1 Corinthians 9

CHAPTER IX

Paul an Illustration of Love, chapter 9

The principle of self-denying love which Paul has just applied to the practice of eating idol meats is so important that he elaborates it by using himself as an example. Although he is an apostle and as such possesses the highest liberty he in various ways accommodates his conduct to the people whom he serves. He thus concludes this new section with the admonition that the Corinthians follow the same principle in their conduct. Only in a few instances does Paul weave in apologetic features that concern himself. We heartily agree with Meyer’s judgment that this is eine tieftreffende und schlagende Eroerterung (a deeply probing and effective discussion).

1 Corinthians 9:1

1 Paul has just said that he would not eat meat at all if such eating would really scandalize any one of his brethren. In close connection of thought he now asks: Am I not free? He surely is, and not only objectively, but also subjectively, as far as his own conscience is concerned, free so that no man dare dictate to him. And yet, see the restriction he is ready to place on himself, 8:13.

The second question emphasizes the first: Am I not an apostle? Certainly, an apostle who is sent to proclaim the liberty in Christ Jesus is free and himself possesses this liberty most fully.

Paul’s apostleship has no doubtful features about it: Have I not seen Jesus, our Lord? Paul is an apostle in the eminent sense of this term as it is applicable only to himself and to the Twelve and not to others like Barnabas, who are sometimes, but in a wider sense, also called apostles. The statement that he has seen the Lord Jesus (the perfect tense indicating the lasting effect of that vision) refers to the Lord’s appearance to him on the road near Damascus when Paul was called to be an apostle, Acts 26:16–18.

Paul does not intend to indicate that he had seen Jesus before the latter’s ascension, for such a view of his words is doubtful and not established by 2 Cor. 5:16. Nor would a mere seeing of Jesus during his earthly life have constituted Paul an apostle or been an important incident to establish his claim to this honor. After the vision on the road to Damascus Jesus appeared to Paul at various times, but then he was already an apostle. Paul writes “Jesus” because Jesus thus named himself in the vision, Acts 9:5, and Paul is also referring to the glorified person who at one time walked here on earth as “Jesus”; he adds “our Lord” because he saw Jesus in his divine lordship and with all believers has come to accept him as Lord and now serves him as his apostle.

Jesus made Paul an apostle. But Paul’s work also proves him to be an apostle. Are you not my work in connection with the Lord? The phrase “in the Lord” modifies the entire sentence. The fact that you are my work is altogether “in connection with the Lord.” Our versions read as though “my work in the Lord” is one phrase, but the noun and the prepositional phrase are at opposite ends of the sentence; this arrangement lends emphasis to both. When Paul calls the Corinthians his work, his effort is not to be placed on a level with the work of nonapostles who may also found congregations.

For such nonapostles, as well as all their work, rest on the apostles, while these latter are directly connected with the Lord. Paul’s great brevity in considering his apostolic office shows that no question had arisen in Corinth regarding this point.

1 Corinthians 9:2

2 Whatever standing may have been accorded Paul by others who had never met him and had never known his work, in Corinth he was accepted as an apostle. If to others I am not an apostle, yet at least I am to you, for my seal of apostleship are you in the Lord. Paul mentions “others” only in passing since anything they may say in regard to his apostleship is of no moment. The condition is thus one of reality; οὑ negates only εἰμί, if the condition were to be negated, μή would be necessary. But this reference to others, whose opinion is of no consequence, helps to emphasize “you,” the Corinthians, whose relation to Paul is very close: “yet at least I am to you,” γε strengthens ἀλλά: “yet at least.” An older idiom would be: “to you at least,” R. 1148.

Paul at once explains why he can say so much in regard to the Corinthians when he is speaking about his apostleship by adding “for my seal of apostleship are you in the Lord.” This repeats in different language what Paul meant by saying that the Corinthians are his work in the Lord. He uses the figure “my seal of apostleship.” To the document which makes him an apostle, namely the Lord’s appointment on the road to Damascus, the work which Paul did in Corinth is affixed like a seal that attests genuineness. This seal corroborates what the Lord did when he gave Paul his appointment. All other congregations founded by Paul would, of course, be similiar seals, each with its special value for the congregation concerned. It is best to regard “in the Lord” or “in connection with the Lord” as again modifying the entire sentence.

1 Corinthians 9:3

3 Paul thus says nothing more about the “others” with whom he has not come into touch and proceeds to direct his attention to the Corinthians. My defense to those who examine me is this. The terms are juridical. There may be some among the Corinthians who will wish to make a juridical examination of Paul’s action as an apostle when he assumes the possibility of various restrictions upon his liberty. Paul declares that he is entirely ready to submit to such an examination. In fact, he has already told the Corinthians in 4:3 that such an investigation is a very small thing to him.

He does not admit that the Corinthians have the right to institute such an inquiry, he merely accepts the inquiry, even welcomes it. So he makes his ἀπολογία or “defense” before this tribunal somewhat as Socrates once made his defense at his trial before the 500 judges in Athens.

Does αὕτη, which stands at the end of the sentence, point backward or forward? The fact that the word is emphatic is, of course, unquestioned. The difference of opinion among commentators is acute. Some are certain that Paul’s apologia has been made in the statement just written, namely “this” that the Corinthians are his seal of apostleship. Others declare that Paul’s “defense” follows. Among these latter are our versions and R. 703.

Stylistically considered, Paul’s writings have no second instance in which a form of οὗτος, “this,” when it is placed at the end of the sentence, refers to a preceding statement. But weightier than this strong linguistic proof is the thought which Paul presents. He is here not proving to doubters or questioners that he is truly an apostle. His letter is not to be sent to the address of the “others” who know nothing about him but to the Corinthians. Nor is the question at issue this, whether Paul is an apostle or not; the Corinthians raise no such question, for they themselves are Paul’s seal of apostleship. The question on which Paul proposes to stand an examination is the one regarding Christian liberty, whether he has this liberty to the fullest degree and yet in practice can exercise all manner of restraint.

In order to answer this question Paul is writing to the Corinthians; this he wants to clear up for them. And in this effort he uses himself as an example.

In v. 1, 2 Paul presents preliminary considerations: he shows that he is more than an ordinary Christian, that he is a true apostle of Christ, and that he is acknowledged as such by the Corinthians. In v. 3 he announces that he is ready to make his defense regarding the matter of self-restriction to any in Corinth who may want to question him. Then in v. 4 the questioning proceeds. So Paul’s defense really begins with v. 1, and v. 4 begins the body of the defense.

The form of this apologia is exceedingly interesting. The Corinthians are far away, and Paul is in Ephesus. So Paul helps them. He himself conducts this judicial examination which he is pleased to undergo. The questions the Corinthians might put to him, and the doubts that may have prompted these questions with reference to the great principle itself or with reference to the way in which Paul applied this principle in his conduct, Paul formulates for the Corinthians and formulates in such a way that the answers themselves are clearly suggested. The entire method of presentation is masterly and masterful to the highest degree.

May we add that Paul evades nothing in his presentation that the Corinthians themselves might ask, in fact, he probes more deeply and examines more truly than any court in Corinth could have done. We now see why v. 4 ushers in such a long array of questions.

