1 Cor 9 - Rights of Apostle

7/28/2019 1 Cor 9 - Rights of Apostle

1/20

The Woes of the Prophets and the

Rights of the Apostle:

The Internal Dynamics of

1 Corinthians 9

HARRY P. NASUTIDepartment of Theology

Fordham University

Bronx, NY10458

ALTHOUGH CORINTHIANS 9 WAS ONCE routinelyseen as an interruption

of its surrounding chapters, this is no longer the case.1 The chapter is now

widelyrecognized as an integral part of the discussion ofmeat sacrificed to

idols found in chaps. 8 and 10.2 This change in perspective is based upon the

recognition that Paul is here furnishing a personal example ofthe free re

nunciation that he isurging on the "strong" at Corinth. Far from being a

problem, this mix ofpersonal example and theological argument is now

perceived as a common device to be found throughout the letter.3

Such an integrating perspective is a definite advance over earlier viewswhich saw this chapter as a digression or the result ofcareless editing. Never

theless, it may be that the current focus has led to an overlooking of certain

1 For examples ofthe earlier view, see J. Weiss, Dererste Korintherbrief (Kritischexegetischer Kommentar 5; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 211-13, 231-32; andJ. Hering, The First Epistle of Saint Paulto the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962) xiii-xiv,

75.2 See, most recently, G. Galitis, "Das Wesen der Freiheit: Eine Untersuchung zu 1 Kor 9

und seiner Kontext"; and M. Bouttier, "1 Co 8-10 considr du point de vue de son unit,"

Freedom andLove: The Guide for Christian Life [1 Co 8-10; Rm 14-15] (Monograph Series of


2/20

THE DYNAMICS OF 1 CORINTHIANS 9 247

dynamics at work within Paul's personal statement itself.4 Raising such a

possibility is, of course, not meant to deny the close connection of chap. 9

to the surrounding chapters. It is instead meant to suggest that the chapter

has a significant literary structure and rhetorical thrust of its own and thatthese features imply an additional dimension which this chapter brings to the

larger argument.

The present essay will focus on the internal dynamics of1 Corinthians 9

and will attempt to outline certain interpretive possibilities that seem to have

been overlooked to date. More specifically, this essay will consider whether

Paul's arguments in defense of his apostolic "rights" are as uniform as they

are usually seen to be. In so doing, it will raise the possibility that closer

attention to the different types of arguments Paul uses here reveals something further about how Paul saw both his social role at Corinth and his

overall relationship to the gospel.

To the same purpose, the essay will explore further certain allusions that

seem to be contained in Paul's statement of renunciation. It is hoped that this

highlighting of such structural and allusive features will shed new light on the

important dialectic between Pauline theology and Pauline practice.

An Overview of the Argument about Apostolic Rights

In chap. 8, Paul is again attempting to reconcile his theological principle

of Christian freedom with the communal realities of the Corinthian situa

tion. Here the issue is that of how the different members of the community

should treat meat which had been sacrificed to idols. By making concern for

those of weak conscience a consideration in the behavior of the rest of the

community, Paul makes it clear that he is not denying the latter's Christian

freedom as much as he is counseling the correct use of that freedom. In thespecific case of meat sacrificed to idols, Paul even allows that the correct use

of freedom puts certain limits on the public consumption of such food out

of consideration for those whose conscience is not as strong.5

4 Even those studies which consider more specific issues in this chapter do not entirelyappreciate the rhetorical thrust at work here. See, e.g., E. Ksemann, **A Pauline Version of the'Amor Fati,'" New Testament (Questions ofToday (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 217-35; anG. Theissen, "Legitimation and Subsistence: An Essay on the Sociology of Early ChristianMissionaries," The Social Setting ofPauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 27-67.G. Dautzenberg ("Der Verzicht auf das apostolische Unterhaltsrecht. Eine exegetische Unter


3/20

248 T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUART ERLY | 50, 1988

With 9:1, Paul moves his argument about Christian freedom into a new

and very personal stage. In doing this, Paul not only refers to his own use of

general Christian freedom6 but also brings this together with his more spe

cific behavior as an apostle. Included here is a defense of his apostolic credentials, especiallywith regard to his apparently unusual refusal of support

from those to whom he preached the gospel. Such a defense of his credentials

was often a priority for Paul, since his legitimacy as an apostle was linked

to the authenticity of his gospel.7 The point of such a defense here is not,

however, so much personal as it is paradigmatic in its implications for the

behavior of the Corinthian strong towards their weaker counterparts.8 To

this end, Paul quickly proves his case for apostleship in w 1-2 and proceeds

to focus on the unusual nature of his apostolic behavior, again especiallywith respect to his refusal of community support.

In his apologia, Paul is, ofcourse, at pains to point out that his refusal

of community support is not due to any lack of a right to such support. He

has just as much a claim to this support as others who make use of such

rights.9 Indeed, in the case of the Corinthians, he feels he has even more of

a claim than others, since he is able to claim a certain apostolic priority there

(cf. 12a).The unusual feature of Paul's argument is that he is apparently quite

concerned to prove the apostolic rule to which his own behavior10 is the

exception. Most commentators see here a "series of proofs" which extends

from 7 to 14 and is intended to demonstrate the point that an apostle is

entitled to support for his apostolic activities.11 After proving his case, Paul

6 In chap. 9, the theme of general Christian freedom may be found in the first questionof 1 (which picks up 8:13), the summary statement of w 19-22, and possibly the question of 4. The last depends on whether one sees this verse as referring to general Christian freedomor to Paul's apostolic right to community support. See H. Conzelmann, / Corinthians(Her-meneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975) 153 n. 15, 154 n. 27.

