1st Corinthians CHAPTER 9
THE apostle had, in 1 Corinthians 8:13, mentioned his willingness to
deny himself, if he might be the means of benefiting others. On
this principle he had acted; and on this he purposed to act, The
mention of this principle of action seems to have led him to a further
illustration of it in his own case, and in the illustration to meet an
objection that had been urged against him at Corinth; and the scope
of this chapter seems to have been not only to give an illustration
of this principle, (1 Corinthians 9:27,) but to show that this principle on
which he acted would account for his conduct when with them, and
would meet all the objections which had been made against his
apostleship. These objections seem to have been,
(1) that he had not seen Jesus Christ; and, therefore, could not be
an apostle, 1 Corinthians 9:1.
(2.) That he did not live like the other apostles, that he was unmarried,
was a solitary man, and a wanderer, and was unlike the other apostles in
his mode of life, not indulging as apostles might do in the ordinary
comforts of life, 1 Corinthians 9:4,6.
(3.) That he and Barnabas were compelled to labour for their support, and
were conscious, therefore, that they had no pretensions to the
apostolic office, 1 Corinthians 9:6. And,
(4.) that the fact that he was unsupplied; that he did not apply to
Christians for his maintenance; that he did not urge this as a right,
showed that he was conscious that he had no claims to the apostolic
character and rank.
To all this he replies in this chapter; and the main drift and
design of his reply is to show that he acted on the principle suggested
in 1 Corinthians 8:13, that of denying himself; and consequently, that though
he had a right to maintenance, yet that the fact that he did not
urge that right was no proof that he was not sent from God,
but was rather a proof of his being actuated by the high and holy
principles which ought to influence those who were called to this
office. In urging this reply, he shows:
(1.) That he had seen Jesus Christ, and had this qualification for
the office of an apostle, 1 Corinthians 9:1.
(2.) That he had the power like others to partake of the common
enjoyments of life, and that his not doing it was no proof that he
was not an apostle, 1 Corinthians 9:4.
(3.) That he was not prohibited from entering the domestic relations as
others had done, but had the right to enjoy the same privileges if he
chose; and that his not doing it was no proof that he was not an
apostle, but was an instance of his denying himself for the good of
others, 1 Corinthians 9:5.
(4.) That he was not under a necessity of labouring with his own
hands, but that he might have required support as others did; that
his labouring was only another instance of his readiness to deny
himself to promote the welfare of others, 1 Corinthians 9:6.
This sentiment he illustrates through the remainder of the chapter,
by showing that he had a right to support in the work of the apostle:-
ship, and that his not insisting on it was an instance of his being
willing to deny himself that he might do good to others; that he
did not urge this right, because to do that might injure the cause,
(1 Corinthians 9:12,16;) and that whether he received support or not, he was
bound to preach the gospel. In this he shows
(a.) that God gave him the right to support if he chose to
exercise it, (1 Corinthians 9:7-10,13;)
(b.) that it was equitable that he should be supported,
(1 Corinthians 9:11;)
(c.) that the Lord had ordained this as a general law, that they
which preached the gospel should live by it, (1 Corinthians 9:14;)
(d.) that he had not chosen to avail himself of it because it might do
injury, (1 Corinthians 9:12,16;)
(e.) that necessity was laid upon him at all events to preach the gospel,
(1 Corinthians 9:16;)
(f.) that if he did this without an earthly reward, he would be rewarded
in heaven in a distinguished manner, (1 Corinthians 9:17,18;)
(g.) that he had made it the grand principle of his life, not to make
money, but to save souls, and that he had sought this by a course of
continued self-denial, (1 Corinthians 9:19-22;)
(h.) that all this was done for the sake of the gospel, (1 Corinthians 9:23;)
and
(i.) that he had a grand and glorious object in view, which required
him, after the manner of the Athletae, to keep his body under, to
practise self-denial, to be temperate, to forego many comforts of
which he might otherwise have partaken, and that the grandeur
and glory of this object was enough to justify all his self-denial, and
to make all his sacrifices pleasant, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27.
Thus the whole chapter is an incidental discussion of the subject
of his apostleship, in illustration of the sentiment advanced in
1 Corinthians 8:13, that he was willing to practise self-denial for the good
of others; and is one of the most elevated, heavenly, and beautiful
discussions in the New Testament; and contains one of the most ennobling
descriptions of the virtue of self-denial, and of the principles which
should actuate the Christian ministry, anywhere to be found.
All classic writings would be searched in vain, and all records of
profane history, for an instance of such pure and elevated principle
as is presented in this chapter.
Verse 1. Am I not an apostle? This was the point to be settled; and
it is probable that some at Corinth had denied that he could be an
apostle, since it was requisite, in order to that, to have seen the Lord
Jesus; and since it was supposed that Paul had not been a witness
of his life, doctrines, and death.
Am I not free? Am I not a free man; have I not the liberty which all
Christians possess, and especially which all the apostles possess? The
liberty referred to here is doubtless the privilege or right of
abstaining from labour; of enjoying, as others did, the domestic
relations of life: and of a support as a public minister and apostle.
Probably some had objected to his claims of apostleship that he had not
used this right, and that he was conscious that he had no claim to it. By
this mode of interrogation, he strongly implies that he was a
freeman, and that he had this right.
Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? Here it is implied, and seems
to be admitted by Paul, that in order to be an apostle it was
necessary to have seen the Saviour. This is often declared expressly.
See Barnes " :". The reason of this was, that the apostles
were appointed to be WITNESS of the life, doctrines, death, and
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and that in their being witnesses
consisted the PECULIARITY of the apostolic office. That this was the case
is abundantly manifest from Matthew 28:18,19; Luke 24:48; Acts 1:21,22; 2:32;
Acts 10:39-41. Hence it was essential, in order that any one should be
such a witness, and an apostle, that he should have seen the Lord
Jesus. In the case of Paul, therefore, who was called to this office
after the death and resurrection of the Saviour, and who had not
therefore had an opportunity of seeing and hearing him when living, this
was provided for by the fact that the Lord Jesus showed himself to him
after his death and ascension, in order that he might have this
qualification for the apostolic office, Acts 9:3-5,17. To the fact of
his having been thus in a miraculous manner qualified for the
apostolic office, Paul frequently appeals, and always with the same view,
that it was necessary to have seen the Lord Jesus to qualify one for this
office, Acts 22:14,15; 26:16; 1 Corinthians 15:8. It follows from this, therefore,
that no one was an apostle in the strict and proper sense who had not
seen the Lord Jesus. And it follows, also, that the apostles could have
no successors in that which constituted the PECULIARITY of their office;
and that the office must have commenced and ended with them.
Are not ye my work in the Lord? Have you not been converted by my
labours, or under my ministry; and are you not a proof that the Lord,
when I have been claiming to be an apostle, has owned me as an
apostle, and blessed me in this work? God would not give his sanction
to an impostor, and a false pretender; and as Paul had laboured there
as an apostle, this was an argument that he had been truly
commissioned of God. A minister may appeal to the blessing of God on his
labours in proof that he is sent of him. And one of the best of all
arguments that a man is sent from God exists where multitudes of souls
are converted from sin, and turned to holiness, by his labours. What
better credentials than this can a man need, that he is in the employ of
God? What more consoling to his own mind? What more satisfactory to the
world?
{a} "not seen" Acts 9:3,17
{b} "my work" 1 Corinthians 4:15
Verse 2. If I be not an apostle unto others. "If I have not given
evidence to others of my apostolic mission; of my being sent by the Lord
Jesus, yet I have to you. Assuredly you, among whom I have
laboured so long and so successfully, should not doubt that I am
sent from the Lord. You have been well acquainted with me; you
have witnessed my endowments, you have seen my success, and you
have had abundant evidence that I have been sent on this great work.
It is therefore strange in you to doubt my apostolic commission; and
it is unkind in you so to construe my declining to accept your
contributions and aid for my support, as if I were conscious that I was
not entitled to that."
For the seal of mine apostleship; Your conversion is the
demonstration that I am an apostle. Paul uses strong language. He does
not mean to say that their conversion furnished some evidence that he was
an apostle; but that it was absolute proof, and irrefragable
demonstration, that he was an apostle. A seal is that which is
affixed to a deed, or other instrument, to make it firm, secure, and
indisputable. It is the proof or demonstration of the validity of the
conveyance, or of the writing. See Barnes "John 3:33";
See Barnes "John 6:27". The sense here is, therefore, that the
conversion of the Corinthians was a certain demonstration that he was an
apostle, and should be so regarded by them, and treated by them. It was
such a proof,
(1.) because Paul claimed to be an apostle while among them, and God
blessed and owned this claim.
(2.) Their conversion could not have been accomplished by man. It was the
work of God. It was the evidence then which God gave to Paul and to them,
that he was with him, and had sent him.
(3.) They knew him, had seen him, heard him, were acquainted with his
doctrines and manner of life, and could bear testimony to what he was,
and what he taught. We may remark, that the conversion of sinners is the
best evidence to a minister that he is sent of God. The Divine blessing
on his labours should cheer his heart, and lead him to believe that God
has sent and that he approves him. And every minister should so live
and labour, should so deny himself, that he may be able to appeal to
the people among whom he labours, that he is a minister of the
Lord Jesus.
Verse 3. Mine answer. Greek, \~emh apologia\~ My apology; my defence. The
same word occurs in Acts 22:1; 25:16; 2 Corinthians 7:11; Philippians 1:7,17; 2 Timothy 4:16
1 Peter 3:15. See Barnes "Acts 22:1". Here it means his answer or
defence against those who sat in judgment on his claims to be an apostle.
To them that do examine me. To those who inquire of me; or who
censure and condemn me as not having any claims to the apostolic office.
The word used here (\~anakrinw\~) is properly a forensic term, and is
usually applied to judges in courts; to those who sit in judgment, and
investigate and decide in litigated cases brought before them,
Luke 23:14; Acts 4:9; 12:19; 24:8. The apostle here may possibly allude to
the arrogance and pride of those who presumed to sit as judges on
his qualification for the apostolic office. It is not meant that this
answer had been given by Paul before this, but that this was the defence
which he had to offer.
Is this. This which follows; the statements which are made in the
following verses. In these statements (1 Corinthians 9:4-6, etc.) he seems to
have designed to take up their objections to his apostolic claims one by
one, and to show that they were of no force.
Verse 4. Have we not power, \~exousian\~. Have we not the right. The
word power here is evidently used in the sense of right, (comp.
