1 Corinthians 9
OGC**Butler’s Comments
Chapter Nine THE PROBLEM OF FREEDOM
IDEAS TO INVESTIGATE:**
Why did Paul have to write to the Corinthians about his rights?
How did he defend his rights?on what basis?
If Paul was so defensive about his rights, why did he not use them?
Did Paul compromise Christian convictions to become all things to all men?
What does self-control have to do with freedom?
APPLICATIONS:
Are you free in Christ? Free to do what? Do you really feel free or do you feel bound? Is freedom ever free of all responsibility?
Do you believe all Christians are obligated to give financial support to the ministers of the gospel?
How much financial support do you think they should have?
What do you think would be the result if all present-day preachers and missionaries decided to find employment away from their ministries in order to support themselves? Would the church survive? grow?
Have you ever relinquished any conscientious right belonging to you as a Christian for the sake of a weaker brother?
Would you rather die than cause a weaker brother to stumble?
How far would you go in accommodating yourself to a foreign culture in order to save lost sinners? How far should you go?
Could you give up celebrating Thanksgiving if it offended someone? Could you drink a glass of wine with your meal if the culture where you ministered expected it? Could you give up the use of a musical instrument in worship if it offended someone?
How much self-control do you exercise in order to be faithful to Christ? In what things or areas? Are you satisfied with your self-control?
APPREHENSIONS:
What is freedom?
What has the word of God to do with the Christian’s freedom?
Should the Christian guard his freedom in Christ? How?
What does the Bible say about financial support for ministers of the gospel?
Did Paul’s decision not to ask the Corinthian church for financial support have any bad effects? What?
Is preaching the gospel more than a way to make a living? What is it?
What rights would Paul have to relinquish to make his ministry effective among the Jews? among the Gentiles? did he?
When Paul said he became all things to all men did he mean he could participate in anything anyone else did? What did he mean? Would you?
Was Paul afraid there was a possibility that he might lose his share in salvation? Is the Christian life a serious matter? How serious?
What is self-control? How does a Christian control self?
**Applebury’s Comments
CHAPTER NINE**
Analysis
A.
Paul presents his own rights as an apostle in relation to the principle of Christian liberty (1 Corinthians 9:1-12 a).
In a series of questions which require affirmative answers, he presents his rights as a Christian and as an apostle (1-3).
a)
He asks the question about his rights as a Christian: I am free, am I not? That is, free to abstain from food that might cause a brother to stumble.
b)
He asks questions that show his right as an apostle:
(1)
I am an apostle, am I not? The questions that follow prove that he was.
(2)
I have seen our Lord Jesus, have I not?
(3)
You are my work in the Lord, are you not?
c)
He shows why the Corinthians cannot deny that he is an apostle.
(1)
Others might deny it.
(2)
The Corinthians cannot for they are his converts and the seal of his apostleship in the Lord.
(3)
This is his defense to those who question his apostleship.
In another series of questions he proves his right to support while preaching the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:2-12 a).
a)
He asks questions that indicate some of his rights.
(1)
It isn-’t that we do not have a right to food and drink, is it? Negative answer is implied.
(2)
It isn-’t that we do not have a right to be accompanied by a wifea sister in Christ, that is, a Christian wifeis it? Negative answer implied.
(3)
He has this right even as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas, has he not?
(4)
Or is it only Paul and Barnabas who do not have the right to be supported by their work.
b)
He raises questions that show that workers do receive support from their tasks.
(1)
The questions on the human level.
(a)
What soldier serves at his own charges?
(b)
Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof?
(c)
Or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
(2)
The Scriptures say the same thing.
(a)
He indicates this by a question.
(b)
He quotes from the Law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. See also Deuteronomy 25:4.
c)
He asks questions that show how this Scripture applies to him.
(1)
Is it for the oxen that God careth, or does He say it for our sake?
(2)
He shows why it applies to him as a gospel preacher.
(a)
He that ploweth ought to plow in hope.
(b)
He that thresheth ought to thresh in hope of partaking of the harvest.
d)
He raises questions about sharing of spiritual and carnal things.
(1)
If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter that we reap your carnal (material) things?
(2)
If others have this right over you, do not we yet more?
B.
Paul shows why he did not make use of his right to receive support from preaching the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:12 b - 1 Corinthians 9:18).
He did not use this right, but endured all things (1 Corinthians 9:12 b - 1 Corinthians 9:14).
a)
The reason he didn-’t was that he might cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.
b)
He adds additional proof, however, that he did have the right to support.
(1)
Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the temple?
(2)
And they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar?
(3)
In the same manner, the Lord ordained that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel.
He did not use his right, neither was he writing that it might be done in his case (1 Corinthians 9:15-18).
a)
He declares that he would rather die than let any man make his glorying void.
b)
He explains his glorying in relation to the gospel.
(1)
He did not glory over the fact of his preaching the gospel, for it was necessary for him to do so and, he adds, Woe is me if I preach not the gospel.
(2)
He could look at his preaching in two ways:
(a)
If he preached the gospel of his own will he had a reward.
(b)
If he did not do so of his own will, he had a stewardship entrusted to him.
(3)
His reward, then, was preaching the gospel without charge. In so doing, however, he was not using his right in the gospel to the full.
C.
Paul explains that his purpose in preaching the gospel is not to receive support, but to win some (1 Corinthians 9:19-27).
Although he is free from all men, he made himself a slave to all that he might gain more converts to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:19-22).
a)
To the Jews, he became as a Jew to gain Jews.
b)
To them under the law, as under the law, although he was not himself under the law, that he might gain them that are under the law.
c)
To them that are without law, he was as without law; but this does not mean that he was without law to God, for he was under law to Christ. This was for the purpose of winning them that were without law.
d)
To the weak, he became weak that he might win the weak.
e)
He became all things to all men that by all means he might win some.
He explains that he was doing all things for the gospel’s sake (1 Corinthians 9:23-27).
a)
His purpose was that he might share in the blessings promised in the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:23).
b)
He illustrates his purpose by reference to the athletic games (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).
(1)
He reminds them that those who strive in the games exercise self control in all things.
(2)
Their goal was to receive a corruptible crown.
(3)
In contrast, the Christian’s goal was an incorruptible crown.
(4)
Consequently, he was not running uncertainly (without a goal) or boxing as one who beats the air.