7 See Galatians 1-2 and, especially, 2 Corinthians 10-13, where the issue of refusal ofsupport is addressed.

8 Cf. Galitis, "Freiheit," 129, 132; and Willis, "Apologia," 33-48.9 One may again note the question of whether 4 refers to the specific issue of com

munity support or to the more general issue of Christian freedom. There is also the question ofwhether 5 is concerned with the specific issue of community support of an apostolic "wife" orwith the more general issue ofthe right of an apostle to such a "wife." Again see Conzelmann,/ Corinthians, 153 n. 15, 154 n. 27; also J. B. Bauer, "Uxores Circumducere (1 Kor 9,5)," BZ


4/20


then is seen as rejecting its conclusions in 15 in favor of his own free

proclamation of the gospel.

This renunciation of apostolic "rights" (exousia) forms a background to

Paul's renunciation of general Christian rights and his exhortation to theCorinthian strong to do the same. The overall argument seems to run as

follows: If I, as an apostle, can forgo both my general Christian rights and

my special apostolic rights in favor of the gospel, surely you (strong) can also

forgo your own general Christian rights in favor of that same gospel.

While this generally accepted viewof Paul's argument is undoubtedly

correct, it does not do full justice to the dynamics of this chapter. On purely

structural and rhetorical grounds, it might first of all be objected that w 7-14

are not a single bodyof proofs culminating in the Pauline renunciation of

15. There is instead a previous renunciation in 12b, which seems to inter

rupt the set of proofs. One may, ofcourse, see this as an anticipation ofPaul's

conclusions, after which Paul continues his series of proofs. However, 12b

may in other respects be as much a dividing point in the argument as an

anticipation. It is this possibility that needs to be explored here.

Paul's Apostolic Rights: Arguments Secular and Sacred

The first of the proofs is the general argument from everyday life to be

found in 7.12 Three types of activity are brought forward, each of which

seems to be recompensed from the outcome of the activity. It is significant

that in the case of planting a vineyard and tending a flock, the recompense

is specifically seen as an "eating" of the results of these activities.13 The

recompense is directly related to the activity. The activity of soldiering is less

specific, though here too there is the possibility that the recompense arisesdirectly from the activity, if the soldier is seen as being fed from the spoils

ofwar.14

Theissen ("Legitimation," 43) says that Paul "piles up arguments," and Conzelmann (/ Corinthians, 157) claims that he is "multiplying" and "collecting" arguments.

12 H. Gale (The Use of Analogy in the Letters of Paul[Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964]104-5) has suggested that this verse mayalso contain certain allusions to Scripturespecifically,to Deut 20:5-6 and Prov27:18,26. Such a scriptural background is quite plausible, though notas necessary to Paul's argument as it is in w 8-10 which follow.

13Tis phyteuei ampelna kai ton karpon autou ouk esthiei; tis poimainei poimnn kai


5/20

250 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY | 50, 1988

The scriptural proof in w 8-10 is similar. The unmuzzled ox feeds directlyas a result ofits activity of treading out the grain. Similarly, the humanplowman and thresher, with whom Paul sees this verse as really concerned,

also will receive a share of the results of their labors.The dominant thrust of all these examples15 is not simply that one is

recompensed for one's work. Rather, one is also recompensed from one'swork, in the sense that one receives a share of that which one does. 16 One isnot simply rewarded with an external reward. There is instead an intrinsicconnection between one's activity and one's recompense.

This intrinsic connection is important for how one understands thequestion of 11. Again taking up agricultural imagery, Paul talks of sowing

spiritual goods (pneumatika) among the Corinthians. The result that oneexpects from such a sowing is that Paul will himself reap spiritual goods.Indeed, Paul assumes this expected conclusion when he asks whether it is"too much if we reap your material goods (sarkika)." The argument is oneof "how much the more. " If Paul has a right to the expected spiritual benefits,how much the more does he have a right to the (less important) materialbenefits! The result is a proof of Paul's case for material rights.

Another "how much the more" argument follows in 12. Paul concurs

in the rightful claims of others upon the Corinthians, while asserting that hisown claims are superiorapparently because he feels that the originatingactivity of sowing gives him, at least on one level, a certain priority over those

who later workwith what he has sown.17 Verses 11-12a form an inclusio withw 4-6,18 both repeating the general apostolic argument and particularizingit to the Corinthian situation.

At first sight, this seems to be the end of Paul's argument for generalapostolic rights and his own particular rights at Corinth. Having proven thecase for such rights, he is now able to make his point about the need torenounce one's rights in the service of the gospel.19 This he does in 12b,

where he claims to have not made use of his exousia. Yet, in w 13-14 heseems to resume his arguments, offering another example of recompense forone's activity and a command of the Lord to the same end. As noted above,it is common to see this as a simple piling up of proofs. Such a view may,however, not be the only possibility here.

