Bo – Laying Aside Rights 9: 1-14

Laying Aside Rights
9: 1-14

Laying aside rights DIG: Why does Paul make such a big deal about being an apostle? What is the implied answer to each of the questions in verse 1? Who was apparently contending that Paul wasn’t a proper apostle? What rights did Paul have as an apostle? How did he illustrate his right to financial support? How did he lay aside his rights?

REFLECT: What “rights” do you have that God may want you to give up? Do you practice what you preach? In other words, do you walk the walk, or merely talk the talk? When was the last time you gave up your freedom in Messiah so as not to stumble a fellow believer? Have you stumbled a fellow believer and it cost you a friendship? How can you help others now?

The Lord said that those who proclaim the gospel should earn their living from the gospel.

Paul used one of the most basic of all principles of leadership: he himself practiced in his own life what he preached to others. The secret of the power and influence of the leaders of the first-century church wasn’t just in the things they said, but the fact that they were themselves a living example of their own message.²²⁶

In Chapter 8, Paul set out the limits of our freedom in Messiah, freedom that is to be determined by brotherly and sisterly love, by concern for the welfare of other believers. He summarized the principle as: Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not cause others with a weaker conscience to stumble (8:9). Our rights end when another person is offended. In Chapter 9, the apostle illustrates how he followed that principle in his own life. In the first section of this chapter, Paul gives six reasons why he had the right to be supported by the churches in whom he had ministered.

An analogy from Paul’s own life (9:1-6): What unexpected vigor, Paul suddenly unleashes a torrent of rhetorical questions, each beginning with the Greek article ou (is it not so?), thus expecting a positive answer: Of course I am; of course I have; of course you are. Verse one is composed of four questions, all falling into their natural order in terms of the argument.

Am I not a free man? This touches immediately back to 8:13, where Paul had indicated his freedom to eat whatever he wanted, but his voluntary decision never to eat meat again if by doing so he would cause a fellow believer to stumble. Am I not a free man? Of course I am! I can eat anything I want.”²²⁷ The Corinthians believed that they had the freedom to do anything they wanted, believing themselves to be spiritually mature enough to handle the pressures and stains of going into a pagan temple. They did not understand Paul’s theology of serving the Lord as an apostle, why he did certain things, and most of all, why he did not do certain other things.²²⁸ Therefore, he set out to defend his own actions.

Closely related to the first question, Paul asks: Am I not an apostle of the Messiah? Of course I am! Most naturally, Paul includes the matter of his apostleship, since everything that follows hinged on that fact. This is the first direct statement in the letter indicating that his apostleship itself was at stake in Corinth; but such has been hinted at several times before this (1:1 and 12, 4:1-5, 8-13 and 14-21, 5:1-2).²²⁹

Paul’s significant response to any of his Corinthian detractors, who did not think he was a proper apostle, was the question: Haven’t I seen Yeshua our Lord? Of course I have! An apostle had to be an eyewitness of Messiah and of His resurrection (Acts 1:21-22). Paul was not among the original apostles who were with Yeshua during His earthly ministry, but had seen the resurrected Messiah on at least three occasions. The Lord appeared to Paul at his conversion (Acts 9:4-5), and in two visions that we know of (Acts 18:9-10 and 22:17-18). Paul could witness having personally met the risen Messiah.²³⁰

The next proof of Paul’s apostleship was the Corinthian believers themselves. And aren’t you yourselves the result of my work for the Lord (9:1)? The church at Corinth was one of the fruits of Paul’s apostolic labors. Their saving faith and their knowledge of God’s Word came from Paul’s evangelism and discipling (see the commentary on Acts, to see link click Cc – Many Respond to the Good News in Corinth). Paul already alluded to Corinth as God’s field (3:9) where he had been assigned as the servant of ADONAI at work. He planted, but God gave the growth (3:6). Paul is careful to distinguish that they were not his work, about which he might have reason to boast, but his work in the Lord, so that his boasting would be in the Lord (First Corinthians 1:30-31; Second Corinthians 10:17).²³¹

Even if to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the living proof that I am the Lord’s apostle (9:2). Who are these other people questioning his apostleship? A short time later, Paul will go into an extended tirade against some imposters in Corinth, whom he labels false apostles . . . masquerading as apostles of Messiah (see the commentary on Second Corinthians Af – The Problem of the False Apostles), and since one of their main criticisms of Paul was that he apparently didn’t feel free to accept support for his ministry from them (Second Corinthians 11:1-21), it seems as though that hints of this issue are starting to surface here. Such information may have gotten to Paul verbally from Chloe’s household (1:11). He, therefore took the opportunity to work that issue into his letter at this point, hoping that he could stop it before it spread much further.

