Original Meaning

PAUL TURNS NOW to a second illustration of the principle that Christian freedom should be tempered by voluntary relinquishing one’s rights. But the illustration is scarcely arbitrary; it reflects one of the primary ways the Corinthians are challenging Paul. They have come to doubt his apostolic authority (vv. 2–3), precisely because he is not charging them for his ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7). Itinerant Greco-Roman philosophers and religious teachers supported themselves in one of four ways: charging fees, staying in well-to-do households, begging, or working at a trade. The last of these was least common but generally acknowledged to give the philosopher the greatest freedom to teach however he liked.1

The powerful patrons in the Corinthian church doubtless would have preferred to have Paul accept their money but give them deference and political support in return. When he refused and continued to rely on tentmaking instead (cf. Acts 18:1–4), they charged that his unwillingness to go along with their patronage demonstrated that he did not have the same authority as other itinerant apostles or preachers.2

Verses 1–12a therefore present the case in some detail for Paul’s right to charge for his services. Yet in keeping with his “yes, but” logic, and in defense of his actual behavior, verses 12b–18 then explain why Paul has in fact renounced this right. Verses 19–27 generalize to the even broader principle that lies behind Paul’s behavior on the issues in both 8:1–13 and 9:1–18. But these verses also tie in closely with the beginning of chapter nine by completing a chiasm (an ABBA pattern). In verse 1a, Paul raises two questions: “Am I not free?” (A) and “Am I not an apostle?” (B). Verses 1b–18 then defend the answer to the second question—of course he is an apostle (B); while verses 19–27 elaborate on the nature of his freedom, in response to the first question (A).

The four questions of verse 1 are all interconnected. If the answer to any proves negative, then all Paul’s claims are in jeopardy. But in fact Paul is free, he is an apostle, he has seen Jesus, and he has spiritually fathered the Corinthians. The last two questions provide support for his apostolic claims. He has seen the risen Lord (cf. 15:7–8, fulfilling the criterion of Acts 1:22b), and he has received a specific commission to preach to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15–16). Thus verse 2 follows logically. No matter anyone else’s opinion of Paul; for the Corinthians to question his apostolicity calls into question their own spiritual existence!

Verses 3–12a supply Paul’s formal defense, via a barrage of further rhetorical questions. The answers to each of them are intended to be unambiguous. First, Paul reasserts his right to receive material provision for his ministry, by means of three questions in verses 4–6. The “food” of verse 4 no longer refers to idol meat, since it is combined with “drink,” but has to do instead with physical nourishment and sustenance—one of the primary ways early Christians provided for itinerant preachers in their midst (cf. Luke 10:7a). Verse 5 implies that most of these men were married and brought their wives along on their travels. Again it was only natural and appropriate that the local Christians should take care of the wives’ needs as well. On the Lord’s brothers (probably the natural children of Joseph and Mary), see Mark 6:3. Mark 1:30 confirms that Peter (Cephas) was married. He is mentioned separately from the “other apostles” because of his association with one of the Corinthian factions (recall 1:12), not because Paul questions his apostolicity. The way Paul phrases the question of verse 5 (“Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife?”) makes one wonder if Paul had been married (recall the discussion under 7:8) when he first began his itinerant ministry, and if his wife had subsequently died.3 Verse 6 then gets to the heart of Paul’s complaint. More literally, it reads, “Or do only Barnabas and I not have the right not to work?”

In verses 7–12a, Paul begins accumulating a series of reasons why in fact he does have the right to request payment for his services. These continue into verses 13–14 as well. All told, there are five lines of argument: “common practice, scriptural precept, intrinsic justice, Jewish custom and Christ’s command.”4 Verse 7 presents three analogies from the common practice of human experience in the areas of warfare, farming, and shepherding. Few in Paul’s day would have disputed the logic of these examples.

Verses 8–11 argue from Deut. 25:4, which verse 9 explicitly quotes. “Merely” is a correct interpolation in verse 8 and could easily be added in verse 9b as well (“Is it merely about oxen that God is concerned?”). Verse 10a should then read, “Surely he says this [also] for us.” Paul is not claiming that this quotation from the Mosaic Law never had anything to do with oxen, only that its application cannot be limited to animals. Verses 10–11 clarify, using imagery favored by Jesus in his parables of seed and sowing, that preaching the gospel is like planting a crop; and making disciples, like harvesting. So if oxen should not be muzzled as they plow, neither should preachers be prevented from eating due to lack of support from those among whom they minister (cf. Gal. 6:6; Rom. 15:27).