John 1:12, margin;) and the apostle means to say that though they
had not exercised this right by demanding a maintenance, yet it
was not because they were conscious that they had no such right, but
because they chose to forego it for wise and important purposes.
To eat and to drink. To be maintained at the expense of those among
whom we labour. Have we not a right to demand that they shall yield us a
proper support? By the interrogative form of the statement, Paul intends
more strongly to affirm that they had such a right. The interrogative
mode is often adopted to express the strongest affirmation. The
objection here urged seems to have been this: "You, Paul and
Barnabas, labour with your own hands, Acts 18:3. Other religious
teachers lay claim to maintenance, and are supported without personal
labour. This is the case with pagan and Jewish priests, and with
Christian teachers among us. You must be conscious, therefore, that you
are not apostles, and that you have no claim or right to support. To this
the answer of Paul is, "We admit that we labour with our own hands. But
your inference does not follow. It is not because we have not a right
to such support, and it is not because we are conscious that we have
no such claim, but it is for a higher purpose. It is because it will do
good if we should not urge this right, and enforce this claim." That they
had such a right, Paul proves at length in the subsequent part of the
chapter.
Verse 5. Have we not power? Have we not a right? The objection here
seems to have been, that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at
least that they travelled without wives. The objectors urged that
others had wives, and that they took them with them, and expected
provision to be made for them as well as for themselves. They
therefore showed that they felt that they had a claim to support for
their families, and that they were conscious that they were sent of
God. But Paul and Barnabas had no families. And the objectors inferred
that they were conscious that they had no claim to the apostleship,
and no right to support. To this Paul replies as before, that they had a
right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other
reasons than that they were conscious that they had no such right.
To lead about. To have in attendance with us; to conduct from place
to place; and to have them maintained at the expense of the churches
amongst which we labour.
A sister, a wife. Margin, "or woman." This phrase has much
perplexed commentators. But the simple meaning seems to be, "A wife who
should be a Christian and regarded as sustaining the relation of a
Christian sister." Probably Paul meant to advert to the fact that
the wives of the apostles were and should be Christians; and that
it was a matter of course, that if an apostle led about a wife she would
be a Christian; or that he would marry no other. Comp. 1 Corinthians 7:11.
As well as other apostles. It is evident from this that the apostles
generally were married. The phrase used here is \~oi loipoi apostoloi\~,
(the remaining apostles, or the other apostles.) And if they were
married, it is right and proper for ministers to marry now, whatever the
papist may say to the contrary. It is safer to follow the example of the
apostles than the opinions of the papal church. The reasons why the
apostles had wives with them on their journeys may have been various,
They may have been either to give instruction and counsel to those of
their own sex to whom the apostles could not have access, or to minister
to the wants of their husbands as they travelled. It is to be remembered
that they travelled among heathens; they had no acquaintance and no
friends there; they therefore took with them their female friends and
wives to minister to them, and sustain them in sickness, trial, etc. Paul
says that he and Barnabas had a right to do this; but they had not
used this right because they chose rather to make the gospel without
charge, (1 Corinthians 9:18,) and that thus they judged they could do more
good. It follows from this,
(1.) that it is right for ministers to marry, and that the papal doctrine
of the celibacy of the clergy is contrary to apostolic example.
(2.) It is right for missionaries to marry, and to take their wives
with them to heathen lands. The apostles were missionaries, and spent
their lives in heathen nations, as missionaries do now, and there may be
as good reasons for missionaries, marrying now as there were then.
(3.) Yet there are men, like Paul, who can do more good without being
married. There are circumstances, like his, where it is not advisable
that they should marry, and there can be no doubt that Paul regarded the
unmarried state for a missionary as preferable and advisable. Probably
the same is to be said of most missionaries at the present day, that they
could do more good if unmarried, than they can if burdened with the cares
of families.
And as the brethren of the Lord. The brothers of the Lord
Jesus--James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas, Matthew 13:55.
It seems from this, that although at first they did not believe in him,
(John 7:5,) and had regarded him as disgraced, (Mark 3:21,) yet
that they had subsequently become converted, and were employed
as ministers and evangelists. It is evident also from this statement,
that they were married, and were attended with their wives in their
travels.
And Cephas. Peter. See Barnes "John 1:42". This proves,
(1.) as well as the declaration in Matthew 8:14, that Peter had been
married.
(2.) That he had a wife after he became an apostle, and while engaged in
the work of the ministry.
(3.) That his wife accompanied him in his travels.
(4.) That it is right and proper for ministers and missionaries to be
married now. Is it not strange that the pretended successor of Peter,
the pope of Rome, should forbid marriage, when Peter himself was married?
Is it not a proof how little the papacy regards the Bible, and the
example and authority of those from whom it pretends to derive its power?
And is it not strange that this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy,
which has been the source of abomination, impurity, and licentiousness
everywhere, should have been sustained and countenanced at all by the
Christian world? And is it not strange that this, with all the other
corrupt doctrines of the papacy, should be attempted to be imposed
on the enlightened people of the United States, [or of Great Britain,]
as a part of the religion of Christ?
{*} "wife" "woman"
Verse 6. Or I only and Barnabas. Paul and Barnabas had wrought
together as tent-makers at Corinth, Acts 18:3. From this fact it
had been inferred that they knew that they had no claim to a support.
Power to forbear working? To abstain from labour, and to receive
support as others do. The question implies a strong affirmation
that they had such power. The sense is, "Why should I and
Barnabas be regarded as having no right to support? Have we been less
faithful than others? Have we done less? Have we given fewer evidences
that we are sent by the Lord, or that God approves us in our work? Have
we been less successful? Why, then, should we be singled out--and why
should it be supposed that we are obliged to labour for our support?
Is there no other conceivable reason why we should support ourselves
than a consciousness that we have no right to support from the people
with whom we labour? It is evident from 1 Corinthians 9:12, that Barnabas as
well as Paul relinquished his right to a support, and laboured to
maintain himself. And it is manifest from the whole passage, that there
was some peculiar "spleen" (Doddridge) against these two ministers of
the gospel. What it was we know not. It might have arisen from
the enmity and opposition of Judaizing teachers, who were offended
at their zeal and success among the Gentiles, and who could find no
other cause of complaint against them than that they chose to support
themselves, and not live in idleness, or to tax the church for their
support. That must have been a bad cause which was sustained by such an
argument.
{a} "we power" 2 Thessalonians 3:8,9
Verse 7. Who goeth a warfare, etc. Paul now proceeds to illustrate
the RIGHT which he knew ministers had to a support, (1 Corinthians 9:7-14) and
then to show the REASON why he had not availed himself of that right,
1 Corinthians 9:15-23. The right he illustrates from the nature of the
case, (1 Corinthians 9:7,11;) from the authority of Scripture,
(1 Corinthians 9:8-10;) from the example of the priests under the Jewish law,
(1 Corinthians 9:13;) and from the authority of Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 9:14.
In this verse (1 Corinthians 9:7) the right is enforced by the nature of the
case, and by three illustrations. The first is, the right of a soldier or
warrior to his wages. The Christian ministry is compared to a warfare,
and the Christian minister to a soldier. Comp. 1 Timothy 1:18. The soldier
had a right to receive pay from him who employed him. He did not go at
his own expense. This was a matter of common equity; and on this
principle all acted who enlisted as soldiers. So Paul says it is
but equitable also that the soldier of the Lord Jesus should be
sustained, and should not be required to support himself. And why,
we may ask, should he be, any more than the man who devotes his
strength, and time, and talents to the defence of his country? The
work of the ministry is as arduous, and as self-denying, and perhaps
as dangerous, as the work of a soldier; and common justice, therefore,
demands that he who devotes his youth, and health, and life to
it, for the benefit of others, should have a competent support. Why
should not he receive a competent support who seeks to save men, as
well as he who lives to destroy them? Why not he who endeavours
to recover them to God, and make them pure and happy, as well as
he who lives to destroy life, and pour out human blood, and to fill
the air with the shrieks of new-made widows and orphans? Or why
not he who seeks, though in another mode, to defend the great interests
of his country, and to maintain the interests of justice, truth,
and mercy, for the benefit of mankind, as well as he who is willing
in the tented field to spend his time, or exhaust his health and life in
protecting the rights of the nation?
At his own charges? His own expense. On the meaning of the word
"charges"--\~oqwnioiv\~-- see See Barnes "Luke 3:14". Compare
Romans 6:23; 2 Corinthians 11:8. The word does not occur elsewhere in the New
Testament.
Who planteth a vineyard, etc. This is the second illustration
from the nature of the case, to show that ministers of the gospel have a
right to support. The argument is this: "It is reasonable that those who
labour should have a fair compensation. A man who plants a vineyard does
not expect to labour for nothing; he expects support from that labour,
and looks for it from the vineyard. The vineyard owes its beauty,
growth, and productiveness to him. It is reasonable, therefore, that
from that vineyard he should receive a support, as a compensation for
his toil. So we labour for your welfare. You derive advantage from
our toil. We spend our time, and strength, and talent for your benefit;
and it is reasonable that we should be supported while we thus labour for
your good." The church, of God is often compared to a vineyard; and
this adds to the beauty of this illustration. See Isaiah 5:1-4.
See Barnes "Luke 20:9", and Luke 20:10-16.
Who feedeth a flock, etc. This is the third illustration drawn
from the nature of the case, to show that ministers have a right to
support. The word "feedeth"--\~poimainei\~--denotes not only to feed, but
to guard, protect, defend, as a shepherd does his flock.
See Barnes "John 21:15", John 21:16-17. "The wages of the
shepherds in the East do not consist of ready money, but in a part of the
milk of the flocks which they tend. Thus Spon says of the shepherds in
modern Greece, 'These shepherds are poor Albanians, who feed the cattle,
and live in huts built of rushes: they have a tenth part of the milk, and
of the lambs, which is their whole wages: the cattle belong to the
Turks.' The shepherds in Ethiopia, also, according to Alvarez,
have no pay except the milk and butter which they obtain from the
cows, and on which they and their families subsist."--Rosenmuller.
The church is often compared to a flock. See Barnes "John 10:1", etc.
