1 Corinthians 9 - An Exegetical Walkthrough

Transcript

In conversations about charging for ministry, 1 Corinthians 9 often comes up, and for good reason. It’s the longest passage we have that talks about supporting those in ministry. But people often come away with the wrong message when they read it.

1 Corinthians 9 is one of those passages that initially seems fairly straightforward, but when you dive into the intricacies of Paul’s arguments, it can take a lot of work to see how everything fits together. For example:

• Why did Paul accept support from other churches, but not the church in Corinth?
• How could he claim to be someone who preaches free of charge if he did in fact accept financial gifts?

If you are looking for a quick excuse to justify selling ministry, then 1 Corinthians 9 is a great passage to mention, as when taken in isolation (and out of context), it has several verses that would appear to support such a view. But if you genuinely love the Lord with all your heart, and want to ensure you are being true to him, then you’ll want to approach this passage with care, seeking to understand its context and submit to its teachings.

In this video, I want to lay our cards on the table and show you exactly how and why we interpret 1 Corinthians 9 to be consistent with our position that ministry should be supported, not sold. If you are skeptical of our position, please feel free to point out why in the comments, though preferably after watching the whole video. Or if you, like us, are convinced that ministry should not be sold, this is a really important passage to get your head around, so that you can graciously correct those who misinterpret it.

An initial survey of the chapter

Let’s start by jumping straight in, and see if we can work out what Paul is saying. I’ll be reading mainly from the Berean Standard Bible, which is a relatively new and free translation. But I’ll also be consulting other translations as well, so feel free to follow along in whichever you prefer.

1-3 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you yourselves not my workmanship in the Lord? Even if I am not an apostle to others, surely I am to you. For you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who scrutinize me:

Now, this initial line of questioning sounds very defensive. Paul is asking the readers to verify whether they believe him to be a legitimate servant of the Lord. And indeed, Paul continues it with “This is my defense.” So it sounds like people had been accusing Paul of something. Let’s continue, to see what it is.

4-7 Have we no right to food and to drink? Have we no right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or are Barnabas and I the only apostles who must work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not drink of its milk?

Ok, so it is clearer now that Paul is talking on the topic of material support for those in ministry. While he doesn’t mention money specifically, he does give lots of references to different kinds of provisions. He mentions food, bringing family with him, working, and then specifically about enjoying the fruit of one’s own labour. So far Paul has been asking common sense questions about the right of someone to earn a living from their work. Everyone no doubt agrees that you should be paid for your labour.

So it’s possible some people had been questioning whether Paul had a right to receive support, and he’s responding to that. Maybe they thought he was a financial burden to them, or he was just in ministry for the money. Let’s keep reading to see if that is true.

In verses 8–11 Paul further argues the case (which we’ll examine a bit later), but in verse 12 we come across something unusual. Paul says “But we did not exercise this right.” Now, maybe this is just a side note, mentioning that although Paul didn’t accept anything from the Corinthians, that doesn’t mean he didn’t have a right to. We’ll leave that for now.

Let’s continue from verse 14 as here we have Paul’s point about material support clearly spelled out: “the Lord has prescribed that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.” So that seems to sum up the chapter pretty well then, doesn’t it? That this passage is about supporting ministry and people had been questioning Paul’s right to receive such support.

But straight after saying that, Paul again reiterates that he didn’t actually make use of that right: “But I have not used any of these rights.” It might be that he is anticipating requesting payment from them in future, but no, he continues to say: “I am not writing this to suggest that something be done for me. Indeed, I would rather die than let anyone nullify my boast.” Now that’s pretty strong language. So sure is he that he has never solicited support from the Corinthians, that he says he would rather “die” than be found to have done such a thing.

But maybe this is just Paul’s personal choice. He’s pretty clearly establishing the right to receive support for ministry, but he’s just noting that he personally decided not to make use of it, so that people don’t get distracted from the main point, that it is right to be compensated for one’s labour. In the next section, from verse 16 to 18 he talks about boasting, being compelled to preach the gospel, and feeling a personal reward for doing it free of charge. So maybe he is just being noble and going beyond what is required. In which case, preaching for free would not be something he expects of everyone.

Issues with common interpretations

But hold on, there still seems to be some problems here. If this is just a personal choice of Paul to preach free of charge, why doesn’t he commend it to others? Paul is meant to be an example to other believers, and if presenting the gospel free of charge is a noble thing to do, then wouldn’t he be encouraging others to follow in his footsteps rather than arguing so strongly for a right to support?