1 Corinthians 9:4

4 The inquiry proceeds, and Paul makes it for the Corinthians. But it at once broadens—it must broaden. Paul cannot say “I” and refer only to himself, for the Corinthians might think that Paul is merely making an unwarranted exception of himself. They would ask: “What about the other apostles?” Paul eliminates all such questionings by at once saying “we”; and this “we” is not the majestic plural as is apparent from the use of the first person singular in the verbs and the pronouns in v. 1–3, for no intelligent writer would turn from the latter to the former in the same connection. This point of contention is placed beyond doubt in v. 6 where Paul writes: “I alone and Barnabas.”

Do you intend to say that we have not a right to eat and to drink? The signal that the expected answer is “no” is the interrogative particle μή; οὑκ merely negates ἔχομεν, R. 918, 1158, 1174. “You Corinthians,” Paul says, “do not want to say anything like that.” Observe the use of the key word found in 8:9 and its emphatic repetition in the following questions: ἐξουσία, “the right” to make this use of our Christian liberty.

“To eat and to drink” are aorists, hence they do not refer to the eating and the drinking that is necessary to support life, for it would be foolish to ask regarding that. Nor do these verbs refer to all kinds of food, including even idol meats, for the food and the drink are not mentioned at all. Paul is speaking about the right of the apostles to be supported with food and drink by the congregations they founded and served. Other pastors and preachers made use of this right; we know that Paul did not. But do the Corinthians wish to say that the apostles have no such right?

1 Corinthians 9:5

5 Do you intend to say that we have not a right to lead about a sister as a wife even as also the rest of the apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas? This question is like the preceding one. “You Corinthians certainly do not intend to say anything like that.” “A sister” is a believer, and “as a wife” is the common predicate accusative, a kind of apposition, R. 480. The apostles certainly had a right to marry and to take a wife along on their travels from place to place while they were engaged in their work. The idea that γυναῖκα means a servians matrona, a woman assistant in missionary work, or merely a companion for the sake of company and to help with the cooking, etc., is even morally preposterous.

“Even as also (καί, pleonastic) the rest of the apostles” means that all of the apostles save Paul actually made use of this right and were married and took their wives along with them on their travels, or at least that the apostles as a class followed this course. What Paul says about this right includes the idea that the apostles themselves as well as their wives that accompanied them are entitled to support from the congregations whom their husbands serve.

As next in prominence to the apostles and certainly also in possession of the fullest rights of Christian liberty Paul names “the brethren of the Lord.” We do not know to what extent these men engaged in the work of the church. Whether these brothers of the Lord (Matt. 13:55, 56 also names sisters) are natural children of Joseph and Mary who were born after Jesus, or are children of Joseph by a former marriage, or are only cousins of Jesus and children of Mary’s sister and of her husband Alphaeus, is and probably must remain a mooted question. Each effort at a solution of the problem encounters serious objections. The fact of their special prominence suffices for the present connection. Some of them, perhaps all of them, availed themselves of the right concerning which Paul speaks.

“And Cephas” or “especially Cephas” distinguishes this leader of the Twelve from the classes mentioned and sets him forth as a most notable example. Mark 1:30 mentions his mother-in-law, and tradition gives either Concordia or Perpetua as the name of his wife. We have no definite details concerning her life. It is rather disconcerting to the papacy that Peter, who is regarded as the first pope, is represented as a married man in the Scriptures. The Corinthians certainly cannot think of singling out Paul as an exception and denying him the right which the other apostles and the most prominent persons in the church and even Peter himself were free to use.

1 Corinthians 9:6

6 Or I alone and Barnabas, do you intend to say that we have not a right to forbear working? The form of the question is still the same, and the implied answer is a decided “no.” Here Paul’s “we” becomes fully clear; it includes him and others. Barnabas had had no contact with the Corinthians but accompanied Paul on his first missionary journey and was decidedly prominent in the early days of the church’s history. Paul and he, it seems, had agreed at the very outset not to accept support from their converts but to earn their own living, Paul by laboring as a tentmaker, and Barnabas by engaging in his trade—every Jew being obliged to learn some trade in his youth. We now see what Paul means in v. 4, 5 when he speaks about the right to eat and to drink and the right to take a Christian wife along with him on his journeys, namely to forbear working and earning his own support and to receive support from the fields of his apostolic labor.

1 Corinthians 9:7

7 The questions of this ἀνάκρισις or judicial examination continue but now deal with illustrations which show how self-evident the negative answers to the previous questions are. Who goes soldiering at his own charges ever? Why, the man for whom he fights furnishes him with provisions and even pays him for soldiering. The translation “at his own charges” gives the general sense of what, more literally translated, would be “with his own purchased (ὠνέομαι) provisions (ὄψον).” He does not buy his own food; the general commander buys that.

Again: Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Again the reply, “Nobody.” In fact, he will be the first to taste the grapes, and the entire harvest belongs to him. Compare Deut. 20:6, and Prov. 27:18 concerning the fig tree.

Again a third time: Or who shepherds a flock and does not eat of the milk of that flock? No one, of course. He who owns and tends the flock likewise owns all its product. Observe ποιμαίνειποίμνην … τῆςποίμνης, regarding which R. 478 says that “playing with paronymous terms” is perfectly good Greek.

These three illustrations are taken from entirely different experiences of everyday life and show not only that Paul is fully entitled to his rights but that it would be contrary to nature itself if any man denied him these rights. Yet logically such analogies are only illustrative; they are not proof or a fully convincing demonstration.

1 Corinthians 9:8

8 Therefore, in order that no one may reply that these are only analogies and thus evade the force of Paul’s claims, he adds the double question: Am I, do you think, saying these things only in man fashion? or does the law, too, fail to state these things? Throughout and also here the only answers possible are “no.” Paul is not saying these things (λαλῶ, “to utter,” the opposite of to “be silent”) only “in man fashion” so that the norm and the principle are only human, only “man.” This silences the reply that Paul’s human analogies refer only to ordinary human life and do not apply in the domain of the Christian or the apostolic life. Then Paul’s deductions would, indeed, have but a slender support. In these matters the natural and the Christian life coincide; the analogies that are taken from the one apply fully to the other.

This truth is not only clinched by the second member of the question but is advanced to complete proof when Paul introduces “the law” itself, i.e., the Word of God. “Or does the law, too, fail to state these things” (λέγει, which always includes the substance of what is said)? No; the law, too, states them. In the first half of the question μή anticipates an expected negative reply; in the second half οὑ is not a corresponding anticipation of a positive reply, for it would then have to stand at the beginning of the sentence, οὑλέγει = “not say” = “omit to say.” The answer, too, is negative: No, it does not omit to say.

1 Corinthians 9:9

9 This is verified by γάρ. For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle an ox when threshing. The emphasis is on the phrase “in the law of Moses.” Regarding the perfect γέγραπται see 1:19. The future “thou shalt not muzzle” is idiomatic in commands and in laws in general. The Gentiles had the practice of muzzling the oxen when they were driven around and around and perhaps drew rough sleds over grain that had been spread out in a circle in order to thresh it. Since it was more humane the law of Moses forbade such a practice and allowed the ox to eat his fill of grain while he was thus at work.