15

Again with the possible exception of soldiering in 7.16 Note the use ofmetech in w 10,12.17 On another level, ofcourse, all such workers are equal, as is argued in 3:6-8. On the


6/20


One must first of all note in these verses the same intrinsic connection

between activity and recompense that was seen in w 7-10. Those who serve

temples (hoi ta hiera ergazomeno) eat "from the temple" (ek tou hierou

esthiousiri), and those who serve the altar (hoi t thysiastri paredreuontes)

share in the altar (t thysiastri symmerizonta). Similarly, those who pro

claim the gospel (tois to euaggelion kataggellousin) are to live "from the

gospel" (ek tou euaggeliou zri). But does this simply restate Paul's argu

ments of w 7-10 so as to back up the conclusions of 11, as is assumed bythe commentaries? Or has the argument shifted to a different level here?

What seems to indicate such a shift is the different nature of the ex

amples cited in w 7-10 and 13-14. Soldiers, planters, shepherds, oxen, plowmen, and threshers all workat secular pursuits for secular recompense. Onthe other hand, temple functionaries and preachers of the gospel are notengaged in secular pursuits as much as in divine service. The importantquestion is whether Paul sees the recompense for the latter as still remainingconsistent with the nature of their activity.

In the case of temple service, the recompense for such activity is an"eating" of the temple food. It is unlikelythat one should understand this on

a purelyphysical level.While this is just possible for the first halfof the verse,it is almost completely unlikely for the second half. That sharing a templesacrifice has more than physical connotations (at least for Paul) is assumedin the whole larger discussion concerning meat sacrificed to idols.20 Whetherthe temple referred to here is the Jewish temple or pagan temples (or both),the point is the same. In partaking of such food, one also shares something

with the being in whose service one serves.21

20For a discussion of various possible meanings (sacramental, communal, and social)

that participation in a sacrifice might have had in the Hellenistic world, see W. Willis, Idol Meatin Corinth: The Pauline Argument in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10(SBLDS 68; Chico, CA: Scholars,1985) esp. 7-64.

21For the present argument, it is not crucial to determine the precise nature of this

sharing. In Willis's terms (see n. 20 above), neither a sacramental nor a communal interpretationis necessary, although it is very unlikelythat the sharing mentioned here is to be seen as limitedto, or even focused upon, the sharing among the human participants themselves. Thus, G. Ag-rell (Work, Toil, and Sustenance: An Examination of the Viewof Work in the New Testament

[Lund: Verbum-Haken Ohlssohns, 1976] 109-10) has noted that this verse is reminiscent of theregulations in Num 18:8-31 and Deut 18:1-8, according to which the priests and Lvites are toreceive that which has been offered to God and has become holy. It is perhaps significant that


7/20

252 THE CATHOLIC BIBLICALQUARTERLY | 50, 1988

The question of a more-than-physical recompense is also raised by 14.

Here again, most commentaries seem to see this verse as yet another argu

ment in support of Paul's claim to material recompense for the preaching ofthe gospel.22 To this end, they often refer to Luke 10:7 and Matt 10:10 andsee the present verse as a rare Pauline citation of a saying of the earthlyJesus.23 That this saying was known in the Pauline tradition is clear from itsquotation in 1 Tim 5:18. It is, however, noteworthythat Paul's version ofthissaying is not the same as the version found in the Synoptics and 1 Timothy.The latter version refers to a worker (ergats) and his wages or reward(misthos).24 At least in the Lucan passage, this misthos refers to an actual

"eating and drinking," much as seems to be at issue here.

25

The present verse does not use any of these terms. Instead, it speaks of

the "command" for the preachers of the gospel to "live from the gospel" (ek

tou euaggeliou zen).16 As H. Conzelmann has suggested, this phrase has a

22 According to many commentators, the saying of the Lord is the climax or clinching

point of the argument; cf. Weiss, Korintherbrief 239; Galitis, "Freiheit," 135. Contrast the views

discussed in n. 26 below.23

On the relationship of this verse to the saying attested in the Synoptic tradition, seeD. L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul. The Use of the Synoptic Tradition

in the Regulation of Early Church Life (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 3-80; and B. Fjrstedt,

Synoptic Tradition in 1 Corinthians. Themes and Clusters of Theme Words in 1 Corinthians 1-4

and 9 (Uppsala: Teologiska Institutionen, 1974) 65-99. These analyses do not, however, reckon

with the possibility that Paul may be adapting Jesus' saying for his own purposes, as suggested

in the present article. For such a possibility (but a different interpretation), see also Dautzenberg

("Verzicht," 216-18), who sees Paul as generalizing to adapt this saying to a different geograph

icaland eschatologicalworld.24 Matt 10:10 has trophs where Luke and 1 Timothy have misthos, apparently in keeping

with the subsistence nature ofthe missionary's existence in Matthew. Note also Matt 10:8 in thisrespect.