He says that he personally preaches for free “rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.” Does that mean it’s ok to hinder the gospel if it is your personal choice to?

Even more confusing, Paul did accept material support from some other churches. For example, in Phillipians chapter 4 he says the church in Philippi “provided for my needs again and again” and that they had sent him financial gifts. So did he preach free of charge to some churches and not others?

We now have several questions and not many answers:

1. What’s the purpose of this passage? (is it a defence or something else?)
2. What does the right to material support look like? (should you preach for free or not?)
3. Why did Paul accept money from other churches but not the church in Corinth?

Well, we’ve so far taken only a surface level look at the text. It’s time to do some serious exegesis. Exegesis is simply striving to understand the original meaning of a passage so that we can faithfully interpret it for today.

There are three main parts to it:

• The context of the passage
• The content of the passage
• The implications of the passage (for the original readers and for us today)

Before we begin, it’s important to have another careful read of the text. And this time, the chapters before and after our passage should be read as well for context. Please pause the video and read 1 Corinthians chapters 8 to 10 in your preferred translation. As the rest of the video will assume you are familiar with all three chapters.

Immediate context

Now, in terms of context, let’s start by looking at the verse immediately before chapter 9 begins:

“Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble. Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?..”

Now you can see why there is a chapter break there. Eating meat and supporting ministry would seem to be very different topics. In our modern bibles we not only have chapter breaks but also section headings. So it is understandable if you assume that Paul has simply changed to a completely different topic here. However, Paul’s original letter to the Corinthians did not have chapters or section headings. In fact, it didn’t even have paragraphs or spaces between many words.

Here’s the earliest copy we have of Paul’s letter, with the first verse of chapter 9 marked. Later editors generally did a good job of dividing books into chapters at logical locations, but every now and then they can lead us astray. And unfortunately, that is the case with 1 Corinthians 9.

If we look to the start of chapter 8, Paul introduces the topic of idol food:

“Now about food sacrificed to idols…”

He first lays the foundation that idols are not really gods as there is only one God. So in some ways it doesn’t really matter what you eat.

“We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world, and that there is no God but one.”

But he then cautions that many people do not yet understand this:

“But not everyone has this knowledge”

And that Christians can lead one another astray in this regard if they think it’s ok to partake in idolatrous meals:

“Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak”

He finishes the section by stating what his own practice is:

“Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to stumble.”

And that’s where we get to chapter 9.

However, Paul isn’t done yet. If we go past chapter 9, we see that Paul resumes the topic in chapter 10. In fact, all of chapter 10 is devoted to food sacrificed to idols, and Paul’s instructions are more fleshed out. If you only read chapter 8 then you would come away with an incomplete understanding of Paul’s teaching on idol food. So chapter 8 introduces the topic and chapter 10 concludes it, and our chapter, chapter 9, is right in the middle!

While it’s possible Paul simply went on a tangent and returned to the original topic, we at least have to ask: “What prompted that tangent? What does idol food have to do with supporting those in ministry?”

Historical context

This is a good point to look into what food sacrificed to idols actually was. In South–East Asia it is fairly common to find yourself in a situation where you are being offered food that has been sacrificed to something. In some instances it may be sacrificed to a Buddhist deity, in others it may be sacrificed to deceased family members. It’s an awkward reality for believers from such backgrounds, as it can be very impolite to refuse to eat such food when it is offered to you. So the question of “do I eat this or not?” is a very real one that many believers still face today.

Sometimes it’s helpful to consult commentaries on the historical context of a passage, however, you can often get important details from Scripture itself. Just from the letter we can discern that when food was sacrificed to an idol it would not be burnt up, but was instead eaten by the worshippers. It was eaten at temples and also sold in marketplaces, after already being offered as sacrifices. These sacrifices were given to many different gods. Since the city of Corinth was a Greek city occupied by Romans, they would have been worshipping Greco–Roman gods.

It may seem like such foods were not really sacrifices then, because the worshippers got back what they offered, rather than losing possession of it. But this isn’t unusual. Some sacrifices in the Old Testament were given to God, but God would then give them back to the worshipper, or to the Levites to provide for them. It’s also the case in Asia that sacrifices will be offered to ancestors, but then received back from the ancestors after a period of time, and eaten.