The argument here is this: A shepherd spends his days and nights
in guarding his folds. He leads his flock to green pastures, he conducts
them to still waters, (comp. Psalms 23:2;) he defends them from enemies;
he guards the young, the sick, the feeble, etc. He spends his time in
protecting it and providing for it. He expects support, when in the
wilderness or in the pastures, mainly from the milk which the flock
should furnish. He labours for their comfort; and it is proper that he
should derive a maintenance from them, and he has a right to it. So the
minister of the gospel watches for the good of souls. He devotes his
time, strength, learning, talents, to their welfare. He instructs,
guides, directs, defends; he endeavours to guard them against their
spiritual enemies, and to lead them in the path of comfort and peace. He
lives to instruct the ignorant; to warn and secure those who are in
danger; to guide the perplexed; to reclaim the wandering; to comfort the
afflicted; to bind up the broken in heart; to attend on the sick; to be
an example and an instructor to the young; and to be a counsellor and a
pattern to all. As he labours for their good, it is no more than equal
and right that they should minister to his temporal wants, and compensate
him for his efforts to promote their happiness and salvation. And can any
man say that this is NOT right and just?
{b} "warfare" 1 Timothy 1:18
{c} "vineyard" Deuteronomy 20:6; Proverbs 27:18
{d} "feedeth" 1 Peter 5:2
Verse 8. Say I these things as a man? Do I speak this on my own
authority, or without the sanction of God? Is not this, which appears
to be so reasonable and equitable, also supported by the authority
of God?
Or saith not the law the same also? The law of Moses, to which the
Jewish part of the church at Corinth--which probably had mainly urged
these objections--professed to bow with deference. Paul was accustomed,
especially in arguing with the Jews, to derive his proofs from the Old
Testament. In the previous verse he had shown that it was equitable that
ministers of the gospel should be supported. In this and the following
verses he shows that the same principle was recognised and acted on under
the Jewish dispensation. He does not mean to say, by this example of the
ox treading out the corn, that the law as given by Moses referred to the
Christian ministry; but that the principle there was settled that the
labourer should have a support, and that a suitable provision should not
be withheld even from an ox; and if God so regarded the welfare of a
brute when labouring, it was much more reasonable to suppose that
he would require a suitable provision to be made for the ministers of
religion.
Verse 9. For it is written. Deuteronomy 25:4.
In the law of Moses. See Barnes "Luke 24:44".
Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth, etc. To muzzle, means "to bind the
mouth; to fasten the mouth to prevent eating or biting."-- Webster.
This was done either by passing straps around the mouth, or by placing,
as is now sometimes done, a small basket over the mouth, fastened by
straps to the horns of the animal, so as to prevent its eating, but not
to impede its breathing freely. This was an instance of the humanity of
the laws of Moses. The idea is, that the ox should not be prevented from
eating when it was in the midst of food; and that as it laboured for its
owner, it was entitled to support; and there was a propriety that it
should be permitted to partake of the grain which it was threshing.
That treadeth, etc. This was one of the common modes of threshing in
the east, as it is with us. See Barnes "Matthew 3:12".
The corn. The grain, of any kind; wheat, rye, barley, etc.
Maize, to which we apply the word corn, was then unknown.
See Barnes "Matthew 12:1".
Doth God take care for oxen? Doth God take care for oxen ONLY? Or is
not this rather a principle which shows God's care for all that
labour, and the humanity and equity of his laws? And if he is so
solicitous about the welfare of brutes as to frame an express law in
their behalf, is it not to be presumed that the same principle of
humanity and equity will run through all his dealings and requirements?
The apostle does not mean to deny that God does take care for oxen, for
the very law was proof that he did; but he means to ask whether it is to
be supposed that God would regard the comfort of oxen and not of men
also? whether we are not to suppose that the same principle would apply
also to those who labour in the service of God? He uses this passage,
therefore, not as originally having reference to men, or to ministers of
the gospel, which cannot be; but as establishing a general principle
in regard to the equity and humanity of the Divine laws; and as thus
showing that the spirit of the law of God would lead to the
conclusion that God intended that the labourer everywhere should have a
competent support.
{a} "written in the law" Deuteronomy 25:4; 1 Timothy 5:18
Verse 10. Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? The word
"altogether" --\~pantwv\~--cannot mean that this was the sole and
only design of the law, to teach that ministers of the gospel were
entitled to support; for,
(1.) this would be directly contrary to the law itself, which had
some direct and undoubted reference to oxen;
(2.) the scope of the argument here does not require this interpretation,
since the whole object will be met by supposing that this settled a
principle of humanity and equity in the Divine law, according to which it
was proper that ministers should have a support; and,
(3.) the word "altogether"--\~pantwv\~--does not of necessity require this
interpretation. It may be rendered chiefly, mainly, principally, or
doubtless. Luke 4:23, "Ye will surely (\~pantwv\~, certainly,
surely, doubtless) say unto me this proverb," etc. Acts 18:21, "I must
by all means (\~pantwv\~, certainly, surely) keep this feast."
Acts 21:22, "The multitude must needs (\~pantwv\~, will certainly,
surely, inevitably) come together," etc. Acts 28:4, "No doubt
(\~pantwv\~) this man is a murderer," etc. The word here therefore means,
that the principle stated in the law about the oxen was so broad and
humane, that it might certainly, surely, particularly be regarded as
applicable to the case under consideration. An important and material
argument might be drawn from it; an argument from the less to the
greater. The precept enjoined justice, equity, humanity; and that was
more applicable to the case of the ministers of the gospel than to
the case of oxen.
For our sakes, etc. To show that the laws and requirements of God are
humane, kind, and equitable; not that Moses had Paul or any other
minister in his eye, but the principle was one that applied
particularly to this case.
That he that ploweth, etc. The Greek in this place would be more
literally and more properly rendered, "For (\~oti\~) he that plougheth
OUGHT (\~ofeilei\~) to plough in hope;" i.e., in hope of reaping a harvest,
or of obtaining success in his labours; and the sense is, "The man who
cultivates the earth, in order that he may be excited to industry and
diligence, ought to have a reasonable prospect that he shall himself be
permitted to enjoy the fruit of his labours. This is the case with those
who do plough; and if this should be the case with those who cultivate
the earth, it is as certainly reasonable that those who labour in God's
husbandry, and who devote their strength to his service, should be
encouraged with a reasonable prospect of success and support."
And that he that thresheth, etc. This sentence, in the Greek, is
very elliptical and obscure; but the sense is, evidently, "He that
thresheth ought to partake of his hope; i.e., of the fruits of his
hope, or of the result of his labour. It is fair and right that he
should enjoy the fruits of his toil. So in God's husbandry; it is
right and proper that they who toil for the advancement of his cause
should be supported and rewarded." The same sentiment is expressed in
2 Timothy 2:6, "The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of
the fruits."
{b} "he that ploweth" 2 Timothy 2:6
Verse 11. If we have sown unto you spiritual things. If we have been
the means of imparting to you the gospel, and bestowing upon you its
high hopes and privileges. See Barnes "Romans 15:27". The figure of
sowing, to denote the preaching of the gospel, is not unfrequently
employed in the Scriptures. See John 4:37; and the parable of
the sower, Matthew 13:3, etc.
Is it a great thing, etc. See Barnes "Romans 15:27". Is it to be
regarded as unequal, unjust, or burdensome? Is it to be supposed that we
are receiving that for which we have not rendered a valuable
consideration? The sense is, "We impart blessings of more value than we
receive. We receive a supply of our temporal wants. We impart to you,
under the Divine blessing, the gospel, with all its hopes and
consolations. We make you acquainted with God; with the plan of
salvation; with the hope of heaven. We instruct your children; we
guide you in the path of comfort and peace; we raise you from the
degradations of idolatry and of sin; and we open before you the hope of
the resurrection of the just, and of all the bliss of heaven: and to do
this, we give ourselves to toil and peril by land and by sea. And can it
be made a matter of question whether all these high and exalted hopes are
of as much value to dying man as the small amount which shall be
needful to minister to the wants of those who are the means of
imparting these blessings? Paul says this, therefore, from the
reasonableness of the case. The propriety of support might be further
urged,
(1.) because without it the ministry would be comparatively useless.
Ministers, like physicians, lawyers, and farmers, should be allowed to
attend mainly to the great business of their lives, and to their
appropriate work. No physician, no farmer, no mechanic, could accomplish
much, if his attention was constantly turned off from his appropriate
business to engage in something else. And how can the minister of the
gospel, if his time is nearly all taken up in labouring to provide for
the wants of his family?
(2.) The great mass of ministers spend their early days, and many of them
all their property, in preparing to preach the gospel to others. And as
the mechanic, who has spent his early years in learning a trade, and the
physician and lawyer in preparing for their profession, receive
support in that calling, why should not the minister of the gospel?
(3.) Men, in other things, cheerfully pay those who labour for them.
They compensate the schoolmaster, the physician, the lawyer, the
merchant, the mechanic; and they do it cheerfully, because they
suppose they receive a valuable consideration for their money. But
is it not so with regard to ministers of the gospel? Is not a man's
family as certainly benefited by the labours of a faithful clergyman
and pastor, as by the skill of a physician or a lawyer, or by the
service of the schoolmaster? Are not the affairs of the soul and of
eternity as important to a man's family as those of time and the
welfare of the body? So the music-master and the dancing-master
are paid, and paid cheerfully and liberally; and yet can there be any
comparison between the value of their services and those of the
minister of the gospel?
(4.) It might be added, that society is benefited in a pecuniary way
by the service of a faithful minister to a far greater extent than the
amount of compensation which he receives. One drunkard, reformed under
his labours, may earn and save to his family and to society as much as
the whole salary of the pastor. The promotion of order, peace, sobriety,
industry, education, and regularity in business, and honesty in
contracting and in paying debts, saves much more to the community at
large, than the cost of the support of the gospel. In regard to this, any
man may make the comparison at his leisure, between those places where
the ministry is established, and where temperance, industry, and sober
habits prevail, and those places where there is no ministry, and
where gambling, idleness, and dissipation abound. It is always a
matter of economy to a people, in the end, to support schoolmasters
and ministers as they ought to be supported.
Reap your carnal things. Partake of those things which relate to the
present life; the support of the body, i.e., food and raiment.
{c} "if we" Romans 15:27
{*} "carnal" "worldly"
Verse 12. If others. Other teachers living with you. There can be no
doubt that the teachers in Corinth urged this right, and received a
support.
Be partakers of this power. Of this right to a support and
maintenance.
Are not we rather? We the apostles; we who have laboured for your
conversion; who have founded your church; who have been the first and the
most laborious in instructing you, and imparting to you Spiritual
blessings? Have not we a better claim than they?
Nevertheless we have not used this power. We have not urged this
claim; we have chosen to forego this right, and to labour for our own
support. The reason why they had done this, he states in the subsequent
part of the chapter. See 2 Corinthians 11:7-9; 12:14. Comp. Acts 18:3;
Acts 20:34,35.