251 Tim 5:18 does not explicitly refer to such material concerns; it instead uses this saying

(and the Deuteronomy citation of 1 Cor 9:9) in the context of the "double honor" due to worthy

elders.26 According to Dungan (Sayings, 20-21; cf. J. Moffatt, The First Epistle of Paulto the

Corinthians [MNTC 7; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1938] 118; and also J. Murphy-

O'Connor (1 Corinthians [New Testament Message 10; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1979] 87),

Paul has turned a command of the Lord into a discretionary privilege. For Dungan, this

explains the "peculiar, off-hand fashion" in which Paul has mentioned the command of Jesus

here. In the interests of the gospel, Paul is seen as claiming a freedom even with respect to thecommands of the Lord. Theissen ("Legitimation," 27-67) also comments on Paul's portrayal of

J * d f h i ti ti i b i f th i il f it t F


8/20


possible double meaningreferring to either the material support that onereceives from the proclamation ofthe gospel or the spiritual life ofthe gospelitself.27 Though Conzelmann does not note it, this would be similar to the

twofold material and spiritual connotations ofthe previous verse. Like mostcommentators, Conzelmann seems to assume that the physical meaning isprimaryhere, so that this verse is simply another part ofPaul's proof ofthoseapostolic rights which he has already renounced in 12b.

It is, however, worth considering whether the additional spiritual connotations are not more significant than this. Certainly, such a rhetorical

element as the clear grouping of examples along secular/ sacred lines (on

either side of w 11-12) would seem to lead to such a conclusion, as does the

repeated intrinsic connection of activity and recompense.

Such patterns raise the possibility that Paul is not simply giving a paraphrase rather than an exact quote here.28 He may actually be shaping hiscitation for a specific purpose. At issue is one's understanding of the zen, aword which Paul does use to refer to life in its basic sense of continuedexistence, but which he more often uses to refer to the type of life madepossible through Jesus Christ. Considering the dominant pattern of intrinsic

recompense discussed above, it seems likely that this latter sense plays alarger role here than has generally been recognized.

In this view, w 13-14 do not simply continue Paul's argument in favorofthe material rights of the apostles, though they are certainly to be seen assupportive of such an argument. Rather, these verses also seem to raise thepossibility of certain spiritual benefits which result from Paul's activity on

behalf of the gospel. Both thematically and structurally, w 13-14 form arather exact parallel to w 7-10. Thus, 7 argues for material recompense on

the basis of general (secular) practice, while w 8-10 make a similar argument

defending himself against the Corinthians' charges, Paul seems to argue that he has been

specificially destined by God to transgress the usual norms of early Christian missionary be

havior. As Theissen notes, Paul's refusal to rely on community support violated the letter ofJesus' command but was in keeping with its spiritespecially after there came to be moreChristian communities on which such missionaries could easily come to rely as a matter of

course.

These observations are suggestive in terms of the overall question of Paul's status at

Corinth. One wonders, however, whether this is the thrust of Paul's argument in the presentcontext of 1 Corinthians 8-10; cf. Galitis, "Freiheit," 129, 132; Willis, "Apologia," 33-48. As

noted in the text, the point seems rather to be that (as commanded by the Lord and required


9/20


on the basis of revelation. Similarly, 13 argues for spiritual (as well as

material) recompense on the basis of general (sacred) practice, while 14

makes a similar argument on the basis of revelation. Such spiritual recom

pense was, ofcourse, the logical implication of 11, where Paul claimed tohave sown spiritual goods among the Corinthians. It is, in fact, implied by

the entire argument in w 7-15 and is fleshed out in what follows.

In 15a, Paul again claims to have made no use of any of the rights

discussed previously. As such, this verse forms an inclusio ofsorts with 12b,

a connection also indicated by the repetition of the verb chraomai. However,

while vv 12b and 15a are an obvious rejection of the results of the previous

secular arguments (vv7-12a), the final part of 15 comments further on that

rejection in light of the somewhat different arguments of w 13-14.29

One may summarize this section of the argument by noting the way

Paul's rhetoric serves both his practical concerns and his wider theological

argument. Both Paul's examples and his larger argument move from the

material to the spiritual. For Paul, the two are necessarily intertwined. What

one does on one level has important repercussions on the other. This is true

of both Paul's activities among the Corinthians and the Corinthians' own

actions with regard to idol meat. Even though both of these activities have

material significance, their true significance lies in the effect they have onone's relationship to the gospel. In what follows, Paul goes on to spell out the

spiritual implications of his own apostolic activities.

The Status of the Apostolic Prophet

As Paul notes in 12b, the reason for renouncing his rights is to avoidplacing any obstacle in the way of the gospel. This obviously refers to Paul's

missionary activity (cf. w 19-22), as well as to his larger argument about theneed to renounce one's rights in service to others. However, the argumentsof w 13-14 also have certain personal implications which concern the relationship of Paul himself to that which he serves. It is this more personal sideof the argument which is developed in vv 15b-18.

Life and Death, Boasts and Woes

One may begin consideration of this intricate passage by asking why

Paul raises the hypothetical possibility ofhis death, seemingly as an opposite


10/20


to his boasting.30 As is often pointed out, part of Paul's boast seems to beconnected with the refusal to accept material recompense for his apostoliclabors. Thus, his grounds for boasting could be negated by making use of his

rights or writing to that effect, as seen in 15. But why is the alternative tothis the death (apothanein) of the apostle, as seen in the middle of the verse?It appears that a linkis to be made here with the zn of 14. (Note that Pauluses both verbs in the infinitive form.) Paul seems to feel that if the alternative is to accept material support (and, by so doing, place an obstacle inthe way of the gospel), it is better that he dieand by his death to continueto live in the gospel.31

The death envisioned here does not negate the gospel. Indeed, it is the

death of self-renunciation by which the gospel is lived. Of such a death it ispossible to boast. Paul's refusal of material support is a participation in sucha death, and as such, it is also a participation in the life of the gospel.