So knowing whether to eat such food, and under what circumstances, was an issue the Christians in Corinth were really struggling with. Paul argues that while Christians may have the right to eat anything, eating food can still be a means of participating in idol worship. And such worship is demonic. As he says in 10:21: “you cannot partake in the table of the Lord and the table of demons too.”

So in the physical dimension, food is just food, and Christians have the right to eat any food they like. Which is the “knowledge” some in Corinth were puffed up with. But in the spiritual dimension, it can still be participation in the demonic. In chapter 8, Paul makes it clear that leading other believers astray in this matter is sinful. But that’s only part of the problem, as in chapter 10, if anyone would understand your eating of food as participation in idol worship, whether yourself, a believer, or even an unbeliever, then it is forbidden. It’s not a matter of choice, rather it’s an imperative.

Literary context

With that background, let’s now think about the broader literary context of the passage. How does chapter 9 fit with the rest of the contents of the letter?

Well, a key theme in chapter 9 is the concept of “rights,” having a right to material support as a minister of the gospel. The word used for rights is “ἐξουσία” and it comes up six times in chapter 9. It also notably comes up once in chapter 8 as well, regarding the right to eat any kind of food. So we already have a bit of a parallel between chapter 8 and chapter 9. Chapter 8 discusses the nature of a Christian’s right to eat food, and chapter 9 discusses a Christian’s right to be supported for gospel work.

There is another word related to ἐξουσία that we should also pay attention to. It is ἔξεστιν which can also be translated as a “right,” which is how the NIV translates it for chapter 6 verse 12:

“I have the right to do anything,” (NIV)

Other translations use “lawful” or “permissible,” such as the BSB which says:

“Everything is permissible for me,” (BSB)

In the context of chapter 6, it seems some in Corinth believed that they had the right to use their bodies as they pleased, specifically in regard to sex. Paul corrects them, but notice how he corrects them. He doesn’t dismiss them and say “No, you don’t have a right to have sex,” he actually affirms them by repeating their claim, but with clarification. In chapter 6 verse 12 we have:

“Everything is permissible for me,” but not everything is beneficial (6:12)

And then Paul clarifies this further in the next verse, saying:

The body is not intended for sexual immorality, but for the Lord (6:13)

So yes, you do have the “right” to have sex as a Christian, but it is a limited right. It is a right that can be exercised in moral ways, but also immoral ways.

Free speech

Let’s take a short break here, and consider another type of right that is hotly debated today: The right to free speech.

When as a society we talk about “a right to free speech,” what are we actually saying? We’re saying that people should be free to express their opinions without fear of reprisal. Otherwise truth could be suppressed if it is not something those in power want to hear.

But at the same time, we’re not saying all speech is moral are we? You may have a right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean it’s fine to be rude or tell lies. Some speech may even be illegal, not the words themselves, but the context and intention of the speaker. The world continues to struggle with where to draw the line in this regard, and this comes out in one of the most important international documents on human rights. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted in 1966, and it established a right to free expression which includes free speech:

“Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information”

Yet the authors realised that such a right could be abused, which is why they qualified it with the following statement:

“The exercise of the rights… carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions”

Regardless of secular law, this is certainly true for Christians isn’t it? You may be legally allowed to say what you like, but Christians are to be very careful with their words. James 1:26 says:

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not bridle his tongue, he deceives his heart and his religion is worthless.

In other words, the right to free speech, whether under the law or under Christ, is a limited right. It can be abused, and can be used immorally.

Returning to the literary context

Likewise, when Paul talks about “rights” in the first letter to the Corinthians, he is not talking about rights that are always permissible to be exercised. For each of the following three rights, he indeed cautions that they should not always be exercised:

Right	Paul’s caution (NIV)
Sex	“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial.
Food	Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak.
Support	But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

The primary word for “rights,” ἐξουσία, occurs a number of times in the New Testament, and it is almost always translated as “authority.” In fact, it’s really only in chapter 9, and a couple other places, that bibles translate it as “right.” The problem with translating it as a “right” is that it can disconnect that right from the one who grants it. We are stewards of what God has given us. He gives us the authority to act as his servants, and that authority is not to be abused. We do not exercise our “rights” or “authority” according to our own wishes, but according to the wishes of our master.