But suffer all things. Endure all privations and hardships; we
subject ourselves to poverty, want, hunger, thirst, nakedness, rather
than urge a claim on you, and thus leave the suspicion that we are
actuated by mercenary motives. The word used here (\~stegomen\~, suffer)
means, properly, to cover, to keep off, as rain, etc., and then to
contain, to sustain, tolerate, endure. Here it means, to bear or
endure all hardships. Comp. See Barnes " :".
Lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ. Paul here states the
reason why he had not urged a claim to support in preaching the gospel.
It was not because he was not entitled to a full support, but it was
that by denying himself of this right he could do good, and avoid some
evil consequences which would have resulted if he had strenuously urged
it. His conduct therefore in this was just one illustration of the
principle on which he said (1 Corinthians 8:13) he would always act: a
readiness to deny himself of things lawful, if by that he could promote
the welfare of others. The reasons why his urging this claim might
have hindered the gospel, may have been many.
(1.) It might have exposed him and the ministry generally to the charge
of being mercenary.
(2.) It would have prevented his presenting in bold relief the fact that
he was bound to preach the gospel at all events, and that he was actuated
in it by a simple conviction of its truth.
(3.) It might have alienated many minds, who might otherwise have been
led to embrace it.
(4.) It would have prevented the exercise of self-denial in him, and the
benefits which resulted from that self-denial, etc.,
1 Corinthians 9:17,18,23,27.
{*} "power" "right"
{a} "Nevertheless" 2 Corinthians 11:7-9; 12:14
Verse 13. Do ye not know, etc. In this verse Paul illustrates the
doctrine that the ministers of religion were entitled to a support from
the fact that those who were appointed to offer sacrifice received a
maintenance in their work.
They which minister about holy things. Probably the Levites.
Their office was to render assistance to the priests, to keep guard
around the tabernacle, and subsequently around the temple. It was also
their duty to see that the temple was kept clean, and to prepare supplies
for the sanctuary, such as oil, wine, incense, etc. They had the care of
the revenues; and, after the time of David, were required to sing in the
temple, and to play upon instruments, Numbers 3:1-36; 4:1,30,35,42;
Numbers 8:5-22; 1 Chronicles 23:3-5,24,27; 24:20-31.
Live of the things of the temple? Marg., Feed; i.e., are
supported in their work by the offerings of the people, and by the
provisions which were made for the temple service. Numbers 18:24-32.
And they which wait at the altar. Probably the priests who were
employed in offering sacrifice.
Are partakers with the altar? That is, a part of the animal offered
in sacrifice is burned as an offering to God, and a part becomes the
property of the priest for his support; and thus the altar and the priest
become joint, participators of the sacrifice. From these offerings the
priests derived their maintenance. See Numbers 18:8-19; Deuteronomy 18:1, etc. The
argument of the apostle here is this: "As the ministers of religion under
the Jewish dispensation were entitled to support by the authority and the
law of God, that fact settles a general principle which is applicable
also to the gospel, that he intends that the ministers of religion should
derive their support in their work. If it was reasonable then, it is
reasonable now. If God commanded it then, it is to be presumed that he
intends to require it now.
{1} "live" "feed"
{b} "they which wait" Numbers 18:8; Deuteronomy 18:1
Verse 14. Even so. In the same manner, and for the same reasons.
Hath the Lord ordained. Hath the Lord appointed, commanded,
arranged that it should be so, (\~dietaxe\~.) The word here means, that
he has made this a law, or has required it; The word "Lord" here
doubtless refers to the Lord Jesus, who has sent forth his ministers
to labour in the great harvest of the world.
That they which preach the gospel. They who are sent forth by him;
who devote their lives to this work; who are called and employed by him
in this service. This refers, therefore, not only to the apostles, but to
all who are duly called to this work, and who are his ambassadors.
Should live of the gospel. Should be supported and. maintained in
this work. Paul here probably refers to the appointment of the
Lord Jesus, when he sent forth his disciples to preach, Matthew 10:10;
Luke 10:8. Compare Galatians 6:6. The man may be said to "live in
the gospel" who is supported while he preaches it, or who derives
his maintenance in that work. Here we may observe,
(1.) that the command is, that they shall live (\~zhn\~) of the
gospel. It is not that they should grow rich, or lay up treasures, or
speculate in it, or become merchants, farmers, teachers, or book-makers
for a living; but it is, that they should have such a maintenance as to
constitute a livelihood. They should be made comfortable, not rich. They
should receive so much as to keep their minds from being harassed
with cares, and their families from want; not so much as to lead
them to forget their dependence on God, or on the people. Probably the
true rule is, that they should be able to live as the mass of
the people among whom they labour live; that they should be able
to receive and entertain the poor, and be willing to do it; and so
that the rich also may not despise them, or turn away from their
dwelling.
(2.) This is a command of the Lord Jesus; and if it is a command, it
should be obeyed as much as any other law of the Redeemer. And if this is
a command, then the minister is entitled to a support; and then also
a people are not at liberty to withhold it. Further, there are as strong
reasons why they should support him, as there are why they should pay a
schoolmaster, a lawyer, a physician, or a day-labourer. The minister
usually toils as hard as others; expends as much in preparing for his
work; and does as much good. And there is even a higher claim in this
case. God has given an express command in this case; he has not in
the others.
(3.) The salary of a minister should not be regarded as a gift
merely, any more than the pay of a congress-man, a physician, or a
lawyer. He has a claim to it; and God has commanded that it should be
paid. It is, moreover, a matter of stipulation and of compact, by
which a people agree to compensate him for his services. And yet,
is there anything in the shape of debt where there is so much
looseness as an regard to this subject? Are men usually as conscientious
in this as they are in paying a physician or a merchant? Are not
ministers often in distress for that which has been promised them,
and which they have a right to expect? And is not their usefulness, and
the happiness of the people, and the honour of religion, intimately
connected with obeying the rule of the Lord Jesus in this respect?
{c} "Lord ordained" Luke 10:7
{+} "ordained" "appointed"
{d} "that they" Galatians 6:6
Verse 15. But I have used none of these things. I have not urged and
enforced this right. I have chosen to support myself by the labour
of my own hands. This had been objected to him as a reason why
he could not be an apostle. He here shows that that was not the
reason why he had not urged this claim; but that it was because in
this way he could do most to honour the gospel and save the souls
of men. Comp. Acts 20:33; 2 Thessalonians 3:8. The sense is, "Though my right to a
support is established, in common with others, both by reason, the nature
of the case, the examples in the law, and the command of the Lord Jesus,
yet there are reasons why I have not chosen to avail myself of this
right, and why I have not urged these claims."
Neither have I written these things, etc. "I have not presented this
argument now in order to induce you to provide for me. I do not intend
now to ask or receive a support from you. I urge it to show that I feel
that I have a right to it; that my conduct is not an argument that I am
conscious I am not an apostle; and that I might urge it were there not
strong reasons which determine me not to do it. I neither ask you to send
me now a support, nor, if I visit you again, do I expect you will
contribute to my maintenance."
For it were better for me to die, etc. There are advantages growing
out of my not urging this claim which are of more importance to me than
life. Rather than forego these advantages, it would be better for me--it
would be a thing which I would prefer--to pine in poverty and want; to be
exposed to peril, and cold, and storms, until life should close. I esteem
my "glorying," the advantages of my course, to be of more value than life
itself.
Than that any man should make my glorying void. His glorying, or
boasting, or joying, as it may be more properly rendered,
(\~to kauchma mou\~ comp. Philippians 1:26; Hebrews 3:6,) was,
(1.) that he had preached the gospel without expense to anybody, and had
thus prevented the charge of avarice, (1 Corinthians 9:18;) and
(2.) that he had been able to keep his body under, and pursue a course of
self-denial that would result in his happiness and glory in heaven,
1 Corinthians 9:23-27. "Any man" would have made that "void," if he had
supported Paul; had prevented the necessity of his labour, and had thus
exposed him to the charge of having preached the gospel for the sake of
gain.
{e} "I have used" 2 Corinthians 11:10
Verse 16. For though I preach the gospel, etc. This, with the two
following verses, is a very difficult passage, and has been very
variously understood by interpreters. The general scope and purpose of
the passage is to show what was the ground of his "glorying," or of
his hope of "reward" in preaching the gospel. In 1 Corinthians 9:15, he had
intimated that he had cause of "glorying," and that that cause was
one which he was determined no one should take away. In this
passage, (1 Corinthians 9:16-18,) he states what that was. He says, it was not
simply that he preached; for there was a necessity laid on him, and
he could not help it: his call was such, the command was such,
that his life would be miserable if he did not do it. But all idea of
"glorying," or of "reward," must be connected with some voluntary
service--something which would show the inclination, disposition,
desire of the soul. And as that in his case could not be well shown,
where a "necessity" was laid on him, it could be shown only in
his submitting voluntarily to trials; in denying himself; in being
willing to forego comforts which he might lawfully enjoy; and in
thus furnishing a full and complete test of his readiness to do anything
to promote the gospel. The essential idea here is, therefore,
that there was such a necessity laid on him in his call to preach the
gospel, that his compliance with that call could not be regarded as
appropriately connected with reward; and that in his case the
circumstance which showed that reward would be proper, was, his
denying himself, and making the gospel without charge. This would show
that his heart was in the thing; that he was not urged
on by necessity; that he loved the work; and that it would be consistent
for the Lord to reward him for his self-denials and toils in his service.
I have nothing to glory of. The force of this would be better seen by
a more literal translation. "It is not to me glorying;" i.e., this is not
the cause of my glorying, or rejoicing, (\~ouk esti moi kauchma\~.)
In 1 Corinthians 9:15, he had said that he had a cause of glorying, or of joy,
(\~kauchma\~.) He here says that that joy or glorying did not consist
in the simple fact that he preached the gospel; for necessity was laid
on him: there was some other cause and source of his joy or glorying than
that simple fact, 1 Corinthians 9:18. Others preached the gospel also: in
common with them, it might be a source of joy to him that he preached the
gospel; but it was not the source of his peculiar joy for he had
been called into the apostleship in such a manner as to render it
inevitable that he should preach the gospel. His glorying was of
another kind.
