? It must be allowed to live by its labour. As it threshes out the wheat, it must be allowed to feed itself, mouthful, by mouthful, as it goes on with its work. And this was not said in the Law because God had any special care for oxen, but in order to give expression to the law which must regulate the connection between all labourers and their work that he that plougheth may plough in hope, may have a personal interest in his work, and may give himself ungrudgingly to it, assured that he himself will be the first to benefit by it.

This law that a man shall live by his labour is a two-edged law. If a man produce what the community needs, he should himself profit by the production; but, on the other hand, if a man will not work, neither should he eat. Only the man who produces what other men need, only the man who by his industry or capability contributes to the good of the community, has any right to profits. Quick and easy manipulations of money, shrewd and risky dexterities which yield no real benefit to the community, deserve no remuneration. It is a blind, sordid, and contemptible spirit that hastes to be rich by one or two successful transactions that profit no one. A man should be content to live on what he is worth to the community. Here also our minds are often confused by the complexities of business; but on that account it is all the more necessary that we firmly adhere to the few essential canons, such as that “trading ceases to be just when it ceases to benefit both parties,” or that a mans wealth should truly represent his value to society. Conscience enlightened by allegiance to the Spirit of Christ is a much more satisfactory guide for the individual in trade, speculation, and investment than any trade customs or economic theories.

3. A third ground on which Paul rests his claim to be supported by the Church is ordinary gratitude: “If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?” Some of the Churches founded by Paul spontaneously acknowledged this claim, and wished to free him from the necessity of labouring for his own support. They felt that the benefit they had derived from him could not be stated in terms of money; but prompted by irrepressible gratitude, they could not but seek to relieve him from manual labour and set him free for higher work. This method of gauging the amount of spiritual benefit absorbed, by its overflow in material aid given to the propagation of the Gospel would, I dare say, scarcely be relished by that monstrous development the niggardly Christian.

4. Lastly, Paul argues from the Levitical usage to the Christian. Both in heathen countries and among the Jews it was customary that they who ministered in holy things should live by the offerings of the people to the Temple. Levites and priests alike had been thus maintained among the Jews. “Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.” Were there no recorded command of the Lord to this effect, we might suppose Paul merely argued that this was the Lords will; but among the original instructions given to the seventy who were first sent to preach the kingdom of heaven, we find this: “Into whatsoever house ye enter, there remain, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the labourer is worthy of his hire.”

That evils may result from the existence of a paid ministry no one will be disposed to deny. Some of the most disastrous abuses in the Church of Christ, as well as some of the gravest political troubles, could never have arisen had there been no desirable benefices. Lucrative ecclesiastical posts and offices have necessarily excited the avarice of unworthy aspirants, and have weakened instead of strengthening the Churchs influence. Many wealthy ecclesiastics have done nothing for the benefit of the people, whereas many laymen by their unpaid devotedness have done much. In view of these and other evils, it cannot surprise us to find that again and again it has occurred to good men to suppose that on the whole Christianity might be more effectively propagated were there no separate class of men set apart to this work as their sole occupation. But this idea is reactionary and extreme, and is condemned both by common sense and by the express declarations of our Lord and His Apostles. If the work of the ministry is to be thoroughly done, men must give their whole time to it. Like every other professional work, it will often be done inadequately; and I dare say there is much in our methods which is unwise and susceptible of improvement: but the ministry keeps pace with the general intelligence of the country, and may be trusted to adapt its methods, even though too tardily for some ardent spirits, to the actual necessities. And if men give their whole time to the work, they must be paid for it, a circumstance which is not likely to lead to much evil in our own country so long as the great mass of ministers are paid as they presently are. It is hardly the profession which is likely to be chosen by anyone who is anxious to coin his life into money. If the laity consider that covetousness is more unseemly in a Christian minister than in a Christian man, they have taken an effectual means of barring out that vice.

Paul felt himself the more free to urge these claims because his custom was to forego them all in his own case. “I have used none of these things; neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me; for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.” Here again we come upon the sound judgment and honest heart that are never biased by his own personal circumstances or insist that what is fit for him is fit for everyone. How apt are self-denying men to spoil their self-denial by dropping a sneer at the weaker souls that cannot follow their heroic example. How ready are men who can live on little and accomplish much to leave the less robust Christians to justify on their own account their need of human comforts. Not so Paul. He first fights the battle of the weak for them, and then disclaims all participation in the spoils. What a nobility and sagacity in the man who himself would accept no remuneration for his work, and who yet, so far from thinking slightingly of those who did or even being indifferent to them, argues their case for them with an authoritative force they did not themselves possess.

Nor does he consider that his self-denial is at all meritorious. He has no desire to signalise himself as more disinterested than other men. On the contrary, he strives to make it appear as if this course were compulsory and as if no choice were left to him. His fear was that if he took remuneration, he “should hinder the Gospel of Christ.” Some of the best incomes in Greece in Pauls day were made by clever lecturers and talkers, who attracted disciples, and initiated them into their doctrines and methods.

Paul was resolved he should never be mistaken for one of these. And no doubt his success was partly due to the fact that men recognised that his teaching was a labour of love, and that he was impelled by the truth and importance of his message. Every man finds an audience who is inwardly impelled to speak; who speaks, not because he is paid for doing so, but because there is that in him which must find utterance.