(5)
His aim was to conquer the body, lest after having preached to others he should be rejected.
Questions
What is the relation between the subject matter of this chapter and chapter eight?
What freedom was Paul claiming by his question, Am I not free?
What other aspects of Christian freedom are explained in the New Testament?
Why did Paul frame some of his questions in this chapter so as to suggest an affirmative answer?
Why did he ask, am I not an apostle?
Why did he ask, Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?
What place in the preaching of the apostles did the resurrection of Jesus have?
What distinction is there between the witness of Paul and the other apostles?
How is the importance of the appearance of Jesus to Paul shown by Luke?
How did Paul describe the appearance of Jesus to him in this letter to the Corinthians?
Our text frames the questions this way: are not ye my work in the Lord? How can it be framed so as to show that an affirmative answer was suggested by Paul?
Why did he ask the question?
Did the Corinthians deny his apostleship?
Who, in all probability, did deny it?
What is the connection between the fact of Paul’s apostleship and his freedom?
What defense did Paul make of his apostleship in II Corinthians?
Who were those whom Paul called the very chiefest apostles?
Why does Paul suggest that the Corinthians couldn-’t afford to deny that he was an apostle?
What did he mean when he said, You are the seal of my apostleship?
To what does the expression, My defense is this refer?
Why did Paul ask this question which implied a negative answer: Have we no right to eat and drink?
Why did he mention his right to be accompanied on his missionary journeys by a Christian wife?
How are we to understand that the words of the text mean a Christian wife?
Why did he mention the rights of the rest of the apostles?
What of their marital status?
Why were the names of the brothers of Jesus?
What suggestion does Scripture give to show that they were the children of Joseph and Mary?
What was the attitude of Jesus-’ brothers toward Him during His ministry?
What finally convinced them that He was the Lord?
Why did Paul mention Cephas in addition to the apostles?
What is the history of the relation of the work of Barnabas to Paul’S?
What did his question suggest as to the limitation of their rights?
What examples form everyday life did Paul present to support his view that he had a right to receive support from his preaching the gospel?
What evidence did he present from Scripture to prove the same thing?
What did he mean by sowing spiritual things and reaping carnal things?
In what sense did he use carnal things in 1 Corinthians 3:1-3?
To whom did he refer by the statement If others partake of this right over you?
Why did he mention them?
How was Paul supported at Corinth?
Is tentmaking to be desired as a means of supporting the minister?
Why, then, did Paul resort to it?
What are the two additional arguments which Paul presented to prove his right to receive support?
Why was it necessary to mention them?
How did the sons of Eli abuse the law regarding the priest’s portion of the sacrifice?
Where is the order of the Lord concerning support of the gospel worker found?
What else did Paul say about it?
What is the history of the teaching of the Bible on the matter of tithing?
What are some of the principles regulating Christian giving?
If we assume that tithing is not presented as a command in the New Testament, can we safely use this as an excuse for giving less to the support of the Lord’s work?
Why was it necessary for Paul to say that he was not writing that he might receive support?
How deeply did Paul feel on the matter of preaching the gospel without charge?
Why was he determined to do it this way?
What did he mean by saying, necessity is laid upon me?
Why did he say, Woe is me if I preach not the gospel?
What was his reward in preaching as he did?
In what sense was he under bondage to all?
How did he use his Jewish background to gain Jews?
What limit did he place on the matter of compliance with Jewish customs?
How is this illustrated by the cases of Timothy and Titus?
As a Christian, what law was Paul under?
Since he was a Jew, how did he approach Gentiles?
How did he approach those who were weak?
What was his two-fold concern in preaching the gospel?
What lesson did he teach from the figure of the race?
Where are the rules of the race of life found?
What kind of crown is the Christian to strive for?
How is it described?
What was Paul’s attitude toward running the race of life?
What is the goal of church activity?
How did Paul show that he had assumed the role of victor in this life’s struggle against sin?
Why did he say, lest I myself be rejected ?
For Discussion
Methods of Evangelism to make the church effective today.
How can the educational program in your church be improved to make it effective in producing strong Christians.
What can you do to make sure that you are living a victorious life for Christ?
1 Corinthians 9:1-12
Applebury’s Comments
Text
1 Corinthians 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?
Paul’s Rights as an Apostle (1-12a)
*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 John 8:32 and Romans 6:22. It was for freedom that Christ had set him free, and he was not becoming entangled again in any yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1). But what he had recommended to others about the limitation of Christian liberty, he was free to observe for himself (1 Corinthians 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 (Acts 1:22). It is true that others of the apostles had been eyewitnesses of the things that occurred during the ministry of the Lord (Luke 1:2;2 Peter 1:16; Hebrews 2:3-4), but the essential thing was that they should be witnesses of the resurrection (Acts 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 Paul’s own words (Acts 9:3-6; Acts 22:5-11; Acts 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 (1 Corinthians 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 Paul’s 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 (Galatians 2:4-5). Paul mentions these critics in 2 Corinthians 10:7-11. If any man trusteth in himself that he is Christ’S, let him consider this again with himself, that, even as he is Christ’S, 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 (2 Corinthians 11:15). He says that such are false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 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 isn-’t 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 isn-’t 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 Peter’s wife’s mother (Luke 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 carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James and Joseph, and Simon? And his sisters, are they not all with us (Matthew 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 (Matthew 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 (John 7:5). But this does not indicate that they joined with the Jews who hated Him and sought to kill Him (John 7:1). Some of His friends at one time thought that he was beside himself (Mark 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 (Mark 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 (Mark 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 (Acts 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 (James 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 Lord’s brother as one of those whom he saw when he went to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Galatians 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 (1 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Corinthians 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 (Acts 11:22-26; Acts 13:1-3). They had parted company over John Mark just before starting the second journey that finally led Paul to Corinth (Acts 15:2; Acts 15:25-26; Acts 15:31-41). The reference to Mark in Colossians 4:10 and 2 Timothy 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 (Acts 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 (Philippians 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 (2 Corinthians 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 doesn-’t 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 (Deuteronomy 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 (1 Corinthians 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 1 Corinthians 3:1-3. See notes on these verses.
Robertson, in Word Pictures, Vol. IV, page 145, assumes that Paul teaches the same lesson in Galatians 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 Paul’s 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 (2 Corinthians 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.