For necessity is laid upon me. My preaching is in a manner
inevitable, and cannot therefore be regarded as that in which I
peculiarly glory. I was called into the ministry in a miraculous manner;
I was addressed personally by the Lord Jesus; I was arrested when I was a
persecutor; I was commanded to go and preach; I had a direct commission
from heaven. There was no room for hesitancy or debate on the subject,
(Galatians 1:16,) and I gave myself at once and entirely to the work,
Acts 9:6. I have been urged to this by a direct call from heaven;
and to yield obedience to this call cannot be regarded as evincing
such an inclination to give myself to this work as if the call had
been in the usual mode, and with less decided manifestations. We
are not to suppose that Paul was compelled to preach, or that he was
not voluntary in his work, or that he did not prefer it to any other
employment: but he speaks in a popular sense, as saying that he
"could not help it;" or that the evidence of his call was irresistible,
and left no room for hesitation. He was free; but there was not
the slightest room for debate on the subject. The evidence of his
call was so strong that he could not but yield. Probably none now
have evidences of their call to the ministry as strong as this. But
there are many, very many, who feel that a kind of necessity is laid
on them to preach. Their consciences urge them to it. They would
be miserable in any other employment. The course of Providence
has shut them up to it. Like Saul of Tarsus, they may have been
persecutors, or revilers, or "injurious," or blasphemers,
(1 Timothy 1:13;) or they may, like him, have commenced a career of
ambition; or they may have been engaged in some scheme of money-making
or of pleasure; and in an hour when they little expected it, they
have been arrested by the truth of God, and their attention directed
to the gospel ministry. Many a minister has, before entering the
ministry, formed many other purposes of life; but the providence
of God barred his way, hemmed in his goings, and constrained him to
become an ambassador of the cross.
Yea, woe is unto me, etc. I should be miserable and wretched if I did
not preach. My preaching, therefore, in itself considered, cannot be a
subject of glorying. I am shut up to it. I am urged to it in every way. I
should be wretched were I not to do it, and were I to seek any other
calling. My conscience would reproach me. My judgment would condemn
me. My heart would pain me. I should have no comfort in any
other calling; and God would frown upon me. Learn hence,
(1.) That Paul had been converted. Once he had no love for the
ministry, but persecuted the Saviour. With the feelings which he
then had, he would have been wretched in the ministry; with those
which he now had, he would have been wretched out of it. His
heart, therefore, had been wholly changed.
(2.) All ministers who are duly called to the work can say the same
thing. They would be wretched in any other calling. Their conscience
would reproach them. They would have no interest in the plans of the
world; in the schemes of wealth, and pleasure, and fame. Their heart is
in this work, and in this alone. In this, though amidst circumstances
of poverty, persecution, nakedness, cold, peril, sickness, they have
comfort. In any other calling, though surrounded by affluence,
friends, wealth, honours, pleasures, gaiety, fashion, they would be
miserable.
(3.) A man whose heart is not in the ministry, and who would be as happy
in any other calling, is not fit to be an ambassador of Jesus Christ.
Unless his heart is there, and he prefers that to any other
calling, he should never think of preaching the gospel.
(4.) Men who leave the ministry, and voluntarily devote themselves to
some other calling when they might preach, never had the proper spirit of
an ambassador of Jesus. If for the sake of ease or gain; if to avoid the
cares and anxieties of the life of a pastor; if to make money, or secure
money when made; if to cultivate a farm, to teach a school, to write a
book, to live upon an estate, or to enjoy life, they lay aside the
ministry, it is proof that they never had a call to the work. So did not
Paul; and so did not Paul's Master and ours. They loved the work, and
they left it not till death. Neither for ease, honour, nor wealth;
neither to avoid care, toil, pain, or poverty, did they cease in their
work, until the one could say, "I have fought a good fight, I have
finished my course, I have kept the faith," (2 Timothy 4:7;) and the
other, "I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do,"
John 17:4.
(5.) We see the reason why men are sometimes miserable in other
callings. They should have entered the ministry. God called them
to it; and they became hopefully pious. But they chose the law,
or the practice of medicine, or chose to be farmers, merchants,
teachers, professors, or statesmen. And God withers their piety,
blights their happiness, follows them with the reproaches of conscience,
makes them sad, melancholy, wretched. They do no good; and they have no
comfort in life. Every man should do the will of God, and then every man
would be happy.
{a} "necessity" Jeremiah 1:17; 20:9
Verse 17. For if I do this thing willingly. If I preach so as to show
that my heart is in it; that I am not compelled. If I pursue such
a course as to show that I prefer it to all other employments. If
Paul took a compensation for his services, he could not well do this;
if he did not, he showed that his heart was in it, and that he preferred
the work to all others. Even though he had been in a manner compelled to
engage in that work, yet he so acted in the work as to show that it had
his hearty preference. This was done by his submitting to voluntary
self-denials and sacrifices, in order to spread the Saviour's name.
I have a reward. I shall meet with the approbation of my Lord, and
shall obtain the reward in the world to come which is promised to those
who engage heartily, and laboriously, and successfully in turning sinners
to God, Proverbs 11:30; Daniel 12:3; Matthew 13:43; 25:21-23; James 5:20.
But if against my will. \~akwn\~. If under a necessity,
(1 Corinthians 9:16;) if by the command of another,--(Grotius;) if I do it
by the fear of punishment, or by any strong necessity which is laid on
me.
A dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. I am entrusted
with (\~pepisteumai\~) this dispensation, office, economy (\~oikonomian\~)
of the gospel. It has been laid upon me; I have been called to it; I must
engage in this Work; and if I do it from mere compulsion, or in
such a way that my will shall not acquiesce in it, and concur with
it, I shall have no distinguished reward. The work must be done;
I must preach the gospel; and it becomes me so to do it as to show
that my heart and will entirely concur; that it is not a matter of
compulsion, but of choice. This he proposed to do by so denying
himself, and so foregoing comforts which he might lawfully enjoy,
and so subjecting himself to perils and toils in preaching the gospel,
as to show that his heart was in the work, and that he truly loved
it.
{b} "dispensation" Colossians 1:25
Verse 18. What is my reward then? What is the source of my reward?
or what is there in my conduct that will show that I am entitled to
reward? What is there that will demonstrate that my heart is in
the work of the ministry; that I am free and voluntary, and that I
am not urged by mere necessity? Though I have been called by miracle, and
though necessity is laid upon me, so that I cannot but
preach the gospel, yet how shall I so do it as to make it proper for
God to reward me as a voluntary agent? Paul immediately states
the circumstance that showed that he was entitled to the reward;
and that was, that he denied himself, and was willing to forego his
lawful enjoyments, and even his rights, that he might make the
gospel without charge.
I may make the gospel of Christ without charge. Without expense to
those who hear it. I will support myself by my own labour, and will thus
show that I am not urged to preaching by mere "necessity," but that I
love it. Observe here,
(1.) that Paul did not give up a support because he was not entitled to
it.
(2.) He does not say that it would be well or advisable for others to do
it.
(3.) It is right, and well for a man, if he chooses, and can do it, to
make the gospel without charge, and to support himself.
(4.) All that this case proves is, that it would be proper only where
a "necessity" was laid on a man, as it was on Paul; when he could not
otherwise show that his heart was in the work, and that he was voluntary
and loved it.
(5.) This passage cannot be urged by a people to prove that ministers
ought not to have a support. Paul says they have a right to it. A man
may forego a right if he pleases. He may choose not to urge it; but
no one can demand of him that he should not urge it; much less have they
a right to demand that he should give up his rights.
(6.) It is best in general that those who hear the gospel should
contribute to its support. It is not only equal and right, but it is best
for them. We generally set very little value on that which costs us
nothing; and the very way to make the gospel contemptible, is to have it
preached by those who are supported by the state, or by their own
labour in some other department; or by men who neither by their
talents, their learning, nor their industry, have any claim to a
support. All ministers are not like Paul. They have neither been
called as he was, nor have they his talent, his zeal, or his eloquence.
Paul's example, then, should not be urged as an authority for a
people to withhold from their pastor what is his due; nor, because
Paul chose to forego his rights, should people now demand that a
minister should devote his time, and health, and life to their welfare
for naught.
That I abuse not my power in the gospel. Paul had a right to a
support. This power he might urge. But to urge it in his circumstances
would be a hinderance of the gospel. And to do that would be to abuse his
power, or to pervert it to purposes for which it was never designed.
Verse 19. For though I be free. I am a freeman. I am under obligation
to none. I am not bound to give them my labours, and at the same
time to toil for my own support. I have claims like others, and
could urge them; and no man could demand that I should give
myself to a life of servitude, and comply with their prejudices and
wishes, as if I were a slave, in order to their conversion. Compare
1 Corinthians 9:1. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 6:12".
From all men. \~ek pantwn\~. This may either refer to all persons or
to all things. The word men is not in the original. The
connexion, however, seems to fix the signification to persons. "I am
a freeman. And although I have conducted [myself] like a slave, yet it
has been done voluntarily."
I have made myself servant unto all. Greek, "I have enslaved myself
(\~emauton edoulwsa\~) unto all." That is,
(1.) I labour for them, or in their service, and to promote their
welfare.
(2.) I do it, as the slave does, without reward or hire. I am not paid
for it, but submit to the toil, and do it without receiving pay.
(3.) Like the slave who wishes to gratify his master, or who is compelled
from the necessity of the case, I comply with the prejudices, habits,
customs, and opinions of others as far as I can with a good conscience.
The slave is subject to the master's will. That will must be obeyed.
The whims, prejudices, caprices of the master must be submitted to,
even if they are mere caprice, and wholly unreasonable. So Paul
says that he had voluntarily put himself into this condition, a condition
making it necessary for him to suit himself to the opinions,
prejudices, caprices, and feelings of all men, so far as he could do it
with a good conscience, in order that he might save them. We are
not to understand here that Paul embraced any opinions which were
false in order to do this, or that he submitted to anything which is
morally wrong. But he complied with their customs, and habits,
and feelings, as far as it could lawfully be done. He did not needlessly
offend them, or run counter to their prejudices.
That I might gain the more. That I might gain more to Christ; that I
might be the means of saving more souls. What a noble instance
of self-denial and true greatness is here! How worthy of religion!
How elevated the conduct! How magnanimous, and how benevolent! No man
would do this who had not a greatness of intellect that would rise above
narrow prejudices; and who had not a nobleness of heart that would seek
at personal sacrifice the happiness of all men. It is said that not a few
early Christians, in illustration of this principle of conduct, actually
sold themselves into slavery in order that they might have access to and
benefit slaves--an act to which nothing would prompt a man but the
religion of the cross. Comp. See Barnes "Romans 1:14".
{a} "servant" Romans 1:14; Galatians 5:13
Verse 20. And unto the Jews. In this verse, and the two following,
Paul states more at length the conduct which he had exhibited, and to
which he refers in 1 Corinthians 9:19. He had shown this conduct to all
classes of men. He had preached much to his own countrymen,
and had evinced these principles there.