Sex is allowed, but not outside of marriage. Eating meat is allowed, but not when it would be participation in idol worship. So when we come to the topic of support for ministry, the literary context is highly suggestive that it too should be understood as a limited authority. Yes, people in ministry have the authority from God to request material support as his servants. But no, that doesn’t mean you have free license to commercialize the gospel in any way you please.

We can also see from the other topics that there are exercises of authority that are always an abuse, and there are other exercises of it that are conditional. This is what the Corinthians were struggling with. Most would have known they shouldn’t sacrifice food to idols themselves, that was clear, but they failed to recognize that food sacrificed by others could still be problematic, depending on whether one is aware of it or not. Paul says if you are unaware it is idol food then there’s no harm done, even if there’s a good chance idol food is sold in the market you frequent. But if someone informs you that it definitely is idol food, then you should abstain from eating it. Likewise, sex can be abused even in marriage, and couples should carefully discern whether they are genuinely loving one another when they engage in it.

So when it comes to the right to support, we should anticipate that some uses of it will always be abusive, while others will depend on the circumstances. This helps to make sense of why Paul affirmed the right for the other apostles to receive support, yet decided to abstain from it himself to not hinder the gospel in his initial visits to Corinth. Determining exactly what constitutes clear abuse will largely depend on how we interpret the passage, so let’s continue with our exegesis.

Genre

We’ve so far looked at the context of the passage. Now it’s time to look at the contents of the passage itself. We’ll be looking at the genre, structure of the passage, and significant details in it. Let’s start with the genre. It’s obviously a letter to Christians in Corinth, but how does that affect how we understand the passage?

Well, since it’s a letter to a specific group of people, it is likely to be addressing specific issues they were confronting. Much teaching in the letter may be generic in nature, but it will be applied in ways specific to the audience.

When we consider Paul’s teaching in chapter 9 then, on supporting ministers. (And by that I mean anyone who engages in ministry, whether a pastor, Sunday school teacher, musician, etc.) Paul is not writing a textbook chapter on supporting ministers. He’s addressing the issue for a reason. But as we noted earlier on, that reason isn’t that the Corinthians had a problem with supporting people in ministry. In fact, we’ll learn later in his second letter to the Corinthians that they were too eager to give to ministry. They even thought it was strange that Paul wasn’t charging for it.

The Corinthians were having issues with what’s permissible when it comes to sex, they were having issues with what’s permissible when it comes to food, but the issue of material support is different. It’s embedded within the section on idol food, and rather than it being about the Corinthians’ right, it’s about Paul’s right. Regarding sex and food, Paul is telling the Corinthians what to do. But in regard to support, Paul is telling the Corinthians what he does. He is setting an example for them to follow, as he says at the end of it all in 11:1:

You are to imitate me, just as I imitate Christ.

So the context and genre are signalling to us that chapter 9 is an illustration. Just as Paul gives up his rights in regard to support, so should the Corinthians give up their rights in regard to idol food.

Structure

When we initially did our survey of the passage, I pondered whether the main point was the right to support, and Paul’s revelations that he didn’t actually accept anything were just sidenotes. But now, given our knowledge of the context of the passage, I’d like to suggest that, in fact, those statements are the climaxes of the passage.

Here’s a breakdown of the key sections:

1–6     Paul has the rights of an apostle which includes the right to support
7–10     Compensation for labour is common sense and a biblical principle
11–12a     Paul is even more deserving of support than others
12b     Yet Paul did not exercise his right
13–14     God’s servants are to be provided for through his people
15a     Yet Paul did not exercise his right
15b–17     Paul is a servant under his master’s authority rather than his own
18     And so does not exploit his right
19–27     Instead he humbles and disciplines himself to win as many as possible

The structure helps us see the rhetorical device Paul is using here. He is building up the argument for supporting ministers so strongly, not for the sake of promoting it, but for it to be all the more dramatic when he declares that he did not make use of it!

I was once in a team meeting where we were discussing the importance of Bible reading. I knew everyone would agree that we should read our bibles, but I wanted to make sure we weren’t missing the big picture—that we were actually loving and being devoted to God. So for close to a minute I talked about how important it was to read your Bible, but my plan was to then say something along the lines of: “But it’s a complete waste if we don’t actually love God and we just gain knowledge.” I was building up the importance of Bible reading, not to champion it, but to enhance my point that love for God is even more important.