1 Corinthians 9:1-14
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 1
Recitation of Rights** (1 Corinthians 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.
1 Corinthians 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 man’s 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 Christian’s development (1 Corinthians 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 God’s 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 God’s Word concerning man’s true purpose and possibility.
In other words, our true freedom depends on whether we believe God’s 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 (Romans 8:29). Truth makes man free (John 8:31-32). All truth, God’s 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. (2 Corinthians 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 God’s 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 Christ’s 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 Romans 15:26-27; Galatians 6:6). The Greek word sphragis is translated seal and means, to authenticate, to validate. Their conversion to Christ certainly confirmed Paul’s 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 (Acts 13:1-3); he received some support from the church at Philippi (Philippians 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 (Acts 15:40; Acts 18:1-4; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:11; 2 Thessalonians 3:8).
While the apostle used the Greek word eleutheros, translated free, in 1 Corinthians 9:1, he used the word exousian, translated right, in 1 Corinthians 9:4-6, (see comments, 1 Corinthians 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 Acts 4:36; Acts 9:26-27; Acts 11:22-30; Acts 13:2; Acts 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. Paul’s 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, Matthew 13:55) also had wives who accompanied them in their work. Mary, mother of Jesus was not a perpetual virgin.
Paul’s third appeal to logic is in 1 Corinthians 9:7. He uses three analogies from the common life of that time to prove his point. In 2 Timothy 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 soldier’s wife and family also.
1 Corinthians 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. Paul’s quotation comes from Deuteronomy 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 God’s 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 (1 Timothy 5:17-18).
The word entirely, in 1 Corinthians 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 (Matthew 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 1 Corinthians 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 plowman’s 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 (1 Corinthians 9:12 a) Paul asks, If you authorize others the right of sharing your material goods, shouldn-’t 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 (1 Corinthians 9:3-6). Some think others refers to the Judaizers (II Cor. Chapter s 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 (John 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.
1 Corinthians 9:12b-14 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 (Galatians 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 God’s Sonperfection. Paul always tried to choose what he thought, guided by God’s 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 Paul’s 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 Philippians 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 2 Corinthians 12:13; 2 Corinthians 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 2 Chronicles 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 (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7; 1 Timothy 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.
1 Corinthians 9:12-18
Applebury’s Comments
Text
1 Corinthians 9:12b-18. Nevertheless we did not use this right; but we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ. 13 Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat of the things of the temple, and they that wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar? 14 Even so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel. 15 But I have used none of these things: and I write not these things that it may be so done in my case; for it were good for me rather to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. 16 For if I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of; for necessity is laid upon me; for woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel. 17 For if I do this of mine own will, I have a reward: but if not of mine own will, I have a stewardship intrusted to me. 18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel.
Why He Did Not Make Use of His Right (12b-18)
*Commentary
Nevertheless we did not use this right.*At this point, as we read the letter, we might expect him to say that he now expects them to make this support available to him also. The Corinthians, of course, knew that he had not taken support from them. They may have been unprepared for the turn of thought, but it was clear to them that although he had proved his right he was not taking advantage of it. He endured all the hardships that had come to him at Corinth; he worked with his own hands at one time to support himself; he had waited until the brethren from Macedonia arrived with support. Surely he knew how to be abased, and how also to abound: in everything and in all things he had learned the secret both to be filled and to be in want (Philippians 4:12).
*that we cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.*Under no circumstances was Paul going to let personal needs hinder his dedication to Christ and his determination to preach the word of the cross.
Lack of adequate support for the ministry has often hindered the progress of the gospel of Christ. Those who argue that Paul recommended tentmaking as a proper way to support the ministry fail to see the underlying reason for his attitude toward receiving support from the Corinthians. No minister, Paul is particular, can do his best in presenting the gospel if he has to give too much time to the task of making a living, or, as it often happens, to living on what he makes. On the other hand, no man should enter the ministry as a means of gaining a livelihood. When churches awake to their opportunities and privileges, the minister and the missionary will be more adequately supported.
*they that minister about sacred things.*Lest anyone should misunderstand what Paul had just said, he adds two more arguments to support his position that the gospel minister has a right to be supported by his work. First, those who ministered about sacred things and those who waited upon the altar ate of the things of the temple and had their portion with the altar. He had pointed out that the principle of support from work was well known in ordinary human experience and that it was also supported by Scripture. Now he turns to sacred things to indicate that the same thing is true in that area also. Second, he calls attention to the fact that the Lord had ordained that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel.
The law on this point, so far as the Jewish temple is concerned, is found in a number of places (Leviticus 6:16; Leviticus 6:26; Leviticus 7:31-38; Numbers 18:8). It was sadly abused by some as in the case of the sons of Eli (1 Samuel 2:12-17; 1 Samuel 2:27-36). The priests were accustomed to share in the meats that the people offered as sacrifices. While the meat was boiling, they would take a three-pronged fork and thrust it into the meat, taking for their portion all that clung to the fork. But these young men, Hophni and Phinehas, treated the offering of the Lord with contempt and demanded that they be given raw meat to roast before any of it was offered to the Lord. They greedily looked upon the sacrifices of the people and demanded the choicest parts for themselves. It is barely possible that some ministers and missionaries today with extravagant tastes have hindered the cause of the gospel by demanding more for themselves than they have any right to receive or than people are able to supply. But this was the exception in Old Testament times and today also if it does exist.
*Even so did the Lord ordain.*God gave orders that the priests of the temple should be supported; so also did Jesus ordain that the gospel minister should be supported. These are the words of the Lord as reported by Matthew and Luke: The laborer is worthy of his food (Matthew 10:10); And in that same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the laborer is worthy of his hire (Luke 10:7). Paul has an additional word to say on the subject: Let elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. For the Scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. And, The laborer is worthy of his hire (1 Timothy 5:17-18).
There is no reference to the tithe in this passage unless it be assumed that the offerings were a part of the tithe. Even if such were the case, it cannot be used as a valid argument for or against tithing today. Some argue from the fact that Abraham gave a tenth of the chief spoils to Melchizedek and through him even Levi paid tithesthat the Christian is under obligation by the law of the tithe to give a tenth of his income to the church. The only valid conclusion that can be drawn from this incident is that Christ, the high priest after the order of Melchizedek, is superior to the Levitical priests.
