In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul repeatedly uses the Greek word “exousia” (ἐξουσία) to speak of his “authority” or “right” to material support as a minister of the gospel. He speaks of his “exousia” in several ways:
| Instances of “exousia” in 1 Cor 9 (BLB) | Explanation |
|---|---|
| v4 Have we no authority to eat and to drink? | To eat and drink in this context is to receive material support; Paul alludes to the discussion about eating in the previous chapter. |
| v5 Have we no authority to take about a believer as a wife, as also the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? | Supporting a family while planting churches requires material support |
| v6 Or only I and Barnabas, have we no authority not to work? | Ceasing from secular labors requires material support |
| v12 If others partake of the authority over you, should we not more? But we did not use this right. Instead, we bear all things, so that we should not place any hindrance to the gospel of Christ. | Material support would come from those Christians who benefit from Paul’s ministry |
| v18 What then is my reward? That in preaching the gospel, I should offer the gospel free of charge, so as not to use up my right in the gospel. | In preaching the gospel freely, Paul does not receive material things in exchange |
Of all the passages in Scripture dedicated to the intersection between money and ministry, 1 Corinthians 9 is by far the lengthiest. Naturally, any interpretive conclusions lead to substantial implications. To what degree do recipients of ministry owe repayment? May a minister always receive material support in the context of ministry?
I would posit that there are three primary ways of interpreting Paul’s right. In the context of ministry and giving, it is either:
A. a claim to material support,
B. a plenary authority to receive material support, or
C. a limited authority to receive material support.
The point of this article is to advocate for C as the correct understanding. I will present arguments for this in a moment, but first, a few words of clarification.
A: When Paul speaks of his right, he does not primarily have in mind his claim to material support or the duty or payment that is owed to him. Certainly, the fact that something is owed to him is repeatedly asserted in this passage (e.g., 1 Cor. 9:11). Additionally, it is clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18; Gal 6:6). However, my contention is that this is not his emphasis in using the word “right,” as one might speak of “a right to a fair trial.”
B: When Paul speaks of his right, he also does not indicate a plenary authority to receive all that is offered to him. That is, it is not the kind of authority where his actions may stand without being subject to review. My point is not merely that Paul will have to give an account for his actions on the day of judgment (2 Cor. 5:10), but that here in this life there are clear boundaries to his proper use of authority.
C: When Paul speaks of his right, he indicates a limited authority to receive what is offered. We may here consider the difference between a “right of autonomy” and a “right of attorney.” One who is autonomous has plenary authority over his own self, but one who is an attorney has a limited authority over the life of another. As a steward with a delegated authority, he has a fiduciary duty to honor his client’s mandates and directives. Right use of Paul’s authority is not merely constrained by his private sense of wisdom, but by the public charter of gospel ministry.
What then is the limit on Paul’s authority? As a representative of Christ, the apostle may only receive material support that is legitimately offered to Christ. Receiving anything beyond this would be an abuse of his authority. Specifically, in preaching free of charge (1 Cor. 9:18; 2 Cor. 11:7), Paul rejects all reciprocity that would suggest he is to be honored as the source of the gospel. While he happily accepts what is offered to the Lord in thankfulness, he rejects any exchange for his message.[1]
“Exousia” Indicates Authority
“Exousia” indicates an authority or power to control. Bauer’s Lexicon (BDAG) gives a semantic range of seven possible meanings, all being variations on notions of authority or power, none referring to the state of something being owed as we often think of the word “right.” This is not to say that “right” is a poor translation; often the word “right” indicates power or authority such as “a right to bear arms.” However, it is to say that “right” has the potential to imply a meaning not indicated by the word “exousia”: something that is owed by another as in the phrase “a right to a fair trial.” Note that rights come in two varieties: negative rights are things that should not be taken away (e.g., property rights) and positive rights are things that should be given (e.g., health care rights).[2]
While English Bible versions often translate “exousia” (ἐξουσία) as “right” in 1 Corinthians 9, the vast majority of times it is simply translated “authority.” For example, though the word appears 102 times in Scripture, outside of 1 Corinthians 9 and 2 Thessalonians 3:9 (which addresses the same topic of Paul’s fundraising), the Berean Literal Bible (BLB) translates it as “right” only once and the New American Standard Bible (NASB) only translates it as “right” three times. In each of these instances, the word “right” could be replaced with “power,” “authority,” or “access,” and often is in other versions.
| BLB | |
| 1 Corinthians 8:9 | But be careful, lest somehow this right of yours becomes an occasion of stumbling to those being weak |
| NASB | |
| John 1:12 | to them He gave the right to become children of God |
| Hebrews 13:10 | We have an altar from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat. |
| Revelation 22:14 | they will have the right to the tree of life |
These examples speak of a freedom of access rather than something that is owed by someone else.