This, says Paul, was his case. “Though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel!” His call to the ministry had been so exceptional, and had so distinctly and emphatically declared the grace and purpose of Christ, that he felt bound by all that can constrain a man to the devotedness of a lifetime. Paul felt what we now so clearly see: that on him lay the gravest responsibilities. Had he declined to preach, had he complained of bad usage, and stipulated for higher terms, and withdrawn from the active propagation of Christianity, who would or could have taken up the task he laid down? But while Paul could not but be conscious of his importance to the cause of Christ, he would arrogate to himself no credit on account of his arduous toil, for from this, he says, he could not escape; necessity was laid upon him. Whether he does his work willingly or unwillingly, still he must do it. He dare not flinch. If he does it willingly, he has a reward; if he does it unwillingly, still he is entrusted with a stewardship he dare not neglect. What then is the reward he has, giving himself, as he certainly does, willingly to the work? His reward is that “when he preaches the Gospel he makes the Gospel of Christ without charge.” The deep satisfaction he felt in dissociating the Gospel of self-sacrifice from every thought of money or remuneration and in offering it freely to the poorest as His Masters fit representative was sufficient reward for him and incalculably greater than any other he ever got or could conceive.

In other words, Paul saw that however it might be with other men, with him there was no alternative but to preach the Gospel; the only alternative was-was he to do it as a slave entrusted with a stewardship, and who was compelled, however reluctant he might be, to be faithful, or was he to do it as a free man, with his whole will and heart? The reluctant slave could expect no reward; he was but fulfilling an obligatory, inevitable duty. The free man might, however, expect a reward; and the reward Paul chose was that he should have none-none in the ordinary sense, but really the deepest and most abiding of all: the satisfaction of knowing that, having freely received, he had freely given, and had lifted the Gospel into a region quite undimmed by the suspicion of self-seeking or any mists of worldliness.

In declining pecuniary remuneration, Paul was acting on his general principle of making himself the servant of all and of living entirely and exclusively for the good of others. “Though I be free from all men, yet have 1 made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.” It was from Paul that Luther derived his two propositions which he uttered as the keynote of the resonant blast “on Christian Liberty” with which he stirred all Europe into new life: “A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone.” So Pauls independence of all men was assumed and maintained for the very purpose of making himself the more effectually the servant of all. To the Jew and to those under the Law he became as a Jew, observing the seventh day, circumcising Timothy, abstaining from blood, accommodating himself to all their scruples. To those who were without the Law, and who had been brought up in Greece, he also conformed himself, freely entering into their innocent customs, calling no meats unclean, appealing, not to the law of Moses, but to conscience, to common sense, to their own poets. “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some”-a course which none but a man of wide sympathy and charity, clear intellect, and thorough integrity can adopt.

For Paul was no mere latitudinarian. While accommodating himself to the practice of those around him in all matters of mere outward observance, and which did not touch the essentials of morality and faith, he at the same time held very definite opinions on the chief articles of the Christian creed. No amount of liberality of sentiment can ever induce a thoughtful man to discourage the formation of opinion on all matters of importance. On the contrary, the only escape from mere traditionalism or the tyranny of authority in matters of religion is in individual inquiry, and ascertainment of the truth. Free inquiry is the one instrument we possess for the discovery of truth; and by pursuing such inquiry men may be expected to come to some agreement in religious belief, as in other things. No doubt righteousness of life is better than soundness of creed. But is it not possible to have both? It is better to live in the Spirit, to be meek, chaste, temperate, just, loving, than to understand the relation of the Spirit to God and to ourselves; but the human mind can never cease to seek satisfaction: and truth, the more clearly it is seen, will the more effectually nourish righteousness.

Again, Paul had an end in view which preserved his liberality from degenerating. He sought to recommend himself to men, not for his sake, but for theirs. He saw that conscientious scruples were not to be confounded with malignant hatred of truth, and that if we are to be helpful to others, we must begin by appreciating the good they already possess. Hostile criticism or argument for the sake of victory produces no results worth having. Vain exultation in the victors, obstinacy and bitterness in the vanquished-these are worse than useless, the retrograde results of unsympathetic argument. In order to remove a mans difficulties, you must look at them from his point of view and feel the pressure he feels. “The greatest orator save one of antiquity has left it on record that he always studied his adversarys case with as great, if not still greater, intensity than even his own”; and certainly those who have not entered into the point of view of those who differ from them are not likely to have anything of importance to say to them. In order to “gain” men, you must credit them with some desire to see the truth, and you must have sympathy enough to see with their eyes. Parents sometimes weaken their influence with their children by inability to look at things with the eyes of youth, and by an insistence upon the outward expressions of religion which are distasteful to children and suitable only for adults. Children have a high esteem for justice and courage, and can respond to exhibitions of self-sacrifice and truth, and purity; that is to say, they have a capacity for admiring and adopting the essentials of the Christian character, but if we insist upon them exhibiting feelings which are alien to their nature and practices necessarily distasteful and futile, we are more likely to drive them from religion than to attract them to it. Let us beware of insisting on alterations in conduct where these are not absolutely necessary. Let us beware of identifying religion in the minds of the young with a rigid conformity in outward things, and not with an inward spirit of love and goodness. Are you striving to gain some? Then let these words of the Apostle warn you not to seek for the wrong thing, not to begin at the wrong end, not to measure the hold which truth has over those you seek to win, by the exactness with which all your ideas are carried out and all your customs observed. Human nature is an infinitely various thing, and often there is the truest regard for what is holy and Divine disguised under a violent departure from all ordinary ways of manifesting reverence and piety. Put yourself in the place of the inquiring, perplexed, embittered soul, find out the good that is in it, patiently accommodate yourself to its ways so far as you legitimately may, and you will be rewarded by “gaining some.”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary

Disfruta de miles de canciones cristianas en exclusiva sólo en Bibles