It is a well known fact that the Jews did greatly abuse the matter of tithing. Malachi said, And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar. And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of Jehovah is contemptible. And when ye offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil! Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased (Malachi 1:6-8)? The prophet’s challenge is: Try to pay your taxes with the things you bring to the Lord and see if your government will accept them.
But the fact that some abused their privilege in making an offering to the Lord does not prove that the Christian is by law obligated to pay a tithe to the church. What then is the basis of giving for the support of the gospel? (1) Proportionate giving, as he may prosper (1 Corinthians 16:2); (2) Not commandment but love (2 Corinthians 8:8); (3) Readiness, for if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according as a man hath and not according as he hath not (2 Corinthians 8:12); (4) equality (2 Corinthians 8:14); (5) Willing gift, not of necessity (2 Corinthians 9:5; 2 Corinthians 9:7); (6) As each hath purposed in his heart (2 Corinthians 9:7; (7) A cheerful gift, for God loveth a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9:7).
Tithing is a good basis for a Christian to adopt as a beginning point, but it cannot be argued from Scripture that it is an eternal principle of giving. The only point being made here is that tithing is not a requirement of the New Testament, but this should not be used as an excuse for not giving. There is certainly nothing against adopting the principle of the tithe if one should care to do so, but love for Christ should lead one to do far more than he would as a matter of law. It is my conviction that love for the Lord and the privilege of participating in the spread of the gospel will bring more money into the church than all the arguments for tithing as a law of giving.
*And I write not.*So strong had been the argument for the support of the gospel minister that the apostle felt the need to state again that he did not use this right and that he was not writing to give the impression that he wanted to use it now. Far from it!
*good for me rather to die.*The apostle’s deep feeling on this issue is seen in the structure of the sentence. He says, I would rather die than, but the alternative is not stated even though it is clearly impliedthan have such a thing happen in my case and destroy my boasting in preaching the gospel without charge. He seemed to be in a hurry to add, No one shall make my boasting void. This boasting was his reward, that is, boasting in the fact that he could preach the gospel without charge.
*necessity is laid upon me.*He could not boast that he was preaching the gospel. Unseemly vanity is sometimes seen in preachers and missionaries who boast of their sacrifice in preaching the gospel. But Paul considered that he was under obligation to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish to share the gospel with them. The very possession of the gospel makes us debtors to those who do not know of the redeeming love of Christ.
Paul was compelled to preach the gospel of Christ. He said, Woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel. Christ had commissioned him (Acts 26:16-18); the Holy Spirit had given orders for the church at Antioch to set him aside for the task (Acts 13:1-3). Therefore, he was under obligation to preach the word of the cross, for he was like the household slave who was under obligation to care for his master’s affairs (Luke 17:10; 1 Corinthians 4:1-2).
But there was a place for him to exercise his freedom in the matter: he could preach the gospel without charge. This was his reward, and he would not allow anyone to take it from him.
1 Corinthians 9:15-18
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 2
Relinquishment of Rights** (1 Corinthians 9:15-18)
15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision. For I would rather die than have any one deprive me of my ground for boasting. 16For if I preach the gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel! 17For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. 18What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel.
1 Corinthians 9:15-16 Sacrifice: In this section the apostle begins to make a transition from the specific right of financial support he claimed, to the principle of the need for relinquishment of any right in certain circumstances. He has called upon the Corinthians to consider the principle (1 Corinthians 8:1-13) earlier. He illustrates the application of the principle in his own actions (1 Corinthians 9:1-14). He will state the purpose of the principle (1 Corinthians 9:19-27) later, but here he is proving that he has not asked the Corinthians to make a more severe sacrifice of rights than he himself had been willing to make. He uses the Greek word kechremai, a perfect tense verb, which indicates an action begun in the past and continuing at the present. Paul had never exercised his right to be financially supported upon the Corinthian church.
Furthermore, he denies that he has used the illustration of his own practice as some sort of subtle attempt to elicit financial support from them now. He says, … nor am I writing these things in order that so it should become with me (literal translation of the Greek). His motive in using himself as an example is pure. He says, in fact, he would rather die than have any one deprive him of the opportunity to exemplify in his own life the principle of sacrificing rights for the edification of others. And Paul never used the phrase, I would rather die. in a flippant way. He was deadly serious about this principle! He did not mean to say he boasted about his own sacrifices in an arrogant, self-righteous way. Paul uses the word boasting (Gr. kauchema, glorying) in the good sense, meaning, to hold up or exalt as an example of Christian virtue (see 2 Corinthians 7:14-15). This translation clarifies the true meaning of the next three verses.
In light of the above remarks we should paraphrase 1 Corinthians 9:16, When I preach the gospel I have nothing to hold up or exalt as an example of Christian sacrificenecessity lies upon me, I feel compelled to do so, I am utterly miserable and unsatisfied if I do not preach the gospel. Paul discusses his compulsion for preaching in 2 Corinthians 5:11-21.
The high-water mark of Christian discipleship is when a person freely chooses to give up his rights in order to remove any obstacle to the gospel of Christ being heard or seen. Giving up rights did not hinder Paul in his race toward the highest good God could make of his life. In fact, this discipline sharpened his self-control (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:24-27) and became beneficial in the development of godliness in him. His choice to give up the right to financial support from the Corinthians gave him opportunity to perfect his character in the area of servanthood and helpfulness. This actually helped Paul form within himself the very nature of Christ. Jesus is the perfect example of self-control and servanthood rather than rights. Having every right to expect the disciples to wash his feet (John 13:1-38), he washed theirs instead. One cannot be a disciple of Jesus unless he is willing to forfeit rights rather than let them become obstacles to the gospel. There is only one way to serve God and that is to serve mankind. If we are going to serve sinful and imperfect men, inevitably, somewhere, we will have to choose to forfeit some of our rights. Jesus did! (Philippians 2:5-11).
1 Corinthians 9:17-18 Satisfaction: What does Paul mean, For if I do this of my own will. ? Did he not preach by choice? Certainly! Remember, he is speaking about the relinquishment of certain rights which were his because he was a full-time preacher of the gospel. Paul is trying to convince these Corinthians that there are greater rewards to be found in the relinquishment of rights.