Paul’s Analogies Indicate a Limited Authority
In 1 Corinthians 9, Paul employs a bevy of analogies to describe his right to material support. Elsewhere, we have analyzed the nature of these analogies, but it is worth pointing out that these all indicate a limited authority.
The several agricultural analogies are the least direct, but neither the ox (1 Cor. 9:9), the vinedresser (1 Cor. 9:7b), nor the shepherd (1 Cor. 9:7c) have a direct authority to take from the produce. In each of these situations they receive under the owner’s direction.
The analogy of the soldier is more direct.
Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? (1 Corinthians 9:7a)
Consider the contexts in which the soldier is permitted to take money from citizens. He should collect from taxes given to the king; the citizens are obligated to the king, and as the soldier collects, he has authority from the king to receive this money even for his own support. However, there are circumstances where it would be wrong for him to receive money. If he compels a citizen to give directly to him rather than to the king, it is extortion. If the citizen offers money beyond his duty to the king, for the sake of the soldier, it is bribery. The soldier’s right to receive on behalf of the king is limited rather than plenary.
The same is true for the most direct analogy: that of the priesthood.
Do you not know that those working in the temple eat the things of the temple; those attending at the altar partake in the altar? (1 Corinthians 9:13)
The Levites received of the tithes and offerings given by the people in Israel. As frequently indicated throughout Numbers 18, “the Lord is their inheritance” (Deu 18:2). That is, they had authority to receive contributions and sacrifices that were made to God. However, this was not a plenary authority to receive anything offered to them in the context of ministry. If one offered sacrifice directly to them rather than to the Lord, it would be idolatrous. The sons of Eli committed a great sin in receiving meat that was not offered to the Lord (1 Sam. 2:12-17). If we would not regard the priests as having a plenary authority to any kind of support, we should not regard Paul as having this sort of authority either.
Paul’s Primary Point is His Limited Use of Authority
Paul begins 1 Corinthians 9 by establishing his “right” or authority. However, he starts from this foundation in order to highlight the contrast between his authority and its proper use.
If others partake of the authority over you, should we not more? But we did not use this right. Instead, we bear all things, so that we should not place any hindrance to the gospel of Christ. (1 Cor. 9:12)
But I have not used any of these. And neither have I written these things that it should be thus with me; for it would be better to me to die, rather than that anyone will make void my boasting. (1 Cor. 9:15)
What then is my reward? That in preaching the gospel, I should offer the gospel free of charge, so as not to use up my right in the gospel. (1 Cor. 9:18)
Of course, when people refer to this chapter, they frequently identify the premise as the main conclusion. In hearing the standard appeal to this passage, one might imagine that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 9 in order to argue for his right to receive material support. The 19th century Scottish minister James Begg the Younger observed this difficulty as he addressed the problem of churches raising money through charging rent for pews. In his time, many would appeal to this chapter in order to argue that ministers should receive material support from those blessed by their ministry. While this is an ideal that is implied by the passage, Paul’s main point is rather to explain why that ideal should often remain unrealized.
The Apostle did not enjoin Christian ministers to live on the contributions of their hearers. Those who quote [1 Corinthians 9] for the purpose of proving the opposite doctrine always halt in the middle of the apostle’s statement with an evident design.[3]
How does this observation relate to the question of whether Paul’s right is a plenary authority? If his main point is that his use of his authority should be limited, it certainly adds weight to the idea that the authority itself is limited.
Even the length of the chapter adds weight to the judgment that Paul’s authority is limited. That is, a well-developed understanding of Scripture should recognize that a substantially long discourse on ethics would tend toward that which has direct application. Because Scripture is designed for edification (2 Tim. 3:16), personal or hyper-contextual considerations are typically relegated to shorter pericopes. Yet those who would see Paul’s right as a plenary authority regard the limitation of its use to be the result of such considerations.
Paul’s Stewardship Indicates a Limited Authority
Paul’s reason for rejecting material support is centered in the notion of stewardship.