Verse 12a rounds out the formal part of Paul’s defense with a third kind of argument. The Corinthians have already conceded the logic of everything Paul has said thus far with respect to their other leaders and itinerating Christian workers. It is the height of irony and injustice that they would refuse these same rights to the one who was most of all responsible for their spiritual rebirth.

Verse 12b begins as if Paul is ready to move to the “but” of his “Yes, but” argument. Verses 13–14, however, continue by providing the final two arguments in defense of Paul’s right to receive remuneration: the analogy of priests and Levites in the Jewish temple (cf. Num. 18:8–31) and the express words of Jesus during his lifetime (Luke 10:7b). Yet these two examples also set the stage for verses 15–18 by hinting at a spiritual reward for ministry as well as a purely material one.5 The temple example would have made good sense to ex-pagans also, since Greco-Roman cults likewise gave priests a portion of the meat they sacrificed. This illustration turns back to the topic of chapter 8 and sets the stage for the discussion of 10:14–22.

After the “interruption” of verses 13–14, Paul restates the theme of verse 12b (“I have not used any of these rights”—v. 15a) and goes on to explain why he has refused to charge for his ministry. Verse 12b has already given the essential reason: he wants to avoid all possible charges of impure motives or misuse of funds (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17). Verse 15b clarifies that his “defense” has not been a subtle hint that he wishes to reverse his policy now. Verse 15c forms an emotional outburst in the form of an anacoluthon (a grammatically incomplete sentence) in the Greek, literally, “For it would be better for me to die than—no one will empty me of my boast!” “Boast” here carries the sense of an appropriate pride in what the Lord has done in spite of Paul’s weakness (cf. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:12–12:10).

But Paul cannot legitimately boast merely in his ministry of preaching (v. 16). God has placed an irresistible call on his life to preach (cf. Jer. 20:9). Verse 17a (“if I preach voluntarily”) is thus merely hypothetical; verse 17b (“if not voluntarily”) expresses what in fact is true in Paul’s case (cf. Luke 17:7–10). Verse 18a probably belongs with verse 17 to create tighter parallelism; together they may be helpfully rendered, “For if I do this voluntarily I have a reward, but if involuntarily I receive a commission from God, what then is my reward?”6

The rest of verse 18 answers this question. Paul’s pay “turns out to be his total freedom from all merely human impositions on his ministry,” which the acceptance of payment would have invariably brought.7 The word for “use” in this verse (katachraomai) is a stronger term than the standard Greek word (chraomai) and is better rendered “full use” or even “abuse.” Paul did at times accept money from churches to whom he was not currently ministering (cf. Phil. 4:10–19), but even then he never demanded it.

Bridging Contexts

THE REASONS WHY Paul does or does not encourage receiving money for ministry speak volumes to our contemporary materialistic world, if we are willing to listen. Sadly, this is one area, perhaps even more so than with sexual morality, where many Christians are unwilling to obey Paul’s instruction. The underlying principles transcend his culture, even if his actual choice in any given instance is guided by the specifics of that situation. Again his “evangelistic principle” is not hard to detect (v. 12b), along with his concern not to lead believers into sin by linking Christian work with financial rewards.

Believers who individually and corporately benefit from the ministries of full-time Christian workers need carefully to examine and heed Paul’s call in verses 1–12a. Such ministers should not have to be so preoccupied with providing for their basic needs that they cannot devote themselves wholeheartedly to their work. Congregations should not think of their giving as providing a salary, however, in ways that tempt them to demand satisfaction of their personal whims. “The church does not pay its ministers; rather, it provides them with resources so that they are able to serve freely.”8

Those called to full-time Christian work, on the other hand, should always consider verses 12b–18. Whenever requesting or even accepting payment could hinder the spread of the gospel, “tentmaking” must always take precedence. Bivocational ministry has numerous advantages—freedom from human “strings,” not imposing a financial burden on any group of believers, and exemption from charges of mismanaging funds or ministering primarily for financial gain.

Although chapter 9 deals primarily with an apostle’s rights, verse 14 allows us to generalize Paul’s principles to any one in full-time gospel ministry. Verses 9–11, with their metaphors of sowing and reaping, suggest that such ministry need not even be full time. Nothing in the analogies of farming suggests how long the laborer works, and Paul’s tentmaking activity would qualify him for the label of “part-timer.” Therefore, it is appropriate at times to pay a wide variety of Christian workers for specialized tasks, just as it is equally appropriate for workers to volunteer their “off hours” to meet the needs of the church.