I became as a Jew. I complied with their rites, customs, prejudices,
as far as I could with a good conscience. I did not needlessly offend
them. I did not attack and oppose their views, when there was no danger
that my conduct should be mistaken. For a full illustration of Paul's
conduct in this respect, and the principles which influenced him,
See Barnes "Acts 16:3"; See Barnes "Acts 18:18";
See Barnes "Acts 21:21"; also Acts 21:22-27
See Barnes "Acts 23:1"; also Acts 23:5-6.
To those that are under the law. This I understand as another form of
saying that he conformed to the rites, customs, and even prejudices
of the Jews. The phrase, "under the law," means undoubtedly the
law of Moses; and probably he here refers particularly to those Jews
who lived in the land of Judea, as being more immediately and
entirely under the law of Moses, than those who lived among the
Gentiles.
As under the law. That is, I conformed to their rites and customs as
far as I could do it. I did not violate them unnecessarily. I did not
disregard them for the purpose of offending them; nor refuse to observe
them when it could be done with a good conscience. There can be no doubt
that Paul, when he was in Judea, submitted himself to the laws, and lived
in conformity with them.
That I might gain. That I might obtain their confidence and
affection. That I might not outrage their feelings, excite their
prejudices, and provoke them to anger; and that I might thus have
access to their minds, and be the means of converting them to the
Christian faith.
{b} "unto the Jews" Acts 16:3; 21:23-26
Verse 21. To them that are without law. To the Gentiles, who have not
the law of Moses. See Barnes "Romans 2:12,14".
As without law. Not practicing the peculiar rites and ceremonies
enjoined in the law of Moses. Not insisting on them, or urging them; but
showing that the obligation to those rites had been done away; and
that they were not binding, though when among the Jews I might still
continue to observe them. See Barnes "Acts 15:1" and following: and the
argument of Paul in Galatians 2:11-18. I neglected the ceremonial precepts
of the Mosaic law, when I was with those who had not heard of the law
of Moses, or those who did not observe them, because I knew that the
binding obligation of these ceremonial precepts had ceased. I did
not, therefore, press them upon the Gentiles, nor did I
superstitiously and publicly practise them. In all this, Paul has
reference only to those things which he regarded as in themselves
indifferent, and not a matter of conscience; and his purpose was not
needlessly to excite the prejudice or the opposition of the world.
Nothing is ever gained by provoking opposition for the mere sake of
opposition. Nothing tends more to hinder the gospel than that. In all
things of conscience and truth a man should be firm, and should
lose his life rather than abandon either; in all things of indifference,
of mere custom, of prejudice, he should yield, and accommodate himself to
the modes of thinking among men, and adapt himself to their views,
feelings, and habits of life, that he may win them to Christ.
Being not without law to God. Not regarding myself as being
absolutely without law, or as being freed from obligation to obey God.
Even in all this, I endeavoured so to live as that it might be seen that
I felt myself bound by law to God. I was not a despiser, and contemner
and neglecter of law, as such, but only regarded myself as not bound
by the peculiar ceremonial law of Moses. This is an instance of Paul's
conscientiousness. He would not leave room to have it supposed for a
moment that he disregarded all law. He was bound to God by law; and in
the conduct to which he was referring, he felt that he was obeying
him. He was bound by higher law than those ceremonial observances
which were now to be done away. This passage would destroy all the
refuges of the Antinomians. Whatever privileges the gospel has
introduced, it has not set us free from the restraints and obligations of
law. That is binding still; and no man is at liberty to disregard the
moral law of God. Christ came to magnify, strengthen, and to honour the
law, not to destroy it.
But under the law to Christ. Bound by the law enjoined by Christ;
under the law of affectionate gratitude and duty to him. I obeyed
his commands; followed his instructions; sought his honour;
yielded to his will. In this he would violate none of the rules of
the moral law. And he here intimates, that his grand object was
to yield obedience to the law of the Saviour, and that this was the
governing purpose of his life. And this would guide a man right.
In doing this, he would never violate any of the precepts of the
moral law, for Christ obeyed them, and enjoined their observance.
He would never feel that he was without law to God, for Christ
obeyed God, and enjoined it on all. He would never feel that
religion came to set him free from law, or to authorize licentiousness;
for its grand purpose and aim is to make men holy, and to bind them
everywhere to the observance of the pure law of the Redeemer.
{a} "being not without law" 1 Corinthians 7:22
Verse 22. To the weak. See Barnes "Romans 15:1". To those weak in
faith; scrupulous in regard to certain observances; whose consciences
were tender and unenlightened, and who would be offended even by things
which might be in themselves lawful. He did not lacerate their
feelings, and run counter to their prejudices, for the mere sake of
doing it.
Became I as weak. I did not shock them. I complied with their
customs. I conformed to them in my dress, habits, manner of life, and
even in the services of religion. I abstained from food which they deemed
it their duty to abstain from; and where, if I had partaken of it, I
should have offended them. Paul did not do this to gratify himself, or
them, but to do them good. And Paul's example should teach us not to make
it the main business of life to gratify ourselves: and it should teach us
not to lacerate the feelings of others; not to excite their prejudices
needlessly; not to offend them where it will do no good. If truth offends
men, we cannot help it. But in matters of ceremony, and dress, and
habits, and customs, and forms, we should be willing to conform to them,
as far as can be done, and for the sole purpose of saving their souls.
I am made all things to all men. I become all things; that is, I
accommodate myself to them in all things, so far as can be done
with a good conscience.
That I might by all means. \~pantwv\~. That I might use every possible
endeavour that some at least might be saved. It is implied here that the
opposition to the gospel was everywhere great; that men were reluctant to
embrace it; that the great mass were going to ruin, and that Paul was
willing to make the highest possible exertions, to deny himself, and
practise every innocent art, that he might save a few at least out of
the innumerable multitudes that were going to death and hell. It follows
from this,
(1.) that men are in danger of ruin.
(2.) We should make an effort to save men. We should deny ourselves, and
give ourselves to toil and privation, that we may save some at least from
ruin.
(3.) The doctrine of universal salvation is not true. If it were,
what use or propriety would there have been in these efforts of
Paul? If all were to be saved, why should he deny himself, and
labour and toil to save "SOME?" Why should a man make a constant
effort to save a few at least, if he well knew that all were to
be saved? Assuredly Paul did not know or believe that all men would be
saved; but if the doctrine is true, he would have been quite as likely to
have known it as its modern advocates and defenders.
{b} "weak" Romans 15:1; 2 Corinthians 11:29
{c} "I am made" 1 Corinthians 10:33
{d} "that I might" Romans 11:14
Verse 23. For the gospel's sake. That it may be advanced, and may be
successful.
That I might be partaker thereof with you. You hope to be saved. You
regard yourselves as Christians; and I wish to give evidence also that
I am a Christian, and that I shall be admitted to heaven to partake
of the happiness of the redeemed. This he did, by so denying himself as
to give evidence that he was truly actuated by Christian principles.
Verse 24. Know ye not, etc. In the remainder of this chapter, Paul
illustrates the general sentiment on which he had been dwelling--
the duty of practicing self-denial for the salvation of others--by a
reference to the well-known games which were celebrated near
Corinth. Throughout the chapter, his object had been to show that
in declining to receive a support for preaching, he had done it, not
because he was conscious that he had no claim to it, but because by
doing it he could better advance the salvation of men, the furtherance
of the gospel, and, in his peculiar case, (1 Corinthians 9:16,17,) could
obtain better evidence, and furnish to others better evidence that he
was actuated by a sincere desire to honour God in the Gospel. He
had denied himself. He had voluntarily submitted to great privations. He
had had a great object in view in doing it. And he now says, that in the
well-known athletic games at Corinth, the same thing was done by the
racers, (1 Corinthians 9:24,) and by wrestlers, or boxers,
1 Corinthians 9:25. If they had done it, for objects so comparatively
unimportant as the attainment of an earthly garland, assuredly it was
proper for him to do it to obtain a crown which should never fade
away. This is one of the most beautiful, appropriate, vigorous, and
bold illustrations that can anywhere be found; and is a striking
instance of the force with which the most vigorous and self-denying
efforts of Christians can be vindicated, and can be urged by a
reference to the conduct of men in the affairs of this life. By the
phrase, "know ye not," Paul intimates that those games to which he
alludes, were well known to them, and that they must be familiar with
their design, and with the manner in which they were conducted. The
games to which the apostle alludes were celebrated with extraordinary
pomp and splendour, every fourth year, on the Isthmus which joined the
Peloponnesus to the main land, and on a part of which the city of Corinth
stood. There were in Greece four species of games: the Pythian, or
Delphic; the Isthmian, or Corinthian; the Nemean, and the Olympic. On
these occasions persons were assembled from all parts of Greece, and the
time during which they continued was devoted to extraordinary festivity
and amusement. The Isthmian or Corinthian games were celebrated in the
narrow part of the Isthmus of Corinth, to the north of the city, and were
doubtless the games to which the apostle more particularly alluded,
though the games in each of the places were substantially of the same
nature, and the same illustration would in the main apply to all. The
Nemean games were celebrated at Nemaea, a town of Argolis, and
were instituted by the Argives in honour of Archemorus, who died
by the bite of a serpent, but were renewed by Hercules. They consisted of
horse and foot races, of boxing, leaping, running, etc. The conqueror was
at first rewarded with a crown of olive, afterwards of green parsley.
They were celebrated every third, or, according to others, every fifth
year. The Pythian games were celebrated every four years at Delphi,
in Phocis, at the foot of Mount Parnassus, where was the seat of the
celebrated Delphic oracle. These games were of the same character
substantially as those celebrated in other places, and attracted persons
not only from other parts of Greece, but from distant countries. See
Travels of Anacharsis, vol. ii. pp. 375--418. The Olympic games were
celebrated in Olympia, a town of Elis, on the southern bank of the
Alphiss river, on the western part of the Peloponnesus. They were on many
accounts the most celebrated of any in Greece. They were said to have
been instituted by Hercules, who planted a grove called Altis, which
he dedicated to Jupiter. They were attended not only from all parts of
Greece, but from the most distant countries. These were celebrated every
fourth year; and hence, in Grecian chronology, a period of four
years was called an Olympiad. See Anacharsis, vol. iii. 434, seq.