Paul goes on to acknowledge that what he is about to write is a defense against those who were judging him. That is my defense when people put me under examination (9:3). We must be clear about one thing. What Paul is defending is the same issue that he defends so vigorously in his next letter, that he has a right to accept monetary support from the believers in Corinth, but out of his own free will he has chosen not to do so.

Dear Loving Heavenly Father, Praise You for Your awesome love that was willing to leave heaven and come to earth (Philippians 2:6-8) to ransom us from sin’s punishment and to give us your righteousness (Second Corinthians 5:21). You have the right to send all to hell as a just punishment for all have sinned (Romans 3:23), but You gave up Your rights to punish, and in unspeakable great love, You took our punishment! Your example of unselfish love is our goal to follow. To love and follow you is not just rules to obey, but a heart that shows love by our actions to our brothers and sisters in Messiah.  It is clear who are the children of God and who are the children of the devil by this – anyone who does not act righteously or love his brother is not of God (First John 3:10). We love to please You by loving our brothers and sisters. You have done so much for us in love. Thank you for the joy that we can show You our love by loving others. In Yeshua’s holy name and power of His resurrection. Amen

Paul now asks another series of rhetorical questions, all of which once again expect a positive answer. These questions begin with (Greek: me, which means they assume a negative answer, but by virtue of a Greek double negative, in essence, these questions turn out to expect a positive answer). First year Greek students are usually told that there is no such thing as a double negative in Greek – that Greek writers pile up negatives in order to emphasize the negative nuance. However, there is a little-known Greek grammatical rule that when a second negative in a series of negatives is a simple negative (ou) rather than a compound negative (oude or oudeis), that second negative does in fact function in the same way as a double negative in English. A literal translation of 9:4 would be: It is not the case, is it, that we do not have the right to eat and drink?” The assumed answer is, “Of course not!” Put positively, therefore, we can translate this question, “We have just as much right to eat and drink as anyone else, right?” And the assumed answer is, “Of course I do!”²³²

Don’t we [apostles] have the right to be given food and drink (9:4)? That is, “As a minister of God, not to mention an apostle, don’t I have the right to expect that at least food and drink will be provided to me (First Timothy 5:17-18; Galatians 6:6)? Of course I do!”

Don’t we have the right to take along with us a believing wife, as do the other apostles, also the Lord’s brothers (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3) and Kefa (9:5)? “Don’t I have the right to marry a believing woman (Mark 1:29-31), as were Yeshua’s brothers – the sons born naturally to Joseph and Mary after Yeshua. Eusebius’ History of the Christian Church (written around 320 AD) quotes Papias (early second century) as authority that the apostle Philip was married (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Cy – These are the Names of the Twelve Apostles). We know Peter (Kefa) was married from the fact that he had a mother-in-law (Mt 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38); perhaps Paul singles him out here from the other apostles because he had been in Corinth with his wife or because he was the hero of one of the Corinthian “fan clubs” (1:12). It is ironic that the Roman Catholics regard Peter as the first pope, yet he was married,²³³ and was never in Rome (see the commentary on Romans Do – People God Uses). In any case, Paul was probably a widower. In any case, though he chose to be single, he had every right to remarry. He also had the right, as did the other apostles, to take his believing wife with him as he ministered and to have her supported along with him.

Then, with a touch of sarcasm, Paul asks: Or are Barnabas and I the only ones required to go on working for our living (9:6)? Paul and Barnabas have as much right as the others to get their livelihood from the ministry, without having to work on the side. They did not pay their own way because they were obligated to do so. They did it voluntarily.²³⁴

An analogy from everyday occupations (9:7): Paul had the right to receive support from the churches that he founded for his ongoing ministry. He makes his point through three rhetorical questions; the expected answer to each one being “No!” Soldiers who go to war on behalf of their country are paid a salary; no soldier is expected to be self-supporting. Have you ever heard of a soldier paying his own expenses? No! A person who plants a vineyard has the right to eat the fruit of his labor. Have you ever seen a farmer planting a vineyard without eating its grapes? No! A person who tends a flock has the right to drink the milk of his flock. Who shepherds a flock without drinking some of the milk (9:7)? No one!²³⁵ All three types of workers are paid for their work. It is the customary, rightful, and expected thing.