We might paraphrase 1 Corinthians 9:17-18 thus, If preaching is simply my way of choosing to make a living, I should be, and will be, rewarded with my living; if I could make a living another way, and I could, but I have chosen to preach anyway, then it is apparent that I consider preaching more than a way to make a livingI consider it a divine stewardship with which I have been entrusted. What reward, then, or satisfaction do I receive, if I receive no financial support? Just this: my pay is to do without pay! My joy is in making the gospel free of charge in order that no one might use the idea of my right to financial support as an obstacle to the truth of God. Paul would not allow the slightest hint of profiteering or exploitation to be found in his ministry (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:17; 2 Corinthians 4:2).
Great satisfaction comes from giving up rights when others may be served for the sake of Christ. Paul refused to lose the satisfaction he received in such service by insisting on a few rights or liberties. He would rather die than be robbed of the great enjoyment he received in sacrificing for others. It is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:38). Satisfaction and contentment is part of a godly character. God has given us the freedom to choose to renounce certain freedoms or rights he has given us in order to have this contentment. This satisfaction which Paul enjoyed is somewhat like the satisfaction a mother or father gets when giving up one of their rights to help a precious child. It is the satisfaction a teacher gets when he surrenders one of his rights to help a student reach his highest potential. It is the satisfaction a craftsman gets when he gives up his right to sleep and to food in order to produce the finest work of which his hands are capable. Paul was no masochist. He did not give up financial support because he loved to suffer. He sought no self-righteous merit (cf. Philippians 3:1-16). His aim was to glorify Christ and present no obstacle whatsoever to the salvation of any man. If Paul had been persuaded that refusing the financial support might become an obstacle, he would not have refused it. Could refusal ever become a problem? Apparently the Corinthians made it a hindrance to accepting Paul’s apostleship (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:7-11; 2 Corinthians 12:11-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8). And even in modern times, some self-supporting preachers and missionaries have found it an obstacle to their ministries.
The comments of Fred Fisher, Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians, pg. 146, pub. Word, are pertinent here:
Paul would have rebelled against the modern practice of paying preachers a salary as if they were mercenaries selling their services. He would have insisted, I think, that churches should support their ministers. There may not seem to be much difference between giving a minister so much support and paying him the same amount in salary. The money is the same. But the principle is not. Salary implies payment for services received. Support implies that the church enables the minister to be free from worldly concerns so that he may carry on his ministry. His reward should not be earthly, but heavenly. The problem is that the misuse of the word salary may lead both the church and the minister to take a worldly view of the ministry.
Though the modern preacher has a right to expect the church to support his ministry with financial remuneration, he should be willing to relinquish that right should it become an obstacle to the proclamation of the gospel. Furthermore, no Christian preacher should consider financial support his source of satisfaction in the ministry, His satisfaction (boasting) should be found in servanthood.
1 Corinthians 9:19-27
**Butler’s Comments
SECTION 3
Reasons For Relinquishment** (1 Corinthians 9:19-27)
19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more. 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the lawthough not being myself under the lawthat I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the lawnot being without law toward God but under the law of Christthat I might win those outside the law. 22To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
24 Do you not know that in a race all the runners compete, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. 25Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; 27but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 9:19-22 To Save Some: It is important that Paul lists the salvation of others as his first reason for willingness to relinquish rights. This is the priority he is trying to establish in the consciences of the Corinthians.
When Paul says he is free from all men, he means he is free from being bound by any man’s scruples (see 1 Corinthians 10:23; 1 Corinthians 10:29-30; Romans 14:1-4). He does not mean that he has no moral obligation to be his brother’s keeper. All men have that liability. And this is exactly the point to be made in this passage. Though free from the scruples of all men, Paul will gladly relinquish this freedom and submit to their scruples in order to win them to Christ. He does more than merely acknowledge other men’s right to have and to practice scruples different than his, he declares his practice is to enslave (Gr. edoulosa, aorist tense, enslaved at some point in the past) himself to other men’s scruples in order to save them. The Greek word translated win is kerdeso and often translated gain (as in money or business profit); it is used metaphorically in the scriptures to describe winning someone to the gospel. When we win someone to Christ, we not only gain them for Jesus, we gain a brother (see Matthew 18:15) and are ourselves profited. This is Paul’s motivation for sacrificing any right to gain a brother.
Paul was a Jew. He was reared in the strictest sect of the Jewish culturethe Pharisees (see Philippians 3:4-6). We would suppose he preferred to practice, whenever possible, Jewish cultural habits. He undoubtedly preferred kosher food as much as Peter (cf. Acts 10:14); he carried with him the Jewish abhorrence of images and idols (see Acts 17:1-34); he went customarily to Jewish synagogues to worship and preach; he practiced Jewish purifications (Acts 21:26) in order to conciliate his Jewish brethren; he defended himself against the charges that he had profaned the Jewish temple (Acts 24:5-21); and reminded Agrippa that he had always lived among the Jews according to the strictest sect of the Pharisees (Acts 26:2-8). When he was among the Jews, Paul honored their Jewish scruples and lived as they did, ate what they ate, abstained from that which they considered unclean, observed their days and seasons. However, when any Jewish brother demanded that Paul keep the law of Moses as a necessity for salvation or membership in the kingdom of God (the church), he vehemently and immediately denounced it as apostasy (cf. Galatians, Romans and Hebrews). He would have Timothy to become circumcised in order not to offend his Jewish brethren (Acts 16:1-4), and on the other hand, he would refuse to yield to the Judaizers who insisted he compel Titus to be circumcised (Galatians 2:3) in order to keep the law of Moses. All this he did in order to bring as many Jews as he could into the saving grace of Christ.