It thus happened that in one or more of these places, there were
games celebrated every year, to which no small part of the inhabitants of
Greece were attracted. Though the apostle probably had particular
reference to the Isthmian games celebrated in the vicinity of
Corinth, yet his illustration is applicable to them all; for in all
the exercises were nearly the same. They consisted chiefly in leaping,
running, throwing the discus or quoit, boxing, wrestling, and
were expressed in the following line:
\~alma, podwkeihn, diskon, akonta, palhn:\~
Leaping, running, throwing the quoit, darting, wrestling. Connected
with these were also, sometimes, other exercises, as races of chariots,
horses, etc. The apostle refers to but two of these exercises in his
illustration.
They which run. This was one of the principal exercises at the games.
Fleetness or swiftness was regarded as an extraordinary virtue; and great
pains were taken in order to excel in this. Indeed, they regarded it so
highly, that those who prepared themselves for it thought it worth while
to use means to burn their spleen, because it was believed to be a
hinderance to them, and to retard them in the race. (Rob. Cal.) Homer
tells us that swiftness was one of the most excellent endowments with
which a man can be blessed.
"No greater honour e'er has been attain'd,
Than what strong hands or nimble feet have gain'd."
One reason why this was deemed so valuable an attainment among
the Greeks was, that it fitted men eminently for war as it was then
conducted. It enabled them to make a sudden and unexpected
onset, or a rapid retreat. Hence the character which Homer constantly
gives of Achilles is, that he was swift of foot. And thus David, in his
poetical lamentations over Saul and Jonathan, takes special notice of
this qualification of theirs, as fitting them for war.
"They were swifter than eagles,
Stronger than lions."--2 Samuel 1:23
For these races they prepared themselves by a long course of previous
discipline and exercise; and nothing was left undone that might
contribute to secure the victory.
In a race. \~en stadiw\~. In the stadium. The stadium, or
running-ground, or place in which the boxers contended, and where races
were run. At Olympia the stadium was a causeway 604 feet in length, and
of proportionable width. (Herod. lib. 2. c. 149.) It was surrounded by a
terrace, and by the seats of the judges of the games. At one end was
fixed the boundary or goal to which they ran.
Run all. All run who have entered the lists. Usually there were many
racers who contended for the prize.
But one receiveth the prize? The victor, and he alone. The prize
which was conferred was a wreath of olive at the Olympic games; a wreath
of apple at Delphi; of pine at the Isthmian; and of parsley at the Nemean
games.--Addison. Whatever the prize was, it was conferred on the
successful champion on the last day of the games, and with great
solemnity, pomp, congratulation, and rejoicing.
"Every one thronged to see and congratulate them;
their relations, friends, and countrymen, shedding tears of
tenderness and joy, Lifted them on their shoulders to show
them to the crowd, and held them up to the applauses of the
whole assembly, who strewed handfuls of flowers over them."
(Anachar. iii. 448.) Nay, at their return home, they rode in a
triumphal chariot; the walls of the city were broken down to
give them entrance; and in many cities a subsistence was
given them out of the public treasury, and they were
exempted from taxes. Cicero says that a victory at the
Olympic games was not much less honourable than a triumph
at Rome. see Anachar. iii. 469, and Rob. Cal., art. Race."
When Paul says that but one receives the prize, he does not mean to say
that there will be the same small proportion among those who shall
enter into heaven, and among Christians. But his idea is, that as
they make an effort to obtain the prize, so should we; as many who
strive for it then lose it, it is possible that we may; and that
therefore we should strive for the crown, and make an effort for it, as
if but one out of many could obtain it. This, he says, was the course
which he pursued; and it shows, in a most striking manner, the
fact that an effort may be made, and should be made, to enter into
heaven.
So run, that ye may obtain. So run in the Christian race,
that you may obtain the prize of glory, the crown incorruptible. So
live, so deny yourselves, so make constant exertion, that you may
not fail of that prize, the crown of glory, which awaits the righteous
in heaven. Comp. Hebrews 12:1. Christians may do this when
(1.) they give themselves wholly to God, and make this the grand business
of life;
(2.) "when they lay aside every weight," (Hebrews 12:1,) and renounce
all sin and all improper attachments;
(3.) when they do not allow themselves to be diverted from the object,
but keep the goal constantly in view;
(4.) when they do not flag, or grow weary in their course;
(5.) when they deny themselves; and
(6.) when they keep their eye fully fixed on Christ (Hebrews 12:2)
as their example and their strength, and on heaven as the end of their
race, and on the crown of glory as their reward.
{a} "So run, that ye" Philippians 2:16; 3:14; 1 Timothy 6:12; 2 Timothy 2:5
Verse 25. And every man that striveth for the mastery. \~o agwnizomenov\~.
That agonizes; that is, that is engaged in the exercise of wrestling,
boxing, or pitching the bar or quoit. See Barnes "Luke 13:24".
The sense is, every one who endeavours to obtain a victory in these
athletic exercises.
Is temperate in all things. The word which is rendered "is temperate,"
(\~egkrateuetai\~,) denotes abstinence from all that would excite, stimulate,
and ultimately enfeeble; from wine, from exciting and luxurious living,
and from licentious indulgences. It means that they did all they could
to make the body vigorous, active, and supple. They pursued a course of
entire temperate living. Comp. Acts 24:25; 1 Corinthians 7:9; Galatians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6.
It relates not only to indulgences unlawful in themselves, but to
abstinence from many things that were regarded as lawful, but which
were believed to render the body weak and effeminate. The phrase,
"in all things," means that this course of temperance or abstinence
was not confined to one thing, or to one class of things, but to every
kind of food and drink, and every indulgence that had a tendency to
render the body weak and effeminate. The preparations which
those who proposed to contend in these games made is well known,
and is often referred to by the classic writers. Epictetus, as quoted
by Grotius, (in loco,) thus speaks of these preparations. "Do you
wish to gain the prize at the Olympic games? consider the requisite
preparations and the consequence. You must observe a strict
regimen; must live on food which is unpleasant; must abstain from
all delicacies; must exercise yourself at the prescribed times in heat
and in cold; you must drink nothing cool, (\~qucron\~;) must take no
wine as usual; you must put yourself under a pugilist, as you would
under a physician, and afterwards enter the lists." (Epiet., oh. 35.)
Horace has described the preparations necessary in the same way.
Qui studet optatam cursu contingere metam
Multa tulit fecitque puer; sudavit, et alsit,
Abstinuit Venere et Baccho.--De ARTE Poet. 412
A youth who hopes the Olympic prize to gain,
All arts must try, and every toil sustain;
The extremes of heat and cold must often prove,
And shun the weakening joys of wine and love.--Francis
To obtain a corruptible crown. A garland, diadem, or civic wreath,
that must soon fade away. The garland bestowed on the victor was
made of olive, pine, apple, laurel, or parsley. That would soon lose
its beauty and fade; of course, it could be of little value. Yet we
see how eagerly they sought it; how much self-denial those who
entered the lists would practise to obtain it; how long they would
deny themselves of the common pleasures of life, that they might be
successful. So much temperance would heathens practise to obtain
a fading wreath of laurel, pine, or parsley! Learn hence,
(1.) the duty of denying ourselves to obtain a far more valuable reward,
the incorruptible crown of heaven.
(2.) The duty of all Christians, who strive for that crown, to be
temperate in all things. If the heathens practised temperance to obtain
a fading laurel, should not we to obtain one that never fades?
(3.) How much their conduct puts to shame the conduct of many
professing Christians and Christian ministers. They set such a value
on a civic wreath of pine or laurel, that they were willing to deny
themselves, and practise the most rigid abstinence. They knew that
indulgence in WINE and in luxurious living unfitted them for the struggle
and for victory; they knew that it enfeebled their powers, and weakened
their frame; and, like men intent on an object dear to them, they
abstained wholly from these things, and embraced the principles of total
abstinence. Yet how many professed Christians, and Christian ministers,
though striving for the crown that fadeth not away, indulge in wine, and
in the filthy, offensive, and disgusting use of tobacco; and in luxurious
living, and in habits of indolence and sloth! How many there are
that WILL not give up these habits, though they know that they are
enfeebling, injurious, offensive, and destructive to religious comfort
and usefulness. Can a man be truly in earnest in his professed
religion; can he be a sincere Christian, who is not willing to abandon
anything and everything that will tend to impair the rigour of his
mind, and weaken his body, and make him a stumbling-block to
others?
(4.) The value of temperance is here presented in a very striking and
impressive view. When even the heathens wished to accomplish anything
that demanded skill, strength, power, rigour of body, they saw the
necessity of being temperate, and they were so. And this proves
what all experiment has proved, that if men wish to accomplish
much, they must be temperate. It proves that men can do more without
intoxicating drink than they can with it. The example of these Grecian
Athletae--their wrestlers, boxers, and racers--is against all the
farmers, and mechanics, and seamen, and day-labourers, and
gentlemen, and clergymen, and lawyers, who plead that
stimulating drink is necessary to enable them to bear cold and
heat, and toil and exposure. A little experience from men like the
Grecian wrestlers, who had something that they wished to do, is
much better than a great deal of philosophy and sophistical reasoning
from men who wish to drink, and to find some argument for drinking that
shall be a salvo to their consciences. Perhaps the world has furnished
no stronger argument in favour of total abstinence than the example
of the Grecian Athletae. It is certain that their example, the
example of men who wished to accomplish much by bodily rigour and health,
is an effectual and irrefragable argument against all those who plead
that stimulating drinks are desirable or necessary in order to increase
the rigour of the bodily frame.
But we. We Christians.
An incorruptible. An incorruptible, an unfading crown. The blessings
of heaven that shall be bestowed on the righteous are often represented
under the image of a crown or diadem; a crown that is unfading and
eternal, 2 Timothy 4:8;; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10; 3:11; 4:4. The doctrine
here taught is, the necessity of making an effort to secure eternal
life. The apostle never thought of entering heaven by indolence,
or by inactivity. He urged, by every possible argument, the necessity
of making an exertion to secure the rewards of the just. His
reasons for this effort are many. Let a few be pondered.
(1.) The work of salvation is difficult. The thousand obstacles arising,
the love of sin, and the opposition of Satan and of the world, are in the
way.
(2.) The danger of losing the crown of glory is great. Every moment
exposes it to hazard, for at any moment we may die.
(3.) The danger is not only great, but it is dreadful. If
anything should arouse man, it should be the apprehension of eternal
damnation and everlasting wrath.
(4.) Men in this life, in the games of Greece, in the career of ambition,
in the pursuit of pleasure and wealth, make immense efforts to obtain
the fading and perishing object of their desires. Why should not a man
be willing to make as great efforts at least to secure eternal glory?
(5.) The value of the interest at stake. Eternal happiness is before
those who will embrace the offers of life. If a man should be influenced
by anything to make an effort, should it not be by the prospect of
eternal glory? What should influence him if this should not?