God’s law is quite clear and simple regarding this point: he wants the ox to eat while he works at threshing. We read this law and generally find no more in it than a kindly regulation concerning brute beasts. It is that, too, and the Old Testament laws are emphatic in conserving the natural rights of even brute beasts. But Paul sees much more in it than a concern for such beasts. You certainly do not think that it is only for the oxen that God cares? The answer which Paul seeks to elicit is a strong “no.” The verb μέλει is impersonal, literally, “Is it care of oxen to God?”—is that all? The genitive states what is cared for, and the dative the person who has the care. No; the care and the concern of God are not so limited, his care extends ever so much farther.

1 Corinthians 9:10

10 How far it extends and why it extends so far, the alternative question and its appended explanation make plain. Or does he say this altogether on our account? Most certainly. For it was written on our account that the man who plows ought to plow in hope, and the man who threshes—in hope of partaking. Few men notice the real reason that God gave this law. They so generally overlook the fact that Paul points out by the repetition of the phrase “on our account” or “for our sakes.” This law concerning oxen extends far beyond oxen. It really concerns them only incidentally; this law is chiefly a law concerning us, in fact, one that “altogether,” πάντως, concerns us.

The ὅτι clause is explicative; it states in full what is implied in the emphatic phrase “on our account.” The A. V. is correct; the R. V. regards ὅτι as causal: “because he that ploweth,” etc. Moreover, this explication is in concrete and not in abstract form. Paul regards the plowman and the thresher as two of us on whose account this law was written into the sacred record. These two illustrate and show that this law concerning oxen applies to all of us.

As these ought to work at plowing and at threshing in the hope of partaking of the fruits of their labors, so all of us should work in the same hope. This explicative clause is abbreviated in true Greek fashion while the English would be inclined to write it out in full: “that he who plows ought to plow in hope (of partaking), and he who threshes (ought to thresh) in hope of partaking.” “In hope” is really “on hope,” the labor rests on this basis; and the infinitive “of partaking” depends on both of the phrases that speak of hope. Thus, as Paul explains, this law concerning cattle was written into the Bible on our account.

There is much discussion in regard to the manner in which Paul applies this Old Testament law regarding threshing oxen. Paul is charged with treating this law in a way that is “altogether unhistorical” as though he claimed that God says oxen and yet does not mean oxen but us. Paul’s treatment is therefore called “the completely developed allegorical method which dissolves all concrete historical and actual features and turns them into psychology and ethics.” We are happy to say that this charge is untrue in toto.

Again, Paul is said to use allegory indeed but quite legitimately. He removes the historical sense and converts it into a type and an allegory by means of an application which amounts to a deduction a minori ad majus, i.e., applies what is said about animals to men. Yet such a statement attributes to Paul a procedure which, to say the least, has a questionable appearance.

Finally we are told that Paul is not using allegory at all, that he allows the full historical sense of the law regarding oxen to stand as it is, and that he merely applies this law also to us, i.e., to men in general, that from this law concerning oxen they may learn something concerning their relation to each other. This is the best of these three interpretations, and yet it, too, is unsatisfactory.

Luther has the key to the problem when in his striking way he makes the simple statement: “Oxen cannot read.” The “thou shalt not” of the Scriptures is not addressed to cattle but to God’s people. Moreover, “on account of us” means neither “on account of us men in general” nor “on account of us Christians”; Paul means “on account of us apostles and of all who work like us.” Verse 11 employs “we” in this sense and even contrasts the apostles and their fellow workers with “you,” the Corinthians; this is decisive also in regard to v. 10. This answers the charge that Paul is misapplying this law by emptying it of its historical meaning or by turning it into an allegory. Paul does not even make merely an application of this law by using it to illustrate what our relation to each other ought to be. What Paul does is something that is entirely different, something we find him doing throughout his writings: he goes back to the underlying basic principle.

Back of this simple law, back of a large number of simple divine statements, back of simple questions or complex questions asked, for instance, by the Corinthians, a basic principle will always be found. That principle is the only true key to the understanding of the law, the statement or the question and its answer. But we cannot understand a principle of this kind unless we see its range, notice that it extends far beyond an individual case to an entire series of cases. The moment we see that we begin to see clearly. For this reason Paul makes those digressions in his writings, which we meet so often, some of which are long. When we perceive the mastery of this method we also understand Paul.

Paul is far removed from changing the sense of God’s law concerning the oxen that thresh. He needs that very sense because he gives an exposition of that very sense. What is the principle lying back of this law, what principle requires a law of this nature in the case of oxen? Paul names that principle: the worker shall participate in the fruit of his work. Or he shall work with the hope of participation. This applies to every worker, even to the oxen that thresh.

Other examples are “he that plows” and “he that threshes,” which means the actual plowman and the actual thresher. And this is true in the case of every worker, including, of course, the apostles and their work. The example of the plowman and the thresher are chosen with an eye to the work of the apostles and that of those who succeed them in the work of the church just as Jesus himself speaks of him that sows and him that reaps in John 4:36–38 and applies the very principle which Paul quotes from the law concerning oxen: the sower and the reaper are to rejoice together, namely in the blessed fruits of their labors. The oxen cannot understand this even when they feed while threshing. It is said “altogether on our account,” and it is a pity if we fail to understand.

1 Corinthians 9:11

11 After the principle has been clearly set before his readers and has even been exemplified, Paul makes his application to the spiritual workers. If we to you did sow spiritual things, is it a great matter if we your bodily things shall reap? The natural answer is “no.” The argument from the greater to the less is highly effective: “spiritual things—bodily things.” The work of the apostles and of their successors produced for the church τὰπνευματικά, the entire priceless wealth of spiritual blessings, but for their subsistence they could receive at best only a far less and cheaper return, τὰσαρκικά (τὰκατὰσάρκαὄντα see 3:1–3), bodily things such as food, drink, lodging, etc. Here this latter term has no ethical meaning, hence we do not translate “fleshly” or “carnal” (our versions) but “bodily things,” i.e., those that accord with the flesh of which our body is composed. Is it a great thing to produce such wondrous fruit and to receive so slight a return?

Paul writes “did sow,” an aorist, because the sowing had already been done in Corinth, but “shall reap,” a future, because this follows the sowing. Note the intentional juxtapositions of the pronouns, first ἡμεῖςὑμῖν, “we to you,” and next ἡμεῖςὑμῶν, “we your.” The sense of “we” is beyond question, which fact determines the meaning of this pronoun in v. 10. The plowing and the threshing spoken of in v. 10 are matched by the sowing and the reaping mentioned in v. 11. For plowing is undertaken in order to sow and reaping in order to thresh; and thus, too, the arrangement is naturally chiastic: the plowing precedes the seeding, while the reaping precedes the threshing. Now we have the very expressions which Jesus used in John 4, namely sowing and reaping. The ordinary plowman and the thresher, the sower and the reaper get a part of the very grain they help to produce even as the ox eats of the very grain he helps to tread out; the apostles stand on a lower level, they can receive only what is on a level that is lower than the wealth which they help to produce.

1 Corinthians 9:12

12 It is not enough to make only this comparison in regard to things, Paul must add the other comparison in regard to persons. If others share in this right over you, do not we yet more? Nevertheless, we did not make use of this right but we bear all things in order that we may furnish no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.