Unfortunately, someone interrupted me just before I could get to my point, and chastised me for being so legalistic about Bible reading. It was quite awkward. And that’s what people often do with this passage. They assume that Paul is championing the right to receive support, when really he is only lifting it up to make his relinquishing of his rights all the more significant.

Significant details

So we’ve looked at the genre, we’ve looked at the structure. Finally, before getting to the actual implications of the passage, we want to pay attention to any important details that may affect our interpretation, that we haven’t already taken note of.

In our initial survey, the series of questions at the start appeared very defensive. But the rest of the passage shows that Paul expected his readers to agree with him. He doesn’t ask “Am I not an apostle?” because some are doubting he’s an apostle. He asks because it will remind his readers of the authority he has. He has the authority to receive material support, and yet he doesn’t use it.

In verse 3, he says he is giving a defence, but it’s not a defence of his right to material support, since he clearly expects his readers to agree he has that right. Instead, it’s a defence of his instructing the Corinthians to give up their own rights in regard to food. We can see him alluding back to the issue of food in verse 4: “Have we no right to food and to drink?”

Paul’s illustrations

Paul then goes on to give several illustrations that help to establish the common sense nature of supporting those in ministry, and also the biblical grounding for it. But there’s something common to all these illustrations. The workers do not receive directly from those they serve, rather they receive provisions from their master or employer. This is unlike, for example, a seller in a marketplace, who directly exchanges goods for money. So for each example, let’s consider who they are serving and where they get their provision from.

The first example is “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense?” While soldiers take commands from the authorities, they are really serving people by protecting them and maintaining law and order. Noting that back then, soldiers would perform some of the duties that police do today. If a soldier were to demand money from the citizens they were serving, then that would be extortion. Instead, citizens pay taxes, and those taxes are used by the authorities to fund provisions for the soldiers.

Conley Owens in his book The Dorean Principle refers to this as “mediated obligation.” Citizens are obligated to pay taxes, which fund people like soldiers. But it’s wrong for a soldier to turn that into a direct exchange, and demand payment directly from those they serve.

Likewise, when it comes to the examples of the vineyard and flock, the workers cannot just take whatever produce they want. Instead, they are granted some of it by the owner of the vineyard and the owner of the flock. In verse 9, Paul gives the example of an ox being allowed by its owner to eat some of the grain it is treading.

However, the most significant example Paul gives is of the Levites in the temple.

13–14 Do you not know that those who work in the temple eat of its food, and those who serve at the altar partake of its offerings? In the same way, the Lord has prescribed that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

In the temple system, people were obligated to give offerings to God. But these offerings didn’t all just get burnt up. Many of them, after being offered to God, were then distributed to the Levites, who ministered in the temple. It was God’s way of providing for his servants through the offerings of his people. But it would be wrong to give directly to the priest, which is what happened in the case of Hophni and Phinehas, the corrupt sons of Eli, who took raw meat before it had been offered to the Lord (1 Sam 2:12–17).

Paul says “In the same way” gospel workers are to be supported. He isn’t saying that we follow Levitical law today; just that the biblical model for funding ministry is consistent and hasn’t changed. God has always provided for his servants through the offerings of his people. Pastors today are also provided for by the offerings of God’s people, and they minister to anyone who walks in the door. But if they were to demand you pay them to receive ministry, such as by charging an entrance fee for church, then you would be giving out of a direct obligation to the pastor rather than to God.

This is all to say that when Paul talks about earning a living from the gospel, he’s not talking about selling the gospel or commercializing it. Paul would sooner drop dead than even contemplate that. He actually contrasts himself with false teachers in his second letter to the Corinthians:

For we are not like so many others, who peddle the word of God. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as men sent from God. (2 Cor 2:17)

And to “peddle” just means to sell the word of God.

Every example he gives is of those who receive provisions from their master, rather than from those they serve. Charging money for ministry is not in view here at all.

The rest of the chapter

In the end of this section Paul talks about boasting and rewards. What’s going on there? Well, it’s really helpful to have the concept of authority in mind here. Firstly, Paul isn’t really boasting as he very quickly shuts that down by saying he has no reason to. Why has he no reason to boast? Because he’s not under his own authority but under God’s. He is obligated to preach as God’s servant, and in that sense he doesn’t really have a say in the matter. He’s simply performing his duty. If he were under his own authority (your translation may say “voluntarily” or “of his own will”) then he might be rewarded with whatever he charges for his service. But instead he has a responsibility (or stewardship) to carry out, which is a reward in itself, getting to be God’s servant and preaching free of charge.