For if I preach the gospel, there is no boasting to me, for necessity is laid upon me. But woe be to me if I should not preach the gospel. For if I do this willingly, I have a reward; but if unwillingly, I am entrusted with a stewardship. What then is my reward? That in preaching the gospel, I should offer the gospel free of charge, so as not to use up my right[4] in the gospel. (1 Corinthians 9:16-18)
Paul rejects the idea that he operates with autonomy when he says he does not proclaim the gospel of his own will. That is, he is not a free agent who gives the gospel to whom he wills for the price that he sets. Instead, he is a steward who does not use his particular authority to charge for the gospel.
Because Paul says that he has a right or authority to receive material support, many imagine that it would not have been inherently wrong for him to have received that which was offered in Corinth. It would only be unsuitable to his particular context or strategy. We will see in a moment why Paul speaks in terms of possessing a broader right to material support rather than explicitly disavowing it in the context of reciprocity,[5] but consider the implications that the apostle himself has stated here: It is not merely that he would be making a strategic blunder or unwise move; to use his authority beyond particular boundaries would be to no longer operate as a steward. He can either forfeit the notion of a plenary authority or he can forfeit his status as a servant of Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 4:1). Given his options, he embraces a limited authority to receive support.
This stewardship connects to Paul’s boasting and reward. If he were to act with a plenary authority and not as a steward, he would sacrifice his grounds for boasting. That is, to step outside of his limited authority would be to abdicate any claim to God’s operation in his ministry. “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31; cf. 15:31; 2 Cor. 10:17-18). Moreover, it would sacrifice his reward in exchange for a less valuable one (cf. Mat 6:1-6). Over material things received in exchange for preaching, he would prefer the high status of being a steward of God (1 Cor. 9:17). Sincere stewardship stands at odds with any peddling of the word (2 Cor. 2:17). These boasts and rewards Paul chooses from are mutually exclusive because they come from mutually exclusive modes of proclamation: autonomy and stewardship, plenary authority and limited authority.
| plenary authority | limited authority | |
| reciprocity | accepted | rejected |
| mode | willing | unwilling |
| boast | in self | in the Lord |
| reward | reciprocity | stewardship |
1 Corinthians 8 and 10 Express a Limited Authority
Perhaps the strongest argument to be made comes from the larger context of the epistle. Much insight can be drawn from the surrounding chapters, which address the matter of meat sacrificed to idols. In fact, chapter 9 serves as an illustration for the consideration of these surrounding chapters. There, he speaks of the Corinthians’ “right” to eat.
But be careful, lest somehow this right of yours becomes an occasion of stumbling to those being weak (1 Corinthians 8:9)
Paul’s comments regarding the conscience in 1 Corinthians 8:7–12 have given rise to an interpretation that regards the issue in Corinth to center on a conflict between those of a strong conscience and those of a weak conscience. In this view, those with strong consciences know they are permitted to eat all things, but those with weak consciences do not feel comfortable availing themselves of this freedom. Paul’s solution is for the strong to be considerate of others by foregoing their right to eat food sacrificed to idols so as not to offend the muddy consciences of the weak. By this reading, the strong are not at risk of any religious danger, only of offending weaker brothers. This appears to be corroborated by the companion text in Romans 14:1.
However, this Corinthian contention between the weak and the strong is assumed rather than proven.[6] There is no suggestion that those with weak consciences may be offended or that they would somehow benefit from understanding that it is permissible to eat food sacrificed to idols. Instead, Paul’s concern is the opposite: he worries that they will be drawn into eating (1 Cor. 8:10). Their weak consciences, which do not know the difference between right and wrong, may be deceived by the foolish bravado of other Christians into thinking that one may eat food sacrificed to idols. In 1 Corinthians 10, he directly tells them to flee idolatry by ceasing to eat food sacrificed to idols.
Therefore my beloved, flee from idolatry. …Then what do I mean? That what is sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? Rather, that what the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God. And I do not want you to be fellow partakers with demons. (1 Corinthians 10:14,19-20)
Moreover, the connection to Romans 14 is not as direct as it appears on an initial inspection. While Romans 14 speaks of a weak brother, 1 Corinthians 8 speaks of a weak conscience. The weak conscience of 1 Corinthians 8 is a conscience that remains unconvicted regarding a sinful action unlike the weak brother of Romans 14 that is wrongly convicted by a neutral action.
If the Corinthians’ right in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 is neither a claim to ownership of food nor a plenary authority to eat, then Paul’s right in 1 Corinthians 9—which serves as an illustration for the surrounding chapters—must have a similar shape. In arguing that a right to eat does not entail a permissive license to eat in all circumstances (cf. 1 Cor. 6:13), he points to his own ministry. His right to receive material support does not entail a permissive license to receive in all circumstances.