The rightful claims of the apostles exceed in both directions: first when pay is spoken of, secondly when persons are thought of. Thus the two match. First: “is it a great thing” regarding this inferior pay? secondly: “do not we yet the more” deserve it than the others who keep taking it (μετέχουσιν, durative present)? “Others” in Corinth and elsewhere, others who preach and teach keep accepting support as a matter of course. They “share in this right over you,” exercise their part of it without hesitation.

The verb governs the genitive, here τῆςἐξουσίας, which again introduces the key word, v. 4, etc. The genitive ὑμῶν is objective: this right “over you,” R. 500. If these others have and make full use of this right, the apostles surely have this right and could use it “yet more,” for they are more entitled to take such support than all others could possibly be.

But what did the apostles do while they were in Corinth? “Nevertheless, we did not make use of this right.” The historical aorist reports the fact. Here the closeness of the parallel with 8:9, etc., is apparent, having a right and yet for love’s sake refraining from using that right; having the greatest right, more than others engaged in the same work, and foregoing it entirely. Paul is writing this to the Corinthians; so we may take it that “we” means Paul in particular and the two men who worked with him in Corinth, Silas and Timothy, and that none of them took support from the Corinthians. The other apostles very likely pursued a similar course elsewhere.

The second ἀλλά drives home the first; it adds the positive side to the negative. This is a favorite way of Paul’s when he would especially impress a thought upon his readers. “But we bear all things,” namely all privations involved in foregoing our right. The present tense says: “We do so right along, even now.” The words are simple and brief and yet full of meaning. It is no easy burden this to preach and to teach and at the same time to earn enough to live and to travel from place to place. Paul’s was a life of privation and of self-denials.

Yet however hard this made his lot and that of his assistants, he held to his purpose: “in order that we may furnish no hindrance to the gospel of Christ,” δῶμεν, aorist, actually “give” such a hindrance, actually cause it by taking support. In what way the taking of such support would be such a hindrance is not stated; the Corinthians themselves will know, namely when they raise the suspicion that Paul is mercenary, that he preaches this gospel of Christ because he obtains his support from this work.

Paul’s conduct is a fine example of a Christian who has the most perfect right to do a certain thing, and whom no one dare to deny this right, who, nevertheless, declines to use that right, yea, declines it completely. He has the fullest liberty according to nature and even according to law and yet voluntarily foregoes that liberty. He never does it arbitrarily; never to secure earthly advantage; and never because he weakly yields to the demands of arrogant men. The Christian foregoes his right for some truly Christian reason, namely for the sake of Christ and the gospel and the salvation of men. He voluntarily lays aside his right in order to help his brethren, especially the weak brethren. He will suffer much in order that they may not lose or be lost.

1 Corinthians 9:13

13 Yet Paul must say still more. Some subjects are of such a nature that they must be carried through to the end. To stop halfway is to leave a wrong impression. Every natural consideration gives Paul the right to take support, and so does every legal consideration which is supported by God himself. But finally also his right is upheld by every sacred consideration, both that embodied in the old Levitical arrangements and that embodied in the Lord’s own regulations for the preachers of his gospel. So the judicial examination which Paul helps the Corinthians conduct in his case as to why he permitted love to rule him to the point of yielding his right and his Christian liberty goes a step farther. Do you not know that they who are engaged in working with the Temple things eat of the things from the Temple; they who are engaged in waiting on the altar of sacrifice have their portion with the altar of sacrifice?

Of course, the Corinthians know this. The priests and the Levites who do the work of the Temple receive their support from the Temple. Paul is certainly not thinking of pagan temples and heathen priests. The Corinthians have turned their backs on all pagan temples. Their priests do, indeed, also obtain their support from their temples, but all this paganism with its temples and its priests ought to be abolished and has no right to exist in the sight of God. An appeal to pagan practices would thus react on Paul himself and would destroy all that he is building up.

God himself arranged the Temple and its services for the Jews. All of these arrangements had his sanction and were thus truly sacred. And this was God’s arrangement, that they who are engaged in working with τὰἱερά should also eat τὰἐκτοῦἱεροῦ, a beautiful paronomasia: Temple things or rituals and “things from the Temple,” meat and money.

The parallel statement is added for the sake of emphasis and is effective because it has no connective: “they that wait on the altar,” etc. The verb παρεδρεύειν = “to sit steadily beside,” παρά of the verb calling for the dative. This sitting is one of readiness to offer the sacrifices. Paul quite properly refers to the great altar which stood in the court of the priests, on which certain portions of the sacrificed animal were burned; the remainder of the carcass was given to the priests. Being thus devoted to the altar, these priests of God have their share with the altar, συμμερίζονται, middle: receive their μέρος or portion for themselves. The Corinthians need not to be told that this was God’s own arrangement.

Christianity had superseded the old Temple ritual. Paul does not need to explain this change. The present tenses “eat” and “have their share with” are general and refer to the arrangement which God made concerning the priests.

1 Corinthians 9:14

14 Let no one say that this is Jewish and has no bearing on Christ and on the preachers of the gospel. Thus also did the Lord ordain for those engaged in proclaiming the gospel to live by the gospel. Paul does not again ask: “Do you not know this?” He himself solemnly states the fact. He does not quote the Lord’s διαταγή or ordinance but only restates it from Matt. 10:10 and Luke 10:8. The aorist is historical and reports the undeniable fact as such. The present participle is qualitative: “for those engaged in proclaiming,” and describes his apostles and his preachers; it is like the two present participles occurring in v. 13: “engaged in working,” “engaged in waiting on.” The Old and the New Testaments combine in assuring full support to God’s workers.

1 Corinthians 9:15

15 With his right to support so completely assured, what course did Paul pursue, what course does he still pursue? The nature of the case requires that Paul henceforth use the pronoun “I.” Paul speaks only for himself and not for his associates. Yet I have made use of not one of these things. And I did not write these things in order that it shall be thus in my case. For it is good for me rather to die; or no one shall make my glory void.

The perfect tense “I have not used” includes the thought that Paul still pursues this course; and the pronoun “I” is emphatic, “I for my part,” to say nothing about others whose case is not like Paul’s. “To live by the gospel” includes many things: food, drink, clothing, etc. Paul says he made use “of not one of these things,” he renounced all of them. He worked in Aquila’s shop and supported himself in toto.

The addition introduced with δέ: “and I did not write these things in order that it shall be thus in my case,” deals a deathblow to the suspicion which someone might be low enough to entertain, namely that Paul’s secret purpose in writing these things is, after all, to get support from the people. The aorist “I wrote” refers to what Paul has thus far set down in proving his “right” in the matter of support. The phrase ἐνἐμοί is a case of ἐν with persons: “in my case” or “in my person,” R. 587. Nothing is farther from Paul’s intention than the thought of changing his course. He at once states how far removed such a thought is and uses the explanatory γάρ: “For it is good for me rather to die” than that it should be so in my case, namely that I should accept support. Paul would prefer to die as a result of hunger or of privations rather than to accept support from his congregations.

This seems at first glance to be an extravagant statement which carries the matter of foregoing one’s Christian liberty and right absolutely to extremes. But let us pause a moment and wait until Paul has finished his writing.