Why should it not be true for God’s workers as well? It should!

An analogy from Deuteronomy (9:8-11): What I am saying is not based merely on human authority, because the Torah says the same thing – for in the Torah of Moshe it is written, “You are not to put a muzzle on an ox when it is treading out the grain” (Deuteronomy 25:4). Since God is concerned about cattle, all the more he says this for our sakes. Paul interprets this text in a typical rabbinic-type argument called “light and heavy” (Hebrew: qal wahomer). If something is true on a lower scale, it is certainly true on a more important, higher scale. In other words, if mere animals are given the right to eat as they are working in the fields, certainly human beings made in the image of God have the same right. In fact, God is more concerned about getting across a principle for human beings in this text than He is about getting across a principle for animals.²³⁶ Yes, it was written for us, meaning that he who plows and he who threshes should work expecting to get a share of the crop (9:8-10)?

An analogy from ministry (9:11-12): Paul follows up the previous argument with a second qal wahomer argument. If something is true on a human physical scale (for farmers, for example), then it must certainly be true on a spiritual scale. If farmers can expect to gain their food and support from working in the fields and at harvest, certainly missionaries should expect the same as they gain a spiritual harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you If others are sharing in this right to be supported by you, don’t we have a greater claim to it (9:11). Since farmers have every right to expect material support from working in the fields and at harvest, certainly missionaries should expect the same as they gain a spiritual harvest (Romans 15:26-27).²³⁷

But, we don’t make use of this right. Rather, we put up with all kinds of things so as not to impede in any way the Good News about the Messiah (9:12). How would receiving money have hampered the gospel? To whom would it have been a stumbling block? Potential converts may have shied away from receiving Messiah as their Lord and Savior if they suspected that it came with strings attached: acceptance would cause them to be financially committed to Paul on a continuing basis. Therefore, Paul sought to avoid any impression that he was preaching only for money. Yet, some of the Corinthians were actually ashamed of Paul. They did not interpret his voluntary act as conforming to the pattern of Messiah’s sacrifice: Though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, so that you, through His poverty, might become rich (Second Corinthians 8:9b). Instead, they interpreted his poverty as demeaning to himself and embarrassing to them.

Paul expanded this concept of limiting his freedom in Messiah a bit when he wrote to the church in Thessalonica: We were so devoted to you that we were glad to share with you not only God’s Good News but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us. For you remember, brothers, our toil and hardship, how we worked night and day not to put a burden on any of you while we were proclaiming God’s Good News to you (First Thessalonians 2:8-9). While it would have been perfectly appropriate for Paul to receive regular financial support from both of these churches – in Corinth and Thessalonica – he voluntarily laid aside his rights and limited his freedom in Messiah in order to increase the effectiveness of his ministry. It was as if Paul were saying to the believers in Corinth, “If I can lay aside my right to receive money from you, surely, you can limit your freedom in Messiah and choose not to eat meat sacrificed to idols if doing so would cause your weaker brother or sister to violate his or her own conscience and sin.”²³⁸

An analogy from the Temple priesthood (9:13): Paul added additional weight to his argument with one more analogy, but this time it’s from the Torah. Don’t you know that those who work in the Temple get their food from the Temple, and those who serve at the altar get a share of the sacrifices offered there (9:13)? The priests, who performed sacred services, were supported by the tithes of crops and animals as well as sacrifices from the people to whom they ministered in the Temple (Numbers 18:8-24). Hundreds of years before the Aaronic priesthood, in fact, Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, a priest of God Most High (Genesis 14:18-20). Since they worked in the Temple, they needed to be supported.

A teaching from Yeshua Himself (9:14): Paul raised the level of authority for his argument another notch from the Torah to the command of Yeshua. Both God’s Torah and God’s Son taught that His prophets, teachers and ministers were to be paid for their work in the Lord. Thus, the teaching in the B’rit Chadashah echoes that of the Torah. In the same way, the Lord directed that those who proclaim the Good News should get their living from the Good News (9:14). Yeshua taught this principle when He said: Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages (see the commentary on The Life of Christ Gv – Jesus Sends Out the Seventy). The Lord commands His people to offer support to those who minister to them, but He does not command those who minister to accept the support. Paul did not. He had the right, as much as any, and more than most. But for the sake of the Good News, for the sake of his brothers and sisters in the Lord, and for the sake of love, he gladly and willingly laid aside all his rights.²³⁹