The last phrase in verse 18 is not translated very well in the NIV and ESV unfortunately. Paul is literally saying he didn’t use his right to support. But the Greek word for “use” has additional emphasis, so translations like the NIV and ESV have phrased it as “make full use of” (and the BSB says “use up”), but that implies he made some use of his right which contradicts what he said earlier. Instead, it’s more likely he’s saying he “didn’t take advantage of” or “didn’t exploit” or “didn’t abuse” his right, which is how many other translations put it.

To give a brief look at the remaining verses of the chapter, Paul shares how he “becomes all things to all people” to save as many as he can. While this is a popular passage to refer to when talking about mission and reaching as many people as possible, it’s actually more about humility than becoming like others. As Conley Owens has pointed out, it’s not as if Paul would tell you to become rich to reach the rich, or become popular to reach the popular. Instead, Paul’s saying how he humbles himself and gives up his rights for the sake of others. Which matches the theme of the rest of the chapters. He does not exploit his authority as God’s servant, but rather humbly serves his master according to his wishes.

Why didn’t Paul use his right in Corinth?

At this point it’s good to refer back to the question that was raised earlier: Why did Paul accept money from churches like Philippi, but not Corinth? Doesn’t that mean that Paul is a hypocrite? Claiming that he preaches free of charge, but then accepting money in other places. Well no, because as we just saw, all the examples Paul gives are of support, not commerce. Accepting provisions does not make ministry commercial unless the ministry is exclusively for those who pay. In fact, Paul was supported for some of his ministry in Corinth, as we find out in his second letter to them:

I robbed other churches by accepting their support in order to serve you. And when I was with you and in need, I was not a burden to anyone; for the brothers who came from Macedonia supplied my needs. I have refrained from being a burden to you in any way, and I will continue to do so. (2 Cor 11:8–9)

A common interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9 is that Paul refused financial support to maintain his independence, lest the Corinthians view themselves as his patrons and try to exert influence over him. However, there’s simply no evidence for that in the text. Furthermore, it’s clear from chapter 1, and the later issues with the super apostles, that they desired to have a status under teachers, not over them.

Paul reveals his actual motivation in the recently mentioned passage from 2 Corinthians 11: that he didn’t request or accept their support because he didn’t want to burden them in their initial growth as a church. Paul was the first to share the gospel with them and did not want them to think he had any ulterior motives while planting the church. This is likewise the practice of many missionaries and evangelists today, who do not accept support from people until they reach some level of maturity.

This became even more important later on when so-called “super apostles” appeared in Corinth and solicited money from the church. Paul declared that he would keep avoiding burdening them in any way to evidence his sincerity, in contrast to those who were exploiting them for personal gain. As he continues in that passage:

I have refrained from being a burden to you in any way, and I will continue to do so… I will keep on doing what I am doing, in order to undercut those who want an opportunity to be regarded as our equals (2 Cor 11:9-12)

The church in Corinth was at that time struggling to distinguish between sincere servants of God and false teachers, and so while Paul would normally be comfortable accepting support for the work of the gospel, he wasn’t willing to do so in Corinth while there remained any confusion about his sincerity.

Summary of the passage

And so we now have our general principle that the right to support can be abused if it hinders the gospel in some way. Which is exactly what Paul says in 1 Cor 9:12:

But we did not exercise this right. Instead, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ.

Now, we’ve covered a lot and if you got a bit lost during that, don’t worry, it’s a tricky passage to get your head around. To help us put it all together, here is a paraphrase of the main section in view:

1-12 I too could exercise my rights, such as my right to support. As you know, I’m an apostle. Apostles deserve to be compensated for their labor, just like anyone else does. So we could have accepted support from you if we wanted to.

12-15 But we didn’t exercise this right! We’d prefer to go without support than let anything get in the way of the gospel. We certainly do have the right to support, as God has always supported ministers through people’s offerings, in the temple and in the Church now as well. But I haven’t used any of these rights!

15 (By the way, I’m not mentioning all of this to imply you should support me. I would rather die than have anyone think I’m doing this for material gain.)