Here a question arises as to the correct reading of the text. We accept the reading: ἣτὸκαύχημάμουοὑδεὶςκενώσει, instead of the reading that has the purpose clause: ἵνατιςκενώσῃ (or κενώσει). We therefore translate: “or no one shall make my glory void,” i.e., if, instead of dying, I continue to live by support from the church. Our versions follow the less accredited text: “for it were better (good) for me to die than that any man should make my glorying (should be: my glory) void, καύχημα is not the act of glorying, but that in which one glories, that which gives one the right to glory. The trouble with this reading is that all efforts to combine μᾶλλονἥ in the sense of “rather than” are linguistically untenable; the two words do not belong together. Tischendorf assumes that this is an anacoluthon; R. 996 makes it “a broken sentence”; others find it to be an aposiopesis, an omission of a part of the sentence; ἥ, “or,” is sometimes converted into ἧ, “verily,” which the New Testament would then have only here.

But the sentence is quite regular. Only two alternatives exist for Paul: either to die, say of non-support, if that should become necessary; “or” that his cause of glory remain intact.

1 Corinthians 9:16

16 But would Paul’s glory not consist in his preaching of the gospel, in this alone whether it be with or without support? In this respect Paul’s case is exceptional, for this reason he is now also speaking only about himself. For if I preach the gospel I have no cause for glory, for a necessity lies upon me; for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.

Others may find preaching a cause for glory; Paul’s case is different. Why different? Because he must preach; a necessity, a compulsion rests upon him, which takes the matter entirely out of his hands. In fact, woe to him, if he does not preach! “Woe,” οὑαί, is here used like a substantive, R. 270. Calamity, dire punishment from God would overtake Paul if he ceased to preach. This is surely astounding, and Paul intends that it shall be so. Such a statement is in need of an adequate explanation, and Paul now furnishes this explanation With γάρ.

1 Corinthians 9:17

17 For if I do this of my own will I have pay, but if not of my own will I only have a stewardship entrusted to me.

The two conditions contemplate two realities and are treated as such by Paul. First, if Paul’s case is really this that he preaches “of his own will,” by his own volition and consent, then he indeed has something in which to glory, something of which to be proud with a holy pride, then μισθόν, “pay,” or “reward,” would properly come to him, namely the future reward of glory and honor in heaven promised by the Lord, in which Paul could and would rejoice already now while he was doing his great work. But this is not at all Paul’s case. He did not first become a follower of Christ and then, like the other apostles, of his own volition accept the Lord’s call and commission to the apostleship.

Paul’s case was the reverse. If I do this work of preaching “not of my own will,” if this is my case—and it is—then my entire position is different. The two pivotal terms are ἑκών, “with my will and consent,” and ἄκων, “without my will and consent.” In Paul’s case his heavenly Lord and Master himself decided the whole matter without in any way first preparing Paul, and without in any way first asking his consent. Thus Paul says: “I only have a stewardship entrusted to me,” i.e., the Lord turned it over to me, and I still have it.

In order to understand Paul’s statement we should remember that the οἰκονόμοι (4:1, 2) were slaves, whose masters simply gave certain goods or property into their hands to be administered in trust. The entire matter rested on the decision of the master to whom the slave in question belonged. The master did not ask: “Will you take this stewardship?” He only gave the order: “Take it!” The slave took it—woe to him if he was obstinate and refused! But when a slave, who had nothing to say in the matter, was put in charge of such a trust he had no claim to wages for administering this trust. Being only a slave and belonging bodily to his master, that master could and did use him as he saw fit. And that was the end of the matter.

And such a slave was bound to be faithful, 4:1, 2. That was also taken as a matter of course.

All this throws light on the parable of The Talents and on that of The Pounds in which masters make their slaves stewards by simply issuing orders to that effect. We even have two examples of slaves who refused to act as stewards, and from the punishment meted out to them we may gather what Paul means when he says: “Woe to me, if I refuse to act!” The incident that in the parables the master rewards his faithful slaves when the accounting is finally made at the close of their stewardship is simply an astounding exception, an example of the magnificent generosity of this Master who far excels all other slave masters. The tremendous size of the reward shows that it cannot be conceived in the light of pay.

Here we meet one of the features that is frequently found in Christ’s parables, which far transcends the human imagery because the latter is utterly inadequate to portray the divine reality but is able to portray that reality only by glaring contrast. As far as the claims of these slaves in the parables are concerned, even those of the most faithful, all of them are on a par with the claims of the slave mentioned in Luke 17:7–10, who, when he had done everything, had earned not even his master’s thanks because he had done only what it was his obligation to do as a slave.

This is Paul’s case exactly. When Jesus acquired him as a slave while he was on the road to Damascus, right then and there Jesus issued his order and told his slave for what work he had decided to use him. Paul received the order right there to act as an οἰκονόμος or “slave-steward” for his new Master: “Arise, and stand upon thy feet; for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness,” etc., which uses the even still lower term ὑπηρέτης (see remarks on 4:1), a slave helper who just obeys orders without question, Acts 26:16. Placed into the apostleship and the work of preaching in this fashion, Paul has no credit due him, no pay of any kind, no reward. When then, as in 2 Tim. 4:8, he speaks of the crown that is laid up for him, which already now makes his eyes shine, this reward must, as in the parables, be referred to the astounding magnanimity of his divine Master.

1 Corinthians 9:18

18 Yet Paul is determined to have credit, pay, and cause to glory after all, slave though he is and therefore debarred from earning pay. He has not been in the company of his heavenly Master in vain, from his Master’s magnanimity he has learned also to be magnanimous. What, then, is my pay? namely this pay that is due me after all, R. 759. Answer: That when I preach the gospel I make the gospel without charge so as not to use at all my right in connection with the gospel.

This subfinal ἵνα states the answer to the question and here has the indicative: “That I shall (actually) make,” etc.; there is no thought of purpose: “that I may make,” etc., our versions, which do not seem to be acquainted with this use of ἵνα. The point of Paul’s answer to this question lies in ἀδάπανον, “without charge,” free of expense to the congregations concerned.

The expression εἰςτό with the infinitive denotes result: making the gospel without charge results in this that Paul makes no use whatever of his right to receive support in connection with the gospel. Paul might invert this statement; it would be true either way. Yet the cause that impels Paul may logically well be said to be his concern for the people, and thus the effect or result is the non-use of his right.

Even as a slave-steward Paul has the right (here we again have this key word) to be fed, clothed, etc. while he is administering his Master’s trust; the Master himself so ordained. Paul could exercise that right in the course of his work. It would not be wrong for him to do so. Then, he would, however, be like every other slave-steward with no claim on credit whatever. By foregoing his right as a steward, by making the gospel wholly without charge to the church Paul establishes a claim. He thereby imitates his great Master in a small way.

Freely he dispenses his magnificent gifts to his servants, ten cities to one, five cities to another, so that his glory shines forth forever. Paul dispenses the gospel by his ministry, founds and builds up one congregation after another, asks absolutely no return so that his generosity stands forth to his credit and calls for recognition, if not on the part of men, then at least on the part of the Lord.