Paul connects this refusal of support with boasting elsewhere in theCorinthian correspondence, in 2 Corinthians 10-13.32 There, Paul againnotes that he preached the gospel to the Corinthians without cost, and he

boasts of the fact that he did not (and will not) burden anyone in Corinth(2 Cor 11:7-10). For this to be a legitimate boast in the context of 2 Corin

thians 10-13, it must be a boast of his weakness, as seen in 11:30. In thiscontext, Paul's self-abasement in refusing to burden the Corinthians is partof those weaknesses and hardships which make him strong (cf. 12:10).

The point is, ofcourse, not that Paul feels free to boast ofhis great deedsin the service of the gospel. Rather, as 2 Corinthians 11-12 make clear, heboasts of the suffering and weakness which the service of the gospel hasimposed upon him. It is this which joins him to the cross of Christ. It is thisdeath which enables him to live.

This may be seen further in 16a of the present passage, where Paulspecifically rules out the possibility that his preaching ofthe gospel gives himany grounds for boasting. The rest of the verse, however, gives new reasonsfor Paul's refusal to boast of the preaching of the gospel, as well as further

30 An anacoluthon is to be found in the Greek of 15, the result being that the implied

comparison of death and boasting is not completely smooth. Paul is concerned to rule out the

possibility that anyone could negate his boasting.31

One sees a similar connection of physical death and spiritual life elsewhere in theCorinthian correspondence; cf. 2 Cor 4:11 and 6:9; also 13:4.32 On the connection of 2 Corinthians 10-13 with the present passage see C Maurer


11/20


insights into Paul's perception ofhimself. Verse 16b continues: anagk gar

moi epikeitai. This is usually taken to refer to the imposed or compulsory

nature of Paul's activity, a possibility supported by 17, where the volun-

tary/involuntary nature of this activity is discussed further.33 This interpre-tation also has in its favor the implied link between the divinely chosen and

compelled biblical prophets (especially, as Conzelmann notes, Jeremiah) and

the similarly appointed apostle.34

These features are certainly present in the

text, but there are other, less noticed connotations ofthe phrase in question.

The critical word here is the anagk, which has other meanings besides

that of compulsion. Indeed, in the Pauline corpus, an at least equally prom

inent connotation ofanagk is "distress," either of the present eschatological

age (1 Cor 7:26) or of the state of the apostle himself (2 Cor 6:4; 12:10).35 Thelatter usage is particularly suggestive for the present passage.

In 2 Cor 6:3-4, anagk is part of a long list of hardships which the

apostle endures rather than place an obstacle (didontes proskopri) in the

way of anyone's coming to salvation. This fits well with the present context

in 1 Corinthians 9, where not making use of his rights to material recom

pense is part of Paul's attempt to avoid placing an obstacle in the way of the

gospel (egkopn dornen in 12b). As noted above, such hardship is not seen

as an occasion for boastingexcept insofar as it exemplifies the weaknesswhich allows the power of Christ to work in the apostle.

Thus, the distress that Paul suffers in not making use ofhis rights is part

of his enduring anything so as not to place an obstacle in the path of the

gospel (v 12b). The alternatives are the death which manifests the death of

Christ (and so gives grounds for boasting; cf. 15b) and the placing of an

obstacle in the path of the gospel. To do the latter (and so not have anagk

in the sense of distress) is to forfeit one's spiritual life in favor of one's

material life. It would not be to live from the gospel.Verse 16 concludes with the phrase ouai gar moi estin ean m euagge-

lismai. This is usually taken as a sign of Paul's being compelled to preach

in the manner of the biblical prophets. This view is supported by 17 and

is undoubtedlycorrect. Once again, however, such a view does not seem to

33See the discussion in Kasemann, "Amor Fan," 217-35

34 Again, see Kasemann, "Amor Fati,"229, also Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, 158 26,

where the link between Paul and the prophet Jeremiah is made on the basis of Gal 1 15 andJer 1 5 C K Barrett (A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians[HNTC, NewYork Harper & Row 1968] 209) likewise notes a similarity with Jeremiah here quoting Jer 20 9


12/20


do full justice to the passage. Crucial here is Paul's use of a self-directed woe

formula, a form of expression which has both a general human reference and

specific biblical antecedents. In view of the apparent reference in these lines

to Paul's "prophetic call," the biblical antecedents are perhaps particularlynoteworthy, especially since they are often to be found in prophetic texts.

A distinction, however, must be made between the self-directed woe to

be found here and the "other-directed" woes common throughout the Bible.