Paul’s model of accepting help from other churches but not from the congregation to which he is currently ministering finds a partial parallel in the common practice of itinerant Christians ministering freely in their home congregations but receiving gifts or love offerings elsewhere. A closer parallel emerges with the practice of missionaries receiving support from one or more congregations in one location to enable them to minister full time somewhere else. But none of these models can be absolutized, since the first Christians themselves employed different methods in different places.9 No one model, therefore, should be mandated as the only legitimate practice for a certain organization or group of believers.

Individuals may derive their authority from charisma, specialized expertise, a particular office, or because they have earned the respect of others who freely assign authority to them. The last of these forms is the most spiritually legitimate and precisely what Paul claims he should have received from the Corinthians (v. 2). Instead, sadly, he is reduced to arguing for his need not to argue for this kind of respect. Still, all ministers can learn from Paul’s example. Whatever their office, education, or personality might have already granted them, their faithful work and gracious love for their congregations should reinforce.

Verses 4–6 remind us that provision for those who minister to us need not be purely monetary. Historically, congregations have often provided housing, helped stock food supplies, and offered other material provisions to their pastors and their families. This scheme has its strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, it can enable the gift givers to know for sure where their help goes; on the other hand it can prevent ministers from choosing the most appropriate ways of disposing of more liquid assets. Verse 5 offers a healthy reminder that itinerant ministry by the married should include family members when possible (recall under 7:35). A “ministry widow” (or widower) is almost by definition an oxymoron! The adjective “believing” in this verse reinforces 7:39; when given a choice Christians should marry fellow Christians.

The hermeneutic Paul adopts in verses 8–11 has troubled many. How can he maintain that a command about oxen really applies to preachers? Once we understand that Paul is not claiming that the meaning of the original text of Deuteronomy 25:4 was about people, much of our discomfort should dissipate. Rabbinic tradition, probably already in existence in Paul’s day, regularly applied this passage, and parallel Old Testament imagery elsewhere, to humans. As in verse 12, the logic is “from the lesser to the greater.” If God is concerned with rewarding animals for their work, how much more must he be concerned for workers he has made in his own image?10

Interestingly, in 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul again links Deuteronomy 25:4 with Luke 10:7 in the explicit context of giving double honor (including financial remuneration) to elders who direct the affairs of the church well in the areas of preaching and teaching. Verse 12a points us to a consistency and even-handedness of treatment that has wide-ranging applications. Treating all leaders, indeed all people, without favoritism or partiality (cf. James 2:1–4), is a key element in preserving the unity and vitality of any Christian gathering.

Verse 12b provides the clue to knowing when to refuse pay for spiritual work, though the principle must be applied sensitively. The criticism of a small minority of believers about how a person is handling his or her money may not outweigh the potential damage done by not having funds for crucially needed ministries. On the other hand, widespread ridicule by unbelievers when Christians appeal for money in certain ways should cause great alarm and almost instant application of Paul’s principle of voluntarily relinquishing our rights.

The theme of an inherent spiritual reward for spiritual service, which permeates verses 13–18, meshes with the experiences of countless volunteers and underpaid Christian workers over the centuries. Occasionally, Christian ministry has elicited an unusual amount of prestige and financial reward, usually when the gospel has been compromised by political entanglements (see above, p. 57). But for the most part, believers who have chosen paid ministry as a career have foregone higher salaries and more comfortable lifestyles that other occupations or careers could have afforded them. Yet those who are truly called with the compulsion Paul felt will confess that no other line of work could have proved so satisfying, notwithstanding all of the obstacles they may have encountered.

A good test for would-be full-time Christian workers is to ask themselves the question if they could imagine being truly happier doing anything else. If the answer is yes, they probably have not been called. Without Paul’s sense of compulsion, it will be too easy to give up when the hard times come.11 Even for laity, if people have identified their spiritual gifts and are living lives of fellowship and obedience to God, they will naturally want to devote a large amount of their free time to utilizing those gifts for the upbuilding of the church and the work of the church in the world. Indeed, they will work hard precisely in order to create such free time.

Paul’s personal commission (vv. 15–18), of course, does not apply to everyone, even though all believers must be prepared to give an account of the hope within them (1 Peter 3:15). But each of us is called to use our spiritual gifts with diligence, generosity, and earnestness—in short, going above and beyond the call of duty (Rom. 12:3–8). And those in positions of authority do well to obey Peter’s words to his fellow elders: “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock” (1 Peter 5:2–3).12

Contemporary Significance

OUR WORLD ALTERNATES between heavy doses of rebellion against sentiment and equally putrid servings of authoritarianism. Not surprisingly, the church all too frequently imitates the world in these pendulum swings. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 9 suggest a third way. Christian ministers retain genuine spiritual authority over those entrusted to their care, notwithstanding the radically egalitarian and democratizing forces of modern society. But that authority must be used for the best interests of others, not self, and used for that which will best promote the gospel in a world quick to ridicule and reject it. The heavy “top-down” hierarchies of many Christian organizations find no support from Paul’s (or Jesus’) models of servant ministry (recall our discussion above, pp. 92–93).