The verb καταχρήσασθαι does not mean “to misuse” or “to use unduly” but “to use fully or completely,” and its negation denies all of it: “not to use at all.” We correct the A. V.’s: “to abuse,” and the R. V.’s: “not to use in full,” i.e., yet to use in part. Paul makes no use whatever of this his right, hence also the constative or comprehensive aorist is employed; he is not establishing a partial but a total claim.

1 Corinthians 9:19

19 Paul adds an explanation which reveals to us the full extent of his surrender of the right that is his. He goes far beyond merely yielding his right to support. How much more he yields he now tells us. The arrangement of the sentences, the choice of words and of phrases are so perfect that we must marvel at the mastery here displayed. Paul’s purpose goes far beyond securing “glory” or “due pay” for himself only. His deeper purpose in giving up so much in the interest of the gospel is to win as many souls as possible for salvation.

Though being free from all men, to all men I made myself a slave in order that I might gain the more men. Both πάντων and πᾶσιν are masculine as the context shows, and the two are juxtaposed for the purpose of emphasis: “from all, to all.” The thought itself is highly paradoxical: on the one hand, to be free from all men; then, to be bound to all men. Luther had caught Paul’s secret when he wrote regarding the liberty of a Christian man: “A Christian man is a free lord over all things and subject to nobody. A Christian man is a ministering servant in all things and subject to everybody.” Yet Paul’s paradox must be properly understood: when he made himself a slave to all men he did this of his own accord, he did it freely; it was the voluntary act of a free man: “Being free, I made myself a slave.” Paul does not say: “I let all men (or any man) make a slave of me.” To be made a slave thus is the very subversion of Christianity, 7:23: “Become not slaves of men.”

“Being free from all men” means, first of all, to be free from an obligation that might result if Paul accepted support for preaching. If he accepted nothing whatever, no shadow of moral obligation could arise. Paul does not need to specify other restrictions that might hamper his freedom in a similar way. A man who goes as far as Paul does in the matter of refusing support will not lag behind in other matters in order that he may be free.

“Free from all men”—what a weight these few words carry! Paul had broken with his entire past, with his own nation, and was not understood by many of his fellow believers. He had learned to endure envy and hate, to face danger and persecution, to look death in the face again and again—alone, depending only on his Lord. He had unlearned completely to bow to the opinions and the will of men. He is free, he enjoys the whole of Christian freedom, he is wholly sure of himself, he is dependent on no man, he is proud with a sacred pride, unyielding to the demands of any man.

But now the paradox: “to all men I will make myself a slave.” This utterly outstrips any freedom which the Corinthian disciples and protagonists might vauntingly claim. The pagan Stoics, too, had much to say about inner freedom which enabled a man by philosophy and by training to rise far above either pain or joy. Paul would stagger these pagans when he declares: “I made mine own self a slave to all.” No Stoic would understand that. Yet it only echoes the words of Jesus, Mark 10:43–45; Luke 22:26, 27. Even the Corinthians should by this time know far more about this freedom which makes men voluntary slaves.

Like a flood of light the purpose clause illumines Paul’s paradox: “in order that I might gain more men.” The verb κερδαίνειν is a technical missionary term which alternates with σώζειν in v. 22. “More men” = more than I should gain by pursuing a different course. Paul, too, is moved by the motive of Jesus who made himself lowly and poor in order to make as many as possible great and rich. The fact that this kind of slavery gives a man a place among the highest nobility in God’s kingdom Paul does not add although Jesus did so.

1 Corinthians 9:20

20 Now there follow the striking details of Paul’s self-imposed slavery. And I became to the Jews as a Jew in order that I might gain Jews; to those under law as under law, yet not being myself under law, in order that I might gain those under law.

The connective καί is epexegetical. Paul became, not a Jew, but “as a Jew” by living according to the Jewish fashion among the Jews and by using their forms of teaching when he sought to convert them. Having once been a Jew, he could do this perfectly. “In order to gain Jews” restates the great purpose of love.

While “Jews” and “those under law” are identical, “Jews” refers to nationality, and “under law” refers to religion. Paul has in mind the Mosaic law, but the absence of the article treats this law as one would regard law in general. The phrase ὑπὸνόμον, with the accusative, takes the place of the locative with the genitive as indicating place and is found even with verbs of rest, R. 635. These people were scrupulous about legal prescriptions, and Paul accommodates himself to them when he is preaching the gospel by carefully avoiding anything that might arouse their antagonism. He thus observed their laws regarding food, drink, and similar matters.

But Paul at once safeguards himself: “yet not being myself under law.” This explanation Paul must add for the sake of the Gentile Christians in Corinth lest they misunderstand; and he must add it also for the sake of the Jewish Christians lest they, in a different way, also misunderstand. For Paul and all Christians are completely free from all regulations of the ceremonial law. More will have to be said about being “under law” in connection with the next verse. Paul probably suffered not a little as a result of the course he thus pursued, for people who did not, and probably also would not, understand him added to his suffering. He again adds the refrain which tells of his motive and purpose: “in order that I might gain those under law.”

1 Corinthians 9:21

21 To those without law as without law, yet not being without God’s law but in Christ’s law, in order that I might gain those without law.

The Gentiles were ἄνομοι because they had no legal code from God to regulate them. Paul accommodated himself to them by living as if he, too, were without law. He mingled freely with them and disregarded all Jewish observances which he followed at other times; he also, as for instance at Athens, formulated his teaching so that it might make the strongest appeal to the Gentile mind. Paul did not, of course, live in a lawless and in a godless fashion when he was among Gentiles. He did not act like a pagan or become a pagan, he was not utterly devoid of divine law. He was and he remained a Christian even among the Gentiles even as he was and remained a Christian among the Jews.

Just as Paul, when referring to his life among the Jews, inserts the safeguarding clause: “yet not being myself under law,” so when he now speaks about his life among the Gentiles he carefully inserts even a double statement, a negative and a positive one: “yet not being without God’s law but in Christ’s law.” As long as Paul speaks only about Jews and about Gentiles, the expressions “under law” and “without law” may be understood in a superficial sense and imply that the former have the law of Moses and live under it, and the latter have no such law and live without it. But the moment Paul refers to himself and says regarding himself that he is not under law yet not without law but in the law the entire subject is deepened.

In contrast with the Jews, Paul is in no sense a Gentile. The Jews, as long as they remain Jews, are under the law because they reject the gospel. The law binds, compels, curses, and damns them. The Gentiles know nothing about this law and because of this ignorance are not under it; yet because they, too, are devoid of the gospel, they, too, lie under the curse and condemnation of the law. From all this coercion and this damnation Paul, the Christian, is delivered by the gospel. In this sense he writes: “I am under law.”

In contrast with the Gentiles, Paul is in no sense a Jew. The Jews are under the law outwardly and inwardly; Paul is not. The Gentiles are inwardly under the law, and only outwardly are they free from it; Paul is free both outwardly and inwardly. The gospel gave him this freedom. But through this very freedom from the law the gospel put Paul within the law. The law, once a relentless master and tyrant, is through the gospel now a beneficent friend and servant to Paul.

Freely, of his own volition, Paul, the gospel Christian, delights to do the works of the law. As such a man he moves among both Jews and Gentiles. With perfect liberty he uses ceremonial regulations when he is among Jews, and with the same perfect liberty he discards all such regulations when he is among Gentiles; he follows both courses of conduct in order to win as many as possible for the gospel.