And it was the amazing grace of Christ that could make this Pharisee of the Pharisees, Paul, equally at ease involving himself in Gentile culture (those outside the law). He was truthful and firm, but never rude and insulting toward Gentiles for their belief in idols (cf. Acts 19:37). He was so thoroughly familiar with their philosophies, arts, and politics he could communicate the gospel to them in their frame-of-reference (Acts 17:22-33; Acts 16:35-39). He fellowshiped with Gentile Christians as his brethren and defended their gospel liberties even against the pillars of the church (Galatians 2:1-21). He could eat with unbelievers and even partake of meat sacrificed to idols without wounding his own conscience (1 Corinthians 10:27-30). Paul could be knowledgeable, courteous and friendly toward unbelievers, and could freely fellowship with Gentile Christian brethren in an atmosphere of perfect equality. But he would never use his liberty as license for immorality (see 1 Peter 2:16; Galatians 5:13; 1 Corinthians 8:9). Paul considered himself under law to Christ (Romans 6:12-23). The law of Christ is the law of love (Romans 12:10; 2 Corinthians 5:14; 1 Timothy 1:5; John 13:34-35; John 15:12-17; Galatians 5:14; Colossians 3:14-15; James 2:8; Matthew 22:39-40). Love is more compelling and constraining than any law (1 Corinthians 13:1-13; 1 John 3:14-24; 1 John 4:7-21). Only under the compulsion of Christ’s love is there power to relinquish one’s rights for the salvation of another. Only in the constraint of Christ’s love is there power to keep the commandments of God’s new covenant in daily living. Every condescension Paul-the-Jew made to Gentile culture he did so in order to win every Gentile he could to Christ. But he would never participate in any cultural usage, Gentile or Jewish, which compromised the new covenant of faith in Christ.
To the over scrupulous (Jew or Gentile) Paul became scrupulous. He would observe any man’s scruples so long as that man did not attempt to bind them on others as necessary to covenant relationship with Christ. Every Christian has the same obligation toward all men (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:7; Romans 15:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Corinthians 13:4-7; Acts 20:35, 1 Corinthians 10:33).
In the latter half of 1 Corinthians 9:22, the verb gegona is perfect tense and means, I became, and am becoming, all things to all men. It is something he had practiced ever since becoming a Christian and would continue to practice. His statement here does not mean he became a two-faced hypocrite. It does not mean he compromised any doctrinal or ethical truth. It simply means he tried to project himself into each individual’s circumstances as much as possible in order to win them to Christ. It means he made every attempt possible to understand the thinking, feelings and actions of others. It means he had an honest interest in people as persons and not just as numerical-conversions. Someone once described teaching, medicine, and the ministry as the three patronizing professions. But when we patronize people we make no effort to understand themno effort to find some point of personal contact. Paul did not patronize people. He made every effort to understand them and live with them within their own cultural, educational and social milieu. The Living Bible paraphrases 1 Corinthians 9:22: Whatever a person is like, I try to find common ground with him so that he will let me tell him about Christ and let Christ save him. One of the greatest hindrances to the spread of the Gospel throughout the world is that people of all races and cultures simply do not try to understand one another in matters not clearly commanded in the New Testament. Even Christian people are unwilling to forfeit their rights in order to make such understanding possible. Until Restoration Movement people are willing to sacrifice some of their overly-cherished Anglo-Saxon traditions and customs in order to understand where others are coming from we will never accomplish the great ideal for which the Movement beganChristian unity!
1 Corinthians 9:23-27 To Save Self: The Greek phrase (1 Corinthians 9:23), panta de poio dia to euaggelion hina sugkoinonos autou genomai, should be translated All these things I do because of the gospel in order that I may become a joint partaker of it. One commentator insists, The suggestion that this (verse) means, -lest I lose my share in salvation-’ (ICC), misses Paul’s meaning. The context indicates that he was concerned with the salvation of others, but that he had no doubt about his own. In the first place, the Greek preposition dia denotes cause or reason. In the second place the Greek verb genomai is in the subjunctive mood and indicates Paul was hoping to become a joint partaker. In the third place the context (1 Corinthians 9:23-27) does suggest Paul feared he would lose his share in the gospel if he did not run so as to obtain it.
Even the word prize (1 Corinthians 9:24) reinforces the idea that Paul was concerned with the possibility of forfeiting his share in the gospel. The Greek word brabeion is translated prize and is related to the Greek word brabeuo which means to decide, arbitrate, rule, umpire, award, referee. The brabeion was the prize awarded by the referees or rulers of the Greek games to an athlete who won his race or other contest (see Philippians 3:14; Colossians 3:15). The Corinthian brethren would understand immediately the figure of the Greek games as an analogy of the Christian life. Since the time of Alexander the Great, athletic games had been popular throughout the Greek world. The most famous, of course, were the Olympic Games held at Olympia (located in the Peloponnesus). The first games in recorded history were held in 776 B.C. The Roman emperor Nero drove a quadriga (a chariot pulled by four horses) in the races in 66 A.D. (about 10 years after Paul wrote this letter). Nero was thrown from his chariot and nearly crushed to death; restored to his chariot he continued the contest for a while, but gave up before the end of the course. The brabeus (judge or referee), however, knew an emperor from an athlete and awarded Nero the crown of victory. Overcome with happiness when the crowd applauded him, he announced that thereafter not only Athens and Sparta but all Greece should be exempt from any tribute to Rome. The Greek cities accommodated him by running the Olympian, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian games in one year; he responded by taking part in all of them. The Isthmian games were second in popularity only to the Olympics, and were held every third year. Paul must have been an avid sports fan, for he used athletic contests often to illustrate his messages (cf. Philippians 3:14; Galatians 5:7; 2 Timothy 2:5; 2 Timothy 4:7-8; Hebrews 12:1).
The Greek word agonizomenos is translated athlete in 1 Corinthians 9:25. Its literal meaning is one who struggles, one who contends, one who agonizes. Our English word agony comes from this word. Jesus-’ struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane is called agonia (Luke 22:44). Jude writes that Christians are to contend earnestly (Gr. epagonizesthai) for the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). Right relationship with God is a strugglemake no mistake about that! It involves agony and pressure. Christians are contenders, combatants, strugglers.
Every agonizer (athlete) must exercise self-control in all things in order to compete as a winner. Paul uses the Greek word egkrateuetai translated temperate in the KJV, but self-control in the RSV. It literally means, within-strength, or inner-strength. Self-control is the fruit of the Spirit of God in the Christian (Galatians 5:23). Self-control is what the Christian must make every effort to add to his life as a supplement to faith, knowledge, virtue, etc. (2 Peter 1:6). Athletes in the Greek games had to endure, according to Horace, the regimen of obedience, sparse diet, and severe training for ten months before he was qualified to enter the actual game. Modern athletes spend weeks and months disciplining their minds and bodies in rigorous training and competition. Some modern professional golfers have been known to practice swinging their clubs until their hands are blistered and bleeding. These all submit to self-discipline in order to win a perishable trophy. Should not Christians, then, be willing and able to exercise self-control for the imperishable crown of eternal life? Should not Christians be willing and able to relinquish a few rights or freedoms in order to win the game of life?