16-19 I have to preach the gospel free of charge, as I’m not under my own authority but rather a servant of God. My reward is getting to serve him and you.

Conclusion: So just as I give up my rights at times for the sake of the gospel, I expect you to as well.

Implications

So what were the implications for Paul’s readers? How did he want them to respond to this?

Well the primary response he wanted was for them to stop participating in idolatrous meals. Chapter 9 is Paul’s illustration of why we shouldn’t do things just because we might have the authority to. We must steward the freedom God has granted us.

However, by giving that illustration, Paul also reveals the biblical basis for supporting ministry, and also the responsibility to ensure it is not exercised in ways that would hinder the gospel. By not even accepting support from the Corinthians in that particular situation, he wanted them to know of his sincerity and lack of ulterior motives.

Implications for today

So how about today? What implications are there for us?

Well, even if it may not be a common occurrence in Western culture, it’s important to know that eating food sacrificed to idols is not acceptable when it would in any way be perceived as participation in idol worship. This is still a big issue for many migrants in Western countries.

But focusing in on Paul’s teaching on support for ministry. While Paul wasn’t giving a lesson on the matter, he’s still revealed a lot about it to us. It is clearly right to support those in ministry, but does that mean you can commercialize it?

Currently, the modern church operates by consensus on this matter. That is, there are some forms of ministry that can be sold and some forms that can’t. But rather than distinguishing between those with biblical principles, the church distinguishes between them by just what seems generally acceptable to most people.

To give some examples of the foolishness of this methodology: It’s not ok to charge for explaining the gospel to someone, but many think it is ok to charge for a book that explains the gospel, even if it was an ebook that cost nothing to distribute. It would even be ok to use copyright to prevent that book from being shared with anyone else. They treat it differently because the medium of communication is different, but there’s no biblical principle behind it.

At church, it would be disturbing to many if you had to pay for a license to pray published prayers. Yet, most Western churches will pay for a license to sing published songs. They do this through an organization called CCLI which warns churches that they may get sued if they don’t pay. Both prayer and song are communication with God, yet there’s no biblical principle as to why one should be ok and the other not.

A final example would be that it’s not ok to charge for entry to church, but it is considered normal to charge for entry to a conference held at that church, even if the messages and worship are exactly the same. The only thing that changes is the branding of the meeting, and yet one is acceptable and the other not. Why? Because we’ve simply become accustomed to charging for things outside a basic Sunday service, even if there’s no biblical principle behind it.

The question then is: are there in fact biblical principles that teach us what is appropriate when it comes to supporting ministry? The answer is: absolutely. There are many passages that offer clear instruction on this topic, such as Jesus’ command to “freely give” in Matthew 10:8. Please take the time to read through the material at SellingJesus.org which covers many of these passages. For now, let’s just consider the contribution 1 Corinthians 9 makes.

Conclusion

As we’ve seen from the context, Paul is setting an example here for us to follow. He’s not being especially noble and going beyond what is required. Rather, he calls us to imitate him as he sets aside his rights when they might cause hindrance to the gospel.

Charging for ministry is always an abuse of authority as it always hinders the gospel. It always puts a paywall between the ministry and the person seeking it. It always demands an exchange of money and a direct obligation to pay the minister, even if the cost is trivial. Which is why Paul emphasises in 1 Corinthians 9 that he preaches for free, as otherwise he would not be preaching as a servant of God but rather just following his own will.

While charging for ministry is always an abuse, the right to support can also be abused if even voluntary support would hinder the gospel. Paul discerned in his situation that it was best for the gospel to not burden the Corinthians in any way in his initial ministry amongst them, instead relying on his own income and support from other churches. We too should be careful not to accept support when doing so would in some way hinder the gospel, or cast doubt on the sincerity of our ministry.

An example of that today would be the common practice of not encouraging people we are evangelising to start giving to church until they have believed and grown to some level of maturity, so that they do not think we have ulterior motives in sharing the gospel with them. There could also be some forms of ministry that are best not to raise funds for. At Selling Jesus, we don’t request donations as we don’t want to risk any confusion on the sincerity of the message we’re trying to share, especially given the nature of the topic we address.

So already we can see from just this passage, 1 Corinthians 9, that ministry should be supported, but that right should not be abused. It should be funded by donations, not sales. And even then, support should be relinquished when it would hinder the gospel. This is a consistent message throughout Scripture, to freely give, as we have freely received.