Under the law, Jew alone = under its outward regime.

Under the law, Jew and Gentile = under its power and its curse.

Without the law, Gentile alone = not under its outward regime.

Without the law, Christian alone = not under its outward regime nor under its power and its curse.

Not without the law, Christian alone = not deprived of its service.

In the law, Christian alone = using its service in doing its works through the free power of the gospel.

When Paul denies that he is an ἄνομοςΘεοῦ and affirms that he is ἔννομοςΧριστοῦ, the negation and the affirmation are only two sides of the same truth; and νόμος in the two adjectives (or are they predicate nouns?) is the same law, that of Moses. The two genitives differ only formally as to the sense, for an ἄνομος is such in relation to God, and an ἔννομος is such in relation to Christ. We venture the opinion that the two genitives are grammatically alike, both possessive and dependent on the noun νόμος which is embedded in each of the terms. Neither is a genitive because of the prefix used with the terms. R. 516 lists “God’s” as a genitive ablative because of the prefix in ἄνομος while he is unclear in regard to “Christ’s” and says only that this is “a bold use” of the genitive.

Now we again have the refrain: “in order that I might gain those without law,” which states Paul’s purpose and motive of love. The aorist subjunctive κερδάνω is derived from κερδαίνω, R. 1216, while the previous aorist subjunctive κερδήσω is derived from κερδάνω, R. 1217; the two verbs are only variant forms of the same root. The aorists denote actual winning for Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:22

22 I became weak to the weak in order that I might gain the weak.

“The weak” are Christians indeed, but because they are weak they are easily offended by the strong who act without regard to their weakness, 8:7; and thus the weak may perish. To them Paul condescends as if he, too, were “weak” by entering into their difficulties, avoiding offense, helping them to become strong. The term “weak” has a fixed meaning in connections such as this: weak and undeveloped in knowledge and in faith, compare 8:10. Paul does not need to add: “yet being not weak myself,” for between the weak and the strong there is no such difference as between Jews and Christians or Gentiles and Christians. Once more we have the refrain: “in order that I might gain the weak.” We now see why Paul selects the verb “gain” when he writes this refrain. It is wider in force than “save.” The weak are saved, indeed, because they are Christians, but they can be gained for greater strength, for an advance in knowledge and in faith.

And now Paul summarizes: To all men I became all things in order that by all means I might save some.

All of the classes already mentioned are included in “all men”; and this expression would apply also to all other classes that one might wish to make. To all of them Paul has become “all things” according to the individual requirements of their particular cases. Now Paul uses the perfect “I have become,” which again includes the previous historical aorists which referred to the mere past facts yet adds the idea that Paul continues thus even to the present moment.

This time the refrain is struck with variations: “in order that by all means I may save some.” In the first place, note the beautiful paronomasia between πᾶσι—πάντα—πάντως—and πάντα in v. 23. Paul spreads out his arms and opens wide his heart of love by the use of these four terms, all of which mean “all—all.” In contrast with these four “all” terms he writes save “some.” Although he is not less than an apostle he knows that he will be able to save only “some.” A note of humility creeps in here, one that is even today very comforting to us who are less than Paul when we, too, find that we can save only “some.” And yet what joy and happiness it was to Paul and is to us that we are able to save at least “some,” v. 19, “the more”! The verb σώζω is stronger than the verb “to gain” yet helps to define Paul’s ultimate purpose also in regard to the weak and is more fitting in a conclusion.

It should not be necessary, yet it probably is, to point out the fact that in accommodating himself to the standpoint of his missionary subjects Paul never descended to a mere pleasing of men or to connivance with their false religious notions and their sinful practices. After only a few weeks of activity among them the Jews who were obdurate usually turned against Paul. In his practice Paul followed Jesus who could dine with Pharisees and with publicans and come into contact with harlots without receiving a stain or leaving a false impression. What Paul describes is the practical wisdom of a love that is truly strong and thus fully considerate. Let us admit at once that Paul’s task was not an easy one. Nor is a true imitation of Paul an easy performance for us. The danger is always present that we may either yield too much to love, which then ceases to be love, or that we may forget something of wisdom, which then lands us in folly.

1 Corinthians 9:23

23 Up to this point all the purpose clauses reveal only Paul’s desire to gain and to save others. Now we learn that this purpose extends also to Paul himself. Now I do all things for the sake of the gospel in order that I might become a joint partaker thereof.

Yes, Paul says, my motive is the saving interest of others, but this ultimately involves my own salvation. He means that his entire way of preaching the gospel with an eye to the love for others has its bearing on his own participation in the gospel. “For the sake of the gospel” is meant subjectively: for the saving success of the gospel among men generally, including also myself. If I do this work in any other way than the one I have indicated, if I omit this concern of love for others although many others may be saved through my work which is devoid of such love, I myself would not be saved. A great twofold interest thus holds me to my course. He has spoken about the interest for others and now speaks about the interest for himself, that he himself might be (the aorist: actually be) a συγκοινωνός of the gospel, a term that is used only here by Paul: one who shares with others in the saving fellowship of the gospel.

To some preachers this thought will certainly seem strange—that Paul would lose his own part in the gospel if he did not follow this one method of preaching the gospel. So many preachers think that they may choose their own method, do individualistically as they please in this regard, care more for the wool than for the sheep, for the crowd than for the souls, for their own personal, earthly interests than for the spiritual interests of men. They are sure that they will be saved no matter how they decide to preach the gospel. Paul explains that he might, indeed, preach the gospel and yet lose his own personal participation in that gospel. The point of his explanation is found in the last clause of v. 27.

1 Corinthians 9:24

24 Do you not know that those who run in the stadium all run, yet only one receives the prize? Of course, the Corinthians know all about this. Since the days of Alexander the Great athletic contests, held in public stadia, had become popular in the entire Hellenic world, and the people came in crowds to these athletic fields and watched the ἀγῶνες or contests much as the crowds now throng to the great college games and to baseball matches in the major and even in the minor leagues. Such a contest was well named ἀγών, for even the spectators agonized over it. Paul’s illustration is taken from the major contests in which only a single prize was offered: “only one receives the prize.” The second and the third runners might obtain public mention, but they did not receive the coveted prize. In the smaller, local contests more than one prize was offered.

Paul at once makes the application: So run that you may attain. The tertium comparationis is not the entire contest so that the Christian race would have all the corresponding counterparts, many running with all their might, yet only a single victor emerging at the end. The tertium lies only in οὕτως. In all the races staged in the Isthmian games in Corinth, for instance, certain runners ran “so,” others did not. “So do you run,” Paul writes, like these prize winners, that you may capture the prize (aorist, actually capture).

1 Corinthians 9:25

25 A further and a somewhat different point (δέ) is added, that concerning the ἐγκράτεια and ἐγκρατεύεσθαι; these are technical terms that were borrowed from the training of ancient athletes, which extended over a period of ten months. And every man engaged in a contest practices self-control in every respect, does it as a matter of course. As it did in v. 24, the present tense states what takes place in all such cases; it is scarcely iterative as R. 880 states. While they are in training these athletes exercise complete self-control with reference to food, sleep, hours for practice, etc., and avoid everything that may hurt them and devote themselves to everything that may help them in their contests.