{b} "incorruptible" 2 Timothy 4:8; James 1:12; 1 Peter 5:4; Revelation 2:10; 3:11
Verse 26. I therefore so run. In the Christian race; in my effort to
obtain the prize, the crown of immortality. I exert myself to the
utmost, that I may not fail of securing the crown.
Not as uncertainly; \~ouk adhlwv\~. This word occurs nowhere else in the
New Testament. It usually means, in the classic writers, obscurely.
Here it means that he did not run as not knowing to what object he
aimed. "I do not run at hap-hazard; I do not exert myself for naught; I
know at what I aim, and I keep my eye fixed on the object; I have the
goal and the crown in view." Probably also the apostle intended to
convey this idea, "I so live and act that I am sure of obtaining the
crown. I make it a great and grand point of my life so to live that
there may be no room for doubt or hesitancy about this matter. I believe
it may be obtained; and that by a proper course there may be a
constant certainty of securing it; and I so LIVE." Oh, how happy and
blessed would it be if all Christians thus lived! How much doubt, and
hesitancy, and despondency would it remove from many a Christian's mind!
And yet it is morally certain that if every Christian were to be only as
anxious and careful as were the ancient Grecian wrestlers and racers in
the games, they would have the undoubted assurance of gaining the
prize. Doddridge and Macknight, however, render this, "as not
out of view;" or as not distinguished; meaning that the apostle
was not unseen, but that he regarded himself as constantly in the
view of the judge, the Lord Jesus Christ. I prefer the other
interpretation, however, as best according with the connexion and with
the proper meaning of the word.
So fight I. \~outw pukteuw\~. This word is applied to the boxers, or the
pugilists, in the Grecian games. The exercise of boxing, or fighting
with the fist, was a part of the entertainment with which the enlightened
nations of Greece delighted to amuse themselves.
Not as one that beateth the air. The phrase here is taken from the
habits of the pugilists or boxers, who were accustomed, before entering
the lists, to exercise their limbs with the gauntlet, in order to acquire
greater skill and dexterity. There was also, before the real contest
commenced, a play with their fists and weapons, by way of show or bravado,
which was called \~skiamacia\~, a mock-battle, or a fighting the air. The
phrase also is applicable to a missing the aim, when a blow was
struck in a real struggle, and when the adversary would elude the
blow, so that it would be spent in the empty air. This last is the
idea which Paul means to present. He did not miss his aim; he
did not exert himself and spend his strength for naught. Every
blow that he struck told; and he did not waste his energies on that
which would produce no result. He did not strive with rash, ill-advised,
or uncertain blows; but all his efforts were directed, with
good account, to the grand purpose of subjugating his enemy--sin,
and the corrupt desires of the flesh--and bringing everything into
captivity to God. Much may be learned from this. Many an effort
of Christians is merely beating the air. The energy is expended
for naught. There is a want of wisdom, or skill, or perseverance;
there is a failure of plan; or there is a mistake in regard to what is
to be done, and what should be done. There is often among Christians
very little aim or object; there is no plan; and the efforts are
wasted, scattered, inefficient efforts; so that, at the close of life,
many a man may say that he has spent his ministry or his Christian
course mainly, or entirely, in beating the air. Besides, many a one
sets up a man of straw, and fights that. He fancies error and heresy
in others, and opposes that. He becomes a heresy-hunter; or he
opposes some irregularity in religion that, if left alone, would die of
itself; or he fixes all his attention on some minor evil, and devotes
his life to the destruction of that alone. When death comes, he
may have never struck a blow at one of the real and dangerous
enemies of the gospel; and the simple record on the tombstone of
many a minister and many a private Christian might be, "Here lies
one who spent his life in beating the air."
{a} "beateth" "striketh"
Verse 27. But I keep under my body. \~upwpiazw\~. This word occurs in
the New Testament only here and in Luke 18:5, "Lest by her
continual coming she weary me." The word is derived probably
from \~upwpoin\~, the part of the face under the eye, (Passow;) and
means, properly, to strike under the eye, either with the fist or the
cestus, so as to render the part livid, or, as we say, black and blue;
or, as is vulgarly termed, to give any one a black eye. The word is
derived, of course, from the athletic exercises of the Greeks. It then
comes to mean, to treat any one with harshness, severity, or cruelty;
and thence also so to treat any evil inclinations or dispositions; or to
subject one's self to mortification or self-denial, or to a severe and
rigid discipline, that all the corrupt passions might be removed.
The word here means, that Paul made use of all possible means to
subdue his corrupt and carnal inclinations; to show that he was not
under the dominion of evil passions, but was wholly under the
dominion of the gospel.
And bring it into subjection, \~doulagwgw\~. This word properly means,
to reduce to servitude or slavery; and probably was usually applied to
the act of subduing an enemy, and leading him captive from the field of
battle; as the captives in war were regarded as slaves. It then means,
effectually and totally to subdue, to conquer, to reduce to bondage and
subjection. Paul means by it, the purpose to obtain a complete
victory over his corrupt passions and propensities, and a design to
gain the mastery over all his natural and evil inclinations.
Lest that by any means. See Barnes "1 Corinthians 9:22". Paul designed to
make every possible effort to be saved. He did not mean to be lost, but
he meant to be saved. He felt that there was danger of being deceived and
lost; and he meant by some means to have evidence of piety that would
abide the trial of the day of judgment.
When I have preached to others. Doddridge renders this, "lest after
having served as a herald to others, I should myself be disapproved;"
and supposes that there was allusion in this to the Grecian herald,
whose business it was to proclaim the conditions of the games, to
display the prizes, etc. In this interpretation, also, Macknight,
Rosenmuller, Koppe, and most of the modern interpreters agree. They
suppose, therefore, that the allusion to the games is carried through
all this description. But there is this difficulty in this interpretation,
that it represents the apostle as both a herald and a contender in the
games, and thus leads to an inextricable confusion of metaphor. Probably,
therefore, this is to be taken in the usual sense of the word
preaching in the New Testament; and the apostle here is to be
understood as dropping the metaphor, and speaking in the usual manner.
He had preached to others, to many others. He had proclaimed
the gospel far and near. He had preached to many thousands,
and had been the means of the conversion of thousands. The
contest, the agony, the struggle in which he had been engaged,
was that of preaching the gospel in the most effectual manner.
And yet he felt that there was a possibility that even after all
this he might be lost.
I myself should be a castaway. This word (\~adokimov\~) is taken from
bad metals, and properly denotes those which will not bear the test
that is applied to them; that are found to be base and worthless, and are
therefore rejected and cast away. The apostle had subjected himself to
trials. He had given himself to self-denial and toil; to persecution and
want; to perils, and cold, and nakedness, and hunger. He had done this,
among other things, to give his religion a fair trial, to see whether
it would bear all these tests--as metal is cast into the fire to see
whether it is genuine, or is base and worthless. In doing this, he
had endeavoured to subdue his corrupt propensities, and bring
everything into captivity to the Redeemer, that it might be found
that he was sincere, and humble, and devoted Christian. Many
have supposed that the word "cast-away" here refers to those who
had entered the lists, and had contended, and who had then been
examined as to the manner in which they had conducted the contest,
and had been found to have departed from the rules of the games,
and who were then rejected. But this interpretation is too artificial
and unnatural. The simple idea of Paul is, that he was afraid that
he should be disapproved, rejected, cast off; that it would appear,
after all, that he had no religion, and would then be cast away as
unfit to enter into heaven.
From the many remarks which might be made from this interesting chapter,
we may select the following:
(1.) We see the great anxiety which Paul had to save souls. This
was his grand purpose; and for this he was willing to deny himself
and to bear any trial.
(2.) We should be kind to others; we should not needlessly
offend them; we should conform to them, as far as it can be done
consistently with Christian integrity.
(3.) We should make an effort to be saved. Oh, if men made
such exertions to obtain a corruptible crown, how much greater
should we make to obtain one that fadeth not away!
(4.) Ministers, like others, are in danger of losing their souls. If
Paul felt this danger, who is there among the ministers of the cross
who should not feel it? If Paul was not safe, who is?
(5.) The fact that a man has preached to many is no certain evidence
that he will be saved, 1 Corinthians 9:27. Paul had preached to thousands,
and yet he felt that after all this there was a possibility that
he might be lost.
(6.) The fact that a man has been very successful in the ministry
is no certain evidence that he will be saved. God converts men;
and he may sometimes do it by the instrumentality of those who
themselves are deceived, or are deceivers. They may preach much
truth; and God may bless that truth, and make it the means of
saving the soul. There is no conclusive evidence that a man is a
Christian simply because he is a successful and laborious preacher,
any more than there is that a man is a Christian because he is a good
farmer, and because God sends down the rain and the sunshine on
his fields. Paul felt that even his success was no certain evidence
that he would be saved. And if Paul felt thus, who should not feel
that after the most distinguished success, he may himself be at last
a cast-away?
(7.) It will be a solemn and awful thing for a minister of the
gospel, and a successful minister, to go down to hell. What more
fearful doom can be conceived, than after having led others in the
way to life; after having described to them the glories of heaven;
after having conducted them to the "sweet fields beyond the swelling
flood" of death, he should find himself shut out, rejected, and
cast down to hell! What more terrible can be imagined in the
world of perdition than the doom of one who was once a minister of
God, and once esteemed as a light in the church and a guide of souls,
now sentenced to inextinguishable fires, while multitudes saved by
him shall have gone to heaven ! How fearful is the condition, and
how solemn the vocation, of a minister of the gospel!
(8.) Ministers should be solicitous about their personal piety.
Paul, one might suppose, might have rested contented with the remarkable
manner of his conversion. He might have supposed that that put the matter
beyond all possible doubt. But he did no such thing. He felt that it was
necessary to have evidence day by day that he was then a Christian. Of
all men, Paul was perhaps least disposed to live on past experience,
and to trust to such experience. Of all men, he had perhaps most reason
to trust to such experience; and yet how seldom does he refer to it, how
little does he regard it! The great question with him was, "Am I
now a Christian? am I living as a Christian should now? am I
evincing to others, am I giving to myself daily, constant, growing
evidence that I am actuated by the pure principles of the gospel, and
that that gospel is the object of my highest preference, and my holiest
and constant desire?"
Oh, how holy would be the ministry, if all should endeavour every
day to live and act for Christ and for souls with as much steadiness
and fidelity as did the apostle Paul!
{a} "I keep" Romans 8:12
{+} "castaway" "rejected"
Printer friendly version
HOME
TOP