“Tentmaking,” in particular, is making a healthy comeback, especially in missions circles, though it needs to be taken as a serious option by even larger numbers of Christian workers. There are no countries “closed” to the gospel, notwithstanding the frequent use of this expression to refer to nations with government bans on missionary visas. Rather, Christians prepared to employ their skills overseas in business, industry, or teaching English as a foreign language, may regularly gain entry into those areas otherwise most hostile to professional Christianity. Their witness, in word and deed, can break down barriers that traditional missionary efforts never will. And even in countries that grant missionary visas, people who come first of all to share a practical skill or trade will find their more informal friendship evangelism opens new doors on many fronts.

Given the growing costs of sending a Western family to live abroad, and given the increasing reluctance of churches to support missionaries they do not personally know, it would seem more compassionate and efficient for would-be missionaries and already existing missions organizations to consider the tentmaking model much more often than they do.13 Not merely 1 Corinthians, but Paul’s ministry and message as a whole evidence almost no concern with formal missionary or evangelistic mandates, yet they are permeated with models of individuals who voluntarily proclaim and share in every walk of life how Christ has transformed their lives.14 In Third-World contexts, of course, many Christians have no choice but to ply a trade and minister “on the side.”

Even at “home” in the Western world, bivocational ministry is increasingly needed. In many instances, small congregations of young Christians in working-class or impoverished neighborhoods should not be asked to try to support their ministers. Even when they are asked, they often cannot do so. With more and more people taking early retirement and/or enjoying years of good health after retirement, churches are hiring and should increasingly continue to hire senior citizens, for nominal remuneration, to engage in ministries of visitation, outreach, care, and the like. Where pensions are meager, the church may supplement them, but many times older people have the means to donate large amounts of time freely.

Affluent suburbia does not as easily motivate people to substantial volunteer ministries, but here verse 12 comes into play. Large segments of the well-to-do, non-Christian world, highly influenced by secular education and media, remain convinced that most conservative Christians are racketeers, seeking to bilk the rich out of their money for self-serving ends. Radio and television ministries that constantly harangue their audiences for donations do little to dispel this stereotype. Numerous televangelists keep phone numbers constantly on their viewers’ screens, distracting from any message they might be trying to preach other than “we want your money.” Questionable spending practices of the money they do receive often add fuel to the fire.

If such techniques are genuinely necessary just to “stay afloat,” then rigorous financial disclosure and accountability remains crucial. Even then, one wonders just how many of the largely overlapping parachurch ministries currently competing for the same donors’ dollars are really necessary. Why not work together and strive for one (and only one) quality Christian radio or television station per audience market? Why not consolidate the proliferation of missions organizations into a few vibrant, healthy ones? Why can’t Christian publishers jointly decide what their markets need, rather than constantly duplicating efforts to produce yet another profitable but over-priced product?

Tentmaking, nevertheless, has substantial weaknesses, not least of which is the amount of time available to devote to evangelism, discipleship, preaching, teaching, and so on. The paid professional minister is not likely to disappear from the horizon in the near future. In some circles, old myths still persist, such as the philosophy of congregations that keep their pastors poor in hopes that they will depend more on God. Where possible, both the extremes of poverty and of riches (as defined locally) should be avoided (Prov. 30:8), but when this is not possible, the minister must accept his or her lot graciously and with contentment (Phil. 4:11–13). Some churches have adopted the partially helpful policy of paying their pastors the median salary of their congregation or community. While better than setting such people up on financial pedestals, this policy nevertheless discourages outreach to anyone who earns less than the median, lest one’s salary be lowered for the next year!

A better guideline, perhaps, is to give enough so that basic needs are always covered but never so much that leaders are tempted to enter or remain in ministry because of how much they can make. The amounts commanded by the senior pastors of many megachurches, well-established Christian counselors in private practice, and Christian celebrities in particular, often seem substantially out of sync with this guideline. Seminarians are often heard discussing how much a church has to offer them before they will consider it. Not surprisingly, small or less affluent parishes have a difficult time finding pastors. Some pastoral search committees of local churches have committed to never hiring any candidate who raises the question of money too early in the interviewing process or who makes inappropriate requests for salary or fringe benefits. Such caution seems wise.15