Because of their prominent role in prophetic preaching, the latter have been

the object of intensive form-critical investigation.36 In contrast, the self-

directed woes have received much less attention, usually being analyzed only

in conjunction with their more interesting relative.37

In Hebrew, the difference between these woes is for the most part re

flected by a difference in vocabulary and syntax. In the classic prophetic

woe-oracles, the particle hy is usually followed by a substantive which

describes those who are the reason for the woe and who are soon to be

afflicted by God. In this case, the prophetic speaker is not the afflicted party,

except insofar as he is stricken with grief over the affliction of Israel. On the

other hand, the particle Doy is usually used with a preposition indicating the

afflicted party, who is often the speaker himself. The LXX does not distin

guish between hy and Doy in any consistent way, though it does, for the most

part, maintain the interjection-substantive syntax for the classical prophetic

woe-oracle, reserving the dative for the self-directed form. The NT does not

even maintain this distinction, as it uses the dative in places similar to the

classical oracle.38

1 Cor 9:16c obviously has its main links with the ^oy tradition of self-

directed lamentation. It is, in fact, the only NT example of such a usage. In

such a vein, it seems to be significant that the context of the present passageis Paul's reference to his apostolic task, since the prophets also use this form

in commenting on their own prophetic calling. Thus, e.g., Isaiah responds to

the vision of God in the temple with the words ^y-land a confession of his

sinfulness (Isa 6:5). Jeremiah responds to the anguish ofhis ministry with the

same phrase in Jer 15:10, as does Baruch in Jer 45:3 (LXX Jer 51:33).39

36 See, e.g., E. Gerstenberger, "The Woe Oracles of the Prophets," JBL 81 (1962) 249-63;

R. J. Clifford, "The Use of Hy in the Prophets," CBQ 28 (1966) 458-64; J. G. Williams, "TheAlas-Oracles of the Eighth Century Prophets," HUCA 38 (1967) 75-91; G. Wanke, "ix und in,"

ZAWn (1966) 215-18; and W. Janzen, Mourning Cry and Woe Oracle (BZAW 125; Berlin: de


13/20


There is a certain difference between these prophetic examples with

regard to the reasons for the woe. Isaiah utters his woe because he has

perceived his own (and the people's) sinfulness and the attendant danger in

the presence of the Lord. One may refer to Lam 5:16 and Job 10:15 forsimilar combinations of woe and sinfulness. Jeremiah and Baruch, on the

other hand, lament not their sinfulness but the distress that their ministries

have brought upon them. Such a reaction to distress may also be seen in

Isa 24:16; Jer 4:13,31; 6:4; and Ps 120:5 (>y).

On the surface, Paul's hypothetical woe seems to be closer to that of

Isaiah, since a refusal to preach the gospel would place him contrary to the

will of God. Thus, Paul may be contrasting himself with the sinful prophet

who must utter a woe because of his sinfulness. However, the relationship

with the Jeremiah passage is even more suggestive, especially since it is

Jeremiah's call which seems to be paradigmatic for Paul.

Both Jeremiah and Baruch utter their "woes" as a result ofthe sufferings

they have received for preaching the word of God. Indeed, they, more than

any other prophets, lament the sufferings their prophetic activities have

brought upon them. It is significant that their laments are not accepted by

God. Baruch can even be reproached for seeking "great things" for himself.

Instead of such great things, God gives both Jeremiah and Baruch their lives,

as in Jer 45:5 (LXX Jer 51:35).Paul also preaches the word of God and suffers for it. However, for Paul

this does not result in a lament. Rather, Paul sees grounds for lament in not

preaching the gospel. Unlike Jeremiah and Baruch, Paul does not lament the

distress which his preaching brings; he boasts of it. The difference lies in

Paul's view of suffering, a difference shaped by his gospel of the cross. Jere

miah wishes he had never been born because ofhis suffering (Jer 15:10); Paul

would rather die than give up the suffering which is his grounds for boasting

in the gospel. Baruch is given his physical life (psyche) as a result of hisactivity (Jer 45:5; LXX Jer 51:35). Paul is given his spiritual life (zn) as a

result of his activity and would rather suffer unto death than give up this life.

Paul's self-conception in 16 is clearly such as to link him with thebiblical prophets, especiallyJeremiah. Like them, Paul suffers distress as aresult of his preaching. The difference between Paul and such prophets liesin their view of suffering. For Paul, it is not something to be lamented. It isinstead a grounds for boasting which opens the door to true life. In such a

way, Paul does not make use of those rights which would alleviate his dis

tress. To do so would be to put an obstacle in the way of the gospel.


14/20


pense for preaching the gospel (v 14; cf. Luke 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18). Paul hereraises the question of whether he is to receive any misthos for his apostolicactivities. Such a misthos appears to be ruled out by the involuntary nature

of Paul's activity. Instead of receiving a misthos, Paul claims to have beenentrusted with a stewardship (oikonomia). When seen solely from the perspective of its involuntary origins, it is not entirely clear why such an oikonomia should rule out a misthos,40 Nevertheless, Paul answers the questionof his misthos in the negative, again noting that he does not make use of hisright in the gospel.

The paradoxical nature of these verses is often noted: Paul's reward isto receive no reward.41 However, to stop with this is again not to appreciate

fully the dynamic at workhere. The point seems to be that Paul rejects anymisthos as provided by the Corinthians, however much such a misthos is hisright (as seen by his own proofs and the non-Pauline form of the saying in 14). He has, as he notes in 17, a stewardship. The fruits of a steward'slabors are not his own. Rather, they belong to his master, since the resourceshe uses are not his own but his master's (cf. 1 Cor 4:1-2).