For Paul there was no uncertainty in his regimen of self-discipline. He did not run his race of life aimlessly (Gr. adelos, unevident, unclear, uncertain). He did not consider the Christian struggle a session in shadow-boxing or quixotic jousting with windmills. For him the Christian life was a contest to win, a war in which there was no substitute for victory (Ephesians 6:10-23). It was a trial that demanded severe self-discipline.
In 1 Corinthians 9:27 the Greek word hupopiazo is translated pommel and means literally, to give a black eye by striking the face. Figuratively Paul is saying, I beat my body black and blue. to keep it under control. It is inconceivable that Paul is saying he practiced literal flagellation (whipping) of his own flesh. He clearly taught that literal severity to the body was of no real spiritual value (Colossians 2:18; Colossians 2:23; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 1 Timothy 4:8; Romans 13:14). Withdrawal into a monastery and daily scourging of the flesh does not solve the problem of worldly-mindedness. It may, in fact, intensify it by pride in self-righteousness. The other Greek word in 1 Corinthians 9:27, doulagogo, translated subdue, is literally, lead as a slave. This clarifies Paul’s practice of self-control. He, Paul, that is, his mind, controlled by the Spirit of Christ, led his body as a slave. He articulated this with precision in Romans 6:12-23; Romans 8:5-11; Romans 12:1-8.
Athletes set goals. Their goal is always to win! They must be willing to give up any freedom which might be a hindrance to reaching that goal. The Christian’s goal is to be transformed in character into the image of Christ. Christians need to see the goal clearly. One of the most distressing things about modern man is the obvious aimlessness and distortion in setting this as a goal. If any Christian is not willing to give up whatever is necessary for him and others to attain the highest potential God has for them, that Christian will, at the end of the race, find himself rejected. Adokimos is the Greek word translated disqualified. It is a word from the ancient alchemist (who was both a pharmacologist and a metallurgist) and his practice of testing metals and casting aside those which were spurious.
This is not the final word of the New Testament on Christian freedom. But it is perhaps the clearest and most persuasive presentation to be found. Only the teachings and examples of the Living Word, Jesus Christ, are more compelling. The man who has surrendered to evil and rebellion against God has imprisoned his self behind walls of fear, alienation, hate, falsehood and impotence. Man was not made for that kind of character. He cannot be free with that nature controlling him. Those characteristics severely limit any potentiality he may have for growth into the image of Christ. The man who is good only because there is a law standing in his way to being bad is not free either. The only man who is truly free, is the man who is good because he wants to be good for Jesus-’ sake. It is Jesus Christ who makes us free men by making us new creatures through regeneration. His Spirit is born in us and we are changed into His image from one degree of glory to another as we surrender to his new commandment (compulsion) of love.
*Applebury’s Comments
Text*
1 Corinthians 9:19-27. For though I was free from all men, I brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more. 20 And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 21 to them that are without law, as without law, not being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that are without law. 22 To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. 23 And I do all things for the gospel’s sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof. 24 Know ye not that they that run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? Even so run; that ye may attain. 25 And every man that striveth in the games exerciseth self-control in all things. Now they do it to receive a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. 26 I therefore so run, as not uncertainly; so fight I, as not beating the air: 27 but I buffet my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, after that I have preached to others, I myself should be rejected.
Paul Preached to Win (19-27)
*Commentary
For though I was free.*He had laid this principle down in the beginning of the discussion of his right to receive support. He was not bound by the customs, regulations, and practices of others. He was free to forgo accepting support that the gospel of Christ be not hindered.
*under bondage to all.*He was a slave to all in that he had a service to perform in their behalf. By preaching without charge he was able to win more than he would have done if he had accepted support. Why? Evidently there were some at Corinth who were constantly looking for opportunities to discredit him by saying that he was working for money. He removed the possibility completely, and in so doing was able to win more for Christ. Moreover, he was also able to gain much more satisfaction from his work in this way (this is not stated in the text).
*to the Jews I became as a Jew.*Paul used his right as a Jew to go into the synagogues on the sabbath day and, when called upon, go speak to them. God providentially provided for the propagation of the gospel through the scattering of the Jews over the known world before the Day of Pentecost. For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath (Acts 15:21). When Paul came to Antioch of Pisidia, he entered the synagogue on the sabbath and sat down. After the reading of the law, he was invited to speak. He stood up and with characteristic gesture urged those present to hear his message. Carefully and skillfully, he led the audience through the familiar but ever interesting story of God’s dealings with the Jews. Then he declared that God had fulfilled His promise given through the prophets in the resurrection of Jesus through whom he proclaimed the remission of sins. When the meeting was over, many of those present urged Paul to speak to them again the next Sabbath. See Acts 13:13-52.
When Paul selected Timothy to travel with him, he had him circumcised because of the Jews that were in that part of the country. Timothy’s mother was a Jewess, but His father was a Greek. See Acts 16:1-2. In the case of Titus, however, on whom some tried to force the law of circumcision, Paul refused to be bound by the opinions of men, since Titus was a Greek. See Galatians 2:1-3.
*not being myself under the law.*Paul did not carry this matter of conformity to the point of keeping the law in every instance. Indeed, he had been freed from the power of the law by becoming a Christian (Galatians 2:19-21). As a Jew, however, he could approve of circumcision, keep the vows of his Jewish background (Acts 18:18), and even go into the temple with offerings along with other Jewish brethren (Acts 21:17-26).
*to them that are without law.*Paul associated with Gentiles as if he were one of them. He defended his right publically when Peter refused any longer to eat with the Gentiles because of his fear of the Jews (Galatians 2:11-21). This whole course of action reminds us of Jesus who associated with publicans and sinners, not as one of them, but as the Good Physician who came to minister to the sick and the lost. Paul was always careful to conform to God’s law, for he was under the law of Christ, just as he said to the Galatians, Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).
*To the Weak I became weak.*This is what he wrote about it in the second letter to the Corinthians: Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is caused to stumble, and I burn not? If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things that concern my weakness (2 Corinthians 11:29-30). He fully understood and appreciated the problem of the man who was weakthat is, who did not have the information he should have had about idols and who, by the wrong example, might have been led to violate his conscience and so perish. An excellent example of the meaning of empathy.