Now they, in order to receive a perishable crown while we one imperishable. The argument from the less to the greater is overwhelming: if those athletes practice such self-control merely to obtain a slight and fading earthly crown, shall we do less for a heavenly crown of glory that lasts forever? The two crowns are contrasted with each other by μέν and δέ, the οὗν only continues and means “now.” The perishable crown consisted of wild olive, ivy, or parsley (Fausset); or of laurel, pine, or parsley, which was said to originate from the laurel wreath that was assumed by Apollo on conquering the Python (Smith). Our crown is imperishable, “an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,” 1 Pet. 1:4.

1 Corinthians 9:26

26 From the second person plural with which Paul bids the Corinthians run to win the prize he advances to the first person singular by telling what he for his part determines to do. And in his usual manner Paul now broadens the thought by adding the figure of boxing to that of the foot race. I for my part so run as not uncertainly; I box as not flaying the air.

In the New Testament we find τοι only in compounds; it is usually restrictive: “I for my part now” (not: “therefore,” our versions). Paul begins with two negative statements which are followed in v. 27 by two corresponding positive statements. Note the two litotes in “not uncertainly” for “with complete certainty,” “not flaying the air” for “striking home” or delivering a knockout. Οὑ with a participle makes the negative more decisive, R. 1137. Both expressions mean that Paul engages in the game so as to secure the victory and the prize beyond any doubt. It is pointless to dispute about subjective and objective certainty on Paul’s part. True, a runner or a boxer may be very certain subjectively and yet be sadly beaten.

Athletes love to crow in advance about their certain victory. Paul’s case is altogether different. In the Christian profession and in the apostleship or the ministry we are to have and do have objective and subjective certainty combined. We do not merely hope to win, we—win.

The verb “to flay,” δέρω, is very strong. But to flay or to knock the skin off the air is a ludicrous thought. To strike a terrific blow which lands on the air instead of on the opponent brings a laugh from the spectators. Yet this litotes conveys more than the idea that Paul merely lands his blows on his opponent’s head or body; he knocks his opponent prostrate and wins the bout. Both figures depict the most strenuous effort and imply that only thus even a man like Paul can hope to win, only thus does he actually win.

1 Corinthians 9:27

27 The positive statement links into the negative by beginning with the figure of boxing. This is often done in Hebrew poetry so that even entire chains of thought are formed. A striking term that was used at the end of a statement is resumed in the following statement, and this is continued for a longer or a shorter line of interlocked thoughts. At the same time Paul weaves in new points and after the figure of boxing introduces the additional figure of making a slave. I give my body a black eye, and I make it a slave lest in any way, after having preached to others, I myself should be rejected.

We now learn who Paul’s opponent is, namely his own body with its desires and its weak inclinations which are so ready to militate against his high calling. Paul says: “I hit it under the eye,” ὑπωπιάζω (ὑπό = under, and ὤψ = eye). The A. V.’s translation is too delicate: “I keep under”; and the R. V.’s is too broad: “buffet,” margin “bruise,” which may apply to any part of the body. To hit a powerful blow under the eye is to knock the body out, which is precisely what Paul means. He does not maul his body, bruise it here and there or even all over, but lays it flat with the right blow in the right place.

To knock out is only a momentary victory gained in one bout. Now Paul’s is a permanent victory. He must link in a new figure that will picture this permanency: “I make my body a slave” and keep it as a slave so that it is unable to assert itself again and to regain any mastery over me even as much as to dispute my control for one moment.

When we read all that Paul says about the body we should not catch the real point of his entire discussion if we failed to see just why he so prominently brings in this reference to his body. In many other connections he deals with the body and with its members plus the lusts that use these organs for their purpose. Thus in 6:12, etc.; Rom. 12:1. Here he refers to his body as an organism that requires food, drink, clothing, lodging, etc., in a word, support in order to live, support from the churches he served. This body of his would like to have abundant and rich support in order to live in a style that is befitting the body of an apostle, to say nothing about the greatest apostle of all. See the grand style in which prominent clerics live today!

Now Paul says: “I knock this out of my body completely; lead my body around as a slave (this is the first meaning of δουλαγωγῶ); I never let it rob me of my glory, that I make the gospel completely ‘without charge’ to all those to whom I preach.” Our versions are too refined also when they translate this degrading verb. It means complete slavery and not mere subjection or bondage, which may be much less.

Now there follows the final negative purpose clause, which explains the purpose clause used in v. 23, in which Paul states that he himself may be a joint partaker in the gospel. At the same time this purpose clause, which is found at the very end of the chapter, illumines the entire chapter, it reaches back to the desire to eat idol meats, continues on through the self-denials which Paul practiced, and culminates in Paul’s determination to preserve his own share in the gospel: “lest in any way, after having preached to others, I myself should be rejected,” the aorist denotes a final, decisive act: “should be a castaway,” A. V.

This final purpose clause deals with the reality itself and drops the figures that have been used since v. 24. We should not, therefore, charge Paul with mixing his figures and with obscuring his meaning. Thus κηρύξας does not refer to the κῆρυξ who announced the various athletic events and the names of the athletes competing in the stadium. This gentleman himself never ran or boxed or entered any other event. Besides, Paul left the stadium when he brought in the new figure of leading about a slave. The same is true with regard to ἀδόκιμος, which has nothing to do with the games that were held in the stadium. This word is used in hundreds of combinations, and the effort to find in it a technical term that was applied to rejected or disqualified contestants is unrewarding.

A κῆρυξ is a herald; and κηρύσσειν, “to herald,” to proclaim, to preach, is a standard term in the New Testament to designate this function. The verb, here the aorist participle κηρύξας, “after having preached” to others, is well chosen, for a herald may shout out an order or a piece of information without in the least letting his announcement affect his own heart and life. That is exactly what may happen in the case of a herald who is sent out to announce the gospel news to others. We fear that it happens more frequently than is ordinarily supposed. We even know heralds of Christ who have so little regard for the κήρυγμα they are to proclaim for the salvation of men that they modify, change, even pervert it, and yet announce: “Thus saith the Lord!”

Paul passes by this angle of the matter. He speaks about one who makes the correct announcement but fails to absorb a vital part of that announcement in his own life and actions. He has the γνῶσις or knowledge, he asserts his ἐξουσία or right, but he never appropriated the ἀγάπη or love which vitalizes and controls the use of both. This renders him ἀδόκιμος. This term implies that a test is made, and that whatever stands the test is accepted as δόκιμος, whatever fails to stand the test is rejected as ἀδόκιμος and is thrown out, cast away. The two adjectives and the cognate verb and the noun are frequently used with reference to ancient coins which were always weighed and otherwise carefully tested; the genuine and the full-weight coins were accepted as “proven,” the others were rejected as “disproven.” C.-K. 357.

What a calamity when a professing Christian finds himself “rejected” in the end! How much worse when one of the Lord’s own heralds has this experience! Paul regards his work and even the way in which he does his work with extreme seriousness. The fact that he is an apostle is not yet proof to him that he will be saved. He knows the test that he must face. He applies that test to himself in this chapter and so attains both the subjective and the objective certainty that he will indeed not be a castaway.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.