The Associated Notion of Lawfulness Expresses a Limited Authority
Exploring the larger context of 1 Corinthians, we must take note of the Greek word “exestin” (ἔξεστιν), typically translated as “lawful.” In English, “right” and “lawful” look and sound very different, but “exousia” and “exestin” are closely related etymologically.
| root | οὐσία | ἐστιν |
| parsing | feminine present participle of the verb eimi (εἰμί) | present indicative third person singular of the verb eimi (εἰμί) |
| meaning | being | is |
| prefixed | ἐξουσία | ἔξεστιν |
| meaning | right | lawful |
In other words, when Paul uses the terms “right” and “lawful,” he is speaking in terms of two aspects of the same concept. When a person has a “right” to an activity, that activity for them is “lawful.” Recognizing this connection is possibly the most important key to realizing Paul speaks of a limited right, because he explicitly speaks of “lawfulness” as a limited authority rather than plenary authority.
Paul originally addresses the notion of lawfulness in 1 Corinthians 6:12. Likely appealing to the grace of God (cf. Rom. 6:1), the Corinthians have written to him about all actions being lawful. Rather than rejecting their claim outright, Paul concedes there is a sense in which all things are lawful, but he cleverly responds by distinguishing “lawful” from “profitable.”
“All things are lawful to me,” but not all things do profit. “All things are lawful to me,” but I will not be mastered by anything. (1 Cor. 6:12)
What kinds of activities are lawful but not profitable? He speaks of both food and sex (1 Cor. 6:13-14). He then addresses each over the next several chapters, beginning with sex.
Paul argues that sex is lawful, but that doesn’t mean one has a permissive license to sleep with a prostitute. Next, he argues that eating is lawful, but that does mean one should eat food sacrificed to idols. If the matter weren’t clear enough already, he even demonstrates his unity of thought by closing off his argument with a repetition of the aphorism: “‘All things are lawful,’ but not all things are profitable” (1 Cor. 10:23).
In context, the point of Paul’s illustration in 1 Corinthians 9 becomes obvious.
| lawful | not profitable | passage |
| sex | sexual immorality | 1 Corinthians 6:15-7:40 |
| eating | eating food sacrificed to idols | 1 Corinthians 8; 10 |
| receiving material things | charging for preaching | 1 Corinthians 9 |
Returning from the notion of lawfulness to rights, if the Christian’s right to sexual activity is not a plenary authority to enjoy sex as he pleases, only guided by some personal or hyper-contextual wisdom considerations, why would we regard Paul’s right this way? Paul does not speak of a plenary authority to receive material support, but a limited authority with clear boundaries.
Conclusion
While we’ve only scratched the surface of 1 Corinthians 9, it should be evident that when Paul uses the word “right,” he does not indicate a claim to material support or even a plenary authority to receive it. Even as an apostle, he does not have a permissive license or legal carte blanche that would justify any and all courses of action. Rather, he denotes a limited authority of stewardship that permits him to receive that which is truly offered to the Lord. Paul would never charge for his preaching, accepting honor for himself that belongs to the Lord. However, as his representative and steward, the apostle gladly receives what is offered to the Lord.
But I have all things, and abound. I am full, having received from Epaphroditus the things from you, an odor of a sweet smell, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God. (Philippians 4:18)
A minister of the gospel does not have a plenary authority to receive every gift that is offered to him. He has something much greater! He has a boast in the Lord and a reward of stewardship itself, and within that stewardship from God he may receive all that is offered in sacrifice to the Lord.
Consider Acts 16:15. Paul resists the hospitality of Lydia since she is a new convert to the Christian faith, one who would likely want to repay him for the gospel . Yet he accepts when she offers it on the basis of her service to the Lord. ↩︎
This is not to comment on the reality of health care rights or to deny that a right to a fair trial can be reframed as a negative right—one who is not given a fair trial typically has their property rights violated. My point is just to demonstrate the semantic range of the English word “right” extends beyond the Greek word “exousia.” ↩︎
James Begg, Seat Rents, 20. ↩︎
“use” is “katachresasthai” (καταχρήσασθαι), intensified with the prefix “kata” (κατα). The idea is not that Paul made some use of his rights, but that he did not abuse his authority (cf. New King James Version). See also Garland, 1 Corinthians, 2003, 427. ↩︎
It plays off of the Corinthians’ incomplete notion of Christian liberty, that “all things are lawful.” ↩︎
David E. Garland offers a thorough critique of this interpretation in his commentary. Garland, 1 Corinthians, 350–362. ↩︎