*that I may by all means save some.*He was concerned about the salvation of all menthe Jew and the Gentile, the weak and the strong. He used every possible means to win them to Christ. At that, only some responded to the gospel invitation.
*that I may be a joint partaker.*When Jesus was on the cross there were some who taunted Him saying, He saved others, himself he cannot save. How true! But how many Christians have caught the point of Paul’s remark? He did all things for the gospel’s sake in order that he might become a partaker also in its blessings. Does he not suggest that there is some real doubt about participating in the joy of heaven if we fail to participate in the spreading of the gospel?
*they that run a race.*Two illustrations taken from the athletic games illustrate what he has just said about the necessity of doing all things for the sake of the gospel that he might become a partaker of its blessings. They also illustrate the great principle which he had been discussing: the limitation of Christian liberty. In the tenth chapter, he adds another illustration to shown what happens in the case of the one who fails to observe this principle.
In the race, there were many runners, but the prize was for one. Paul says, Even so, run that ye may attain. All of you are to run so that you may receive the prize of eternal life.
*exercise self-control in all things.*Here is the principle of limitation of liberty. The athlete had to observe the rules of training if he expected to win the prize. There were some things that he had to give up. Just so, there were some things that the Christian had to give up, such as liberty to eat food used in idolatrous worshipif he was to win the weak brother. This is, of course, just one of the many applications of the principle of limiting liberty for the sake of others. The rules of the game are given in the Bible. For a summary of them see 2 Peter 1:5-11 and Galatians 5:22-24.
*Crown.*This is the wreath that symbolized victory, not the diadem of kingly authority. But for the Christian, it was a thing that did not perish. It is the inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fades not away (1 Peter 1:3-5). It is the crown of righteousness which the Lord will give to those who have loved His appearing (2 Timothy 4:8). It is the crown of life for the victor over temptation and sin which the Lord promised to those who are faithful to the end (James 1:8; Revelation 2:10). It is the crown of glory that fades not away which the chief Shepherd will give to those who have cared for the flock when He comes (1 Peter 5:4).
*I therefore run, as not uncertainly.*Paul’s purpose in preaching was to win some to Christ; his goal was life eternal. Too many are like the Israelites who lost sight of their goalthe promised land. Perhaps there is too much pointless preaching, too much aimless holding of services, too much organization for the sake of organization. The aim of church activity should be to evangelize and to educate. Make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of equal importance, teaching them to observe all thing whatsoever I have commanded you (Matthew 28:18-20). And we must organize to evangelize as well as to educate. There is just as much need for a permanent director of evangelism in every congregation as there is for a director of education. Both are necessary! Without them, we are likely to be found running without a goal.
The writer of Hebrews sounds a timely warning to all on this issue: Take heed, brethren, lest haply there shall be in any one of you an evil heart of unbelief, in falling away from the living God (Hebrews 3:12). And again, Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no man fall after the same example of disobedience (Hebrews 4:11).
*I buffet my body.*Literally, strike under the eye. Paul takes this figure from the boxing match. He was in the fight to win. He landed blows where they counted. He gave his opponenthis bodya black eye, the knockout blow. Those who interpret Romans 7:14-25 to mean that Paul constantly fought a losing battle with sin need to consider his remarks in this verse. He did face constant opposition from Satan, but he was equipped to conquer and that he did (Ephesians 6:12-18). In this life, we too have a struggle with Satan, but there is no need to let him win; there is no need for us to fight as one beating the air; there is every reason why we must overcome.
*I myself be rejected.*No man can safely say until the good fight is finished that he has gained the victor’s crown. See 1 Corinthians 10:12. The word translated rejected means rejected after a test has been made. It is the assayer’s term for that which did not stand the test or meet with approval. It is used in Romans 1:28 where it is translated reprobate. Those who rejected God were given up to a reprobate mindthat is, considered to be utterly worthless. It describes the one who may be disqualified in a race. This was Paul’s great problem. He proclaimed the message of Christ in such a manner that he would not be disqualified, that is, be lost. He was careful to observe the rules of the game and to keep the goal in mind so as not to become disqualified after preaching to save others.
Summary
The principle of the limitation of Christian liberty which was introduced in chapter eight is applied to Paul’s rights as a Christian and an apostle in this chapter. He begins with a series of questions that called for affirmative answers. As one who is free and who qualifies as an apostle of Christ, he has certain rights. He cites as proof of his apostleship the fact that he had seen the Lord. Others might deny that he was an apostle, but the Corinthians could not for their position in Christ depended on their belief of the word of the cross which they had heard from Paul. Since he is an apostle, he has a right to be supported by the preaching of the gospel. Other rights are mentioned which the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas enjoyed, but the main issue in the discussion is the right to support. The reason for it is seen in the possibility that others were exercising this right over the Corinthians, a thing that Paul was determined to forgo in order not to hinder the gospel, that is, to prevent some from saying that he was preaching just for the sake of making a living. He proves his right to support by reference to the soldier, the keeper of the vineyard, the shepherd, and all who worked with the hope of partaking of the results of their labors. These examples are not limited to human experience, for the law said, You shall not muzzle the ox while it is treading the grain on the threshing floor. This principle is seen in the work of the farmer who plows the field in hope of enjoying the fruit of his labor and threshes the grain in hope of eating the bread that is made from it. But Paul refused to use his right for the sake of the gospel of Christ. He insisted, however, that he had a right to be supported, for he called attention to those who served in the temple and waited upon the altar. They were supported by the work they did. Then he added, Just so, the Lord ordained that they that preach the gospel should get their living from their work. Nevertheless, he was not writing in order to receive support at that time or at any future time, for he declared that he would rather die than have anyone make void his glorying in the fact that he was free to preach the gospel without charge. Preaching the gospel was a necessity. He was a servant of the Lord and was bound to be faithful in the task assigned to him. But he was free to preach it without receiving support for so doing. His purpose was to avoid doing anything or letting others do anything to discredit the gospel. He endeavored by becoming all things to all men to win some to Christ and become a fellow-partaker in the blessing of the gospel, that is, be saved himself. Just as the athlete must exercise self-control in all things, so Paul was willing to renounce some of his rights as an apostle to make sure of winning the race and conquering his body so that he would not be rejected after he had preached to save others.