The steward, ofcourse, shares in a portion of the master's livelihood (cf.Luke 12:42). Paul sees this earlier in 1 Corinthians when he notes the es-chatological misthos granted to the apostolic laborers as the fellow workersofGod (3:8,14). This is not a misthos of merit (as ruled out by Rom 4:4), butrather a result of the divine grace granted to Paul as God's worker (1 Cor 3:9-10). The very involuntary nature of his call rules out any self-righteousnessand vanity.

This earlier discussion of apostolic roles and rewards in 1 Corinthians3-4 contributes much to the understanding of Paul's arguments here. Inthese chapters, Paul again uses agricultural imagery to describe his ministry

and again claims for himself the distinctive role of "planting" the Corinthians. This act of planting gives him a certain priority over his fellowwork-ers, a priority upon which Paul insists in 9:1 l-12a. Nevertheless, in the largertheological context, this evangelical division of labor counts for nothing,since God is the only real force behind the growth of the community (cf. 3:7).

The point is explicitly made in 3:8-9. Paul's relationship to the Corinthians is that of a planter to a field and, even more specifically, that of aplanter in the service of someone else who owns a field. The implications of

this are again that the fruits of the planter's labor do not ultimately belongto him. Instead, his misthos is that which is given to him not by the field itself


15/20


Paul chooses his imagery in these passages so as to rule out the possi

bility that the Corinthians might have any real misthos to give him. This has

important implications for how Paul sees his social role at Corinth, espe

cially if, as R. Hock has suggested, Paul's argument is to be seen in thecontext of the Hellenistic debate about the proper means of support for a

philosopher.42

Certainly, Hock is correct when he sees Paul's defense of his refusal of

support and his artisan's self-sufficiency as a form of weakness about which

he is able to boast and which is a good model for the Corinthians in their

dealings with one another.43 But Paul does more than this here. Paul radi

calizes the argument by denying the possibility that the Corinthians are his

true employers and that therefore they have any real misthos to give. For

Paul, the only real misthos is an eschatological misthos which is God's alone

to give and which God makes available free of charge.44

Paul shares in the gospel precisely because he also makes the gospel

available free ofcharge. If, as is his right, he were to receive a misthos from

the Corinthians, he would cease to share in the workofthe master and would

instead become a paid employee of the Corinthians. His real recompense is,

as noted in 14, to live from the gospelto share in the workof the gospel,so as to share in the life of the gospel.

One may summarize by noting the relationship of this section to that

which has gone before. In the proofs of w 7-14, Paul not only makes a claim

to material recompense from the Corinthians but also raises the possibility

ofanother, more spiritual recompense. In w 15-18, Paul again renounces the

former recompense so as to lay the groundwork for the latter. By empha

sizing his accountability to God rather than to the Corinthians, Paul demon

strates the basis for both his freedom and his true recompense.

42 See R. Hock, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tentmaking and Apostleship(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980) 50-65.

43 The term misthos, which Paul uses here, was also used for both the fees that a phil-osopher might charge for his services and the salary which he would receive upon entering the

household of a patron. Both ofthese were common means of support for philosophers and were

usually seen as more acceptable than the alternate means of begging or working; see Hock,Social Context, 52-59.

4 4 V. Furnish (// Corinthians [AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984] 507-8) has

discussed further the implications of Paul's refusal of support at Corinth in terms of the client-


16/20


Implications for the Apostolic Mission and the Corinthian

Situation

Verses 19-22 are perhaps the most commented upon verses in this chapter and as such need far less comment here.45 Their place in the larger ar

gument ofchaps. 8-10 is clear, as Paul again uses his own personal situation

to counsel the proper use of freedom for service, even if that means a certain

curtailment of the use of such freedom. What has been felt to be more

problematic here is the connection with the argument ending in 18.46 This,

however, presents little problem once one sees the thrust of Paul's comments

on misthos and oikonomia.

Because he is God's steward, Paul has made himself a slave to all humanity, even though he is a free man. Like a slave told by his master to serveanother, Paul accepts no misthos from those whom he serves. It is, in fact,Paul's slavery to God which makes him free with respect to humanity, evenas he serves humanity.47

Once again, it is instructive to viewthis in the context of the Hellenisticdebates about the proper means of support for a philosopher. Despite itswidespread use as a means of support, the acceptance of a misthos from

those whom philosophers served left such philosophers open to the chargeofhaving compromised their freedom.48 Again, Paul not only reaffirms hisfreedom by refusing a misthos from the Corinthians. He also denies that theCorinthians have any real misthos to give him. His "profit" (kerdaineiri) liesinstead in the further spread of the gospel, among both Jews and Gentiles.As such, his real misthos lies in the opportunity to share in both the master'sworkand the fruits of the master's gospel.

45 See, e.g., G. Bornkamm, "The MissionaryStance ofPaul in I Corinthians and in Acts,"Studies in Luke-Acts (P. Schubert Festschrift; ed. L. E. Keck and J. L. Martyn; Nashville:

Abingdon, 1966) 194-207; and P. Richardson, "Pauline Inconsistency: I Corinthians 9:19-23 andGalatians 2:11-14,** NTS26 (1979-80) 347-62, among many others.

46 H. Lietzmann (An die Korinther/-//[HNT 9; 4th ed.; ed. W. G. Kmmel; Tbingen:Mohr (Siebeck), 1949] 43), e.g., sees more ofa connection between 19 and the previous chapterthan with the excursus of9:1-18.

47 While Paul talks about making himself a slave to all humanity, it is clear from standardPauline usage that he does this only because he is already the slave of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 4:1). It

is this slavery which explains Paul's simultaneous claim of freedom in 19. See again Meeks(Urban Christians, 99), who notes that Paul "has not ceased to be free (eleutheros) by freelyenslaving' himself to others " Both as God's steward and as Christ's slave Paul receives no


17/20


This becomes explicit in 23, a verse which has been seen to have a"utilitarian sound" because of its apparent concern for personal salvation.Conzelmann is certainlyright to see this statement in terms of Paul's general

understanding of election and salvation sola gratia.49 The specific key here,however, is Paul's statement about becoming a sharer (sygkoinnos) of thegospel. It is this to which Paul's arguments throughout the chapter have been

leading. The proper recompense for Paul's apostolic activities is not the

material recompense to which he has an obvious right. Rather, he seeks to

share in the spiritual fruits of his laboror rather, to share in the gos

pel itself.

One must be careful here. Paul does not claim to earn such rewards.

Only if what he were doing were of his own will (and abilities) would he be

entitled to such a reward. Rather, his activity is a stewardship entrusted to

him.50 He makes use of what is not his own so that he might share in what

is not his own. He cannot boast except of the weakness which shows God's

powera weakness which is intrinsic to the gospel and which is here dem

onstrated by his refusal of material support.

The athletic imagery of w 24-27 makes the transition between Paul's

personal example and his exhortation to the Corinthians with regard to the

specific issues of chaps. 8-10. Once again, however, the connection with therest of the present chapter has not been fully seen.51 This is not merely, as

often thought, a general Pauline exhortation to the Corinthians for self-

control. Rather, it is also closely related to the personal statements that have

gone before.

In such a way, Paul's contrast between perishable and imperishable

wreaths in 25 recalls his earlier distinction between the material and spiritual recompense of his own activityamong the Corinthians. Similarly, Paul's

disciplining and subduing of his own bodyin 27 is not simplyan exampleofgeneral bodilyrestraint. It is also a specific reference to his refusal to takematerial recompense from the Corinthians. This is made clear by the secondhalf of the verse, which speaks of the danger of being "disqualified" afterpreaching to others. In the context of the present chapter, this can onlyreferto the receiving of a misthos from the Corinthians for his apostolic activity.Even though such a misthos is his right, its acceptance would put an obstaclein the path of the gospel and make him a hired person of the Corinthians

rather than God's steward and a sharer in the gospel.


18/20


Paul's central concept of sharing may even be at work in the difficultmetaphor of 24. Indeed, only one receives the prize52Christ Jesusbutall run that they may obtain it. In running, one shares in the life of the one

who has run and won the prize. The Corinthians should run likewise.

Conclusions

In this chapter, Paul does more than simply present himself as an example of how the Corinthians should act in the case of meat sacrificed toidols. He also presents, in his own person, a summary of his gospel.

Chosen in a way similar to that of the prophets, Paul is liable to all the

distress which afflicted such prophets. In the present context, such distressincludes a forgoing of material support for his apostolic activities. From theperspective of the crucified Messiah, such material deprivation is to be welcomed as a sharing in the cross of Christ, a sharing which opens the way fora sharing in the life of the gospel. Unlike some of his prophetic predecessors

who lamented their material circumstances, the apostle rejects any attemptto ease his condition by availing himself of what he fullyasserts are his rights.To live from the gospel, one must live the gospel.

The cornerstone of this gospel is freedom, but this is not simply thefreedom to eat idol meat. The freedom Paul claims is a more basic escha-tological freedom from the ways and expectations ofthe present world.Sucha freedom is gained at the cost of suffering and renunciation, since Paul muststill live and workin this present world. Yet, to avoid such suffering would

be to compromise the gospel which he serves.

In the case of Corinth, Paul preserves his freedom by accepting norecompense from the Corinthians. Indeed, Paul does not even allow that theCorinthians have any real recompense to give him. Only the one for whomPaul really works is able to give such a recompense, and he makes it availablefreely. As God's steward, Paul does likewise and so is united with his Lord.In such a way, he shares in the life and workof the free gospel, even as hehas shared in its death.

The point of Paul's personal example for the situation described inchaps. 8 and 10 is clear. The renunciation that Paul is asking of the Corinthian strong in these chapters is precisely that material renunciation whichallows one to share in the gospel. Such a renunciation is an expression of true

freedom, a freedom not only in the world but also from the world. Suchfreedom is only gained at the cost of material sacrifice, yet it opens the way


19/20


In this chapter, Paul claims for himself both the woes of the prophets

and the rights of an apostle. By not making use of his rights, he is able to

boast of his woes. In boasting of his woes, he offers himself as both a par

adigm for the Corinthians and an illustration of the gospel.


20/20

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

1 Cor 9 - Rights of Apostle