“So Long as I Don't Hurt Anybody”
A verse-by-verse explanation of this section.
An overview of the principles and applications from this section.
Tying the section to life with God.
Historical, geographical, and grammatical enrichment of the commentary.
Suggested step-by-step group study of the section.
Zeroing the section in on daily life.
“Of free choice and zeal and love to Christ, [Paul] had an insatiable desire for the salvation of mankind.”
John Chrysostom
In this passage the apostle continued his thoughts on the importance of love and service over dogmatic doctrinal attitudes. He did so by illustrating from his own life the importance of serving others.
“So Long As I Don't Hurt Anybody”
I t's almost a universal belief among Americans that we should be able to do whatever we want—so long as we don't hurt anybody. I grew up in America, and one of the most sacred words of American ideals is the word freedom. In America, our freedoms include the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” You have heard the songs lyrics: “the land of the free” and “let freedom ring.” Freedom is our highest good.
Unfortunately, the premium we place on personal liberty often does not disappear when we become followers of Christ. In fact, we often transfer our freedom ideals into our faith. We think we should follow Christ any way we see fit, so long as we don't hurt anyone.
In this passage, Paul said just the opposite. Followers of Christ are to overcome their devotion to personal freedom. It is the only way to serve Christ and to spread his gospel.
Freedom and Rights
MAIN IDEA: In order to encourage the Corinthians to forfeit their rights for the sake of other Christians, Paul described his entire ministry as one of sacrifice and accommodation to others.
Christian Rights (9:1–14)
SUPPORTING IDEA: Paul had insisted in the previous chapter that Christians often have to forfeit their legitimate rights in loving service to others. He continued this argument by affirming his own rights—rights which the Corinthians knew he had given up.
9:1–2. Paul began his discussion of forfeiting rights with a series of four questions to which he expected positive responses. He asked if it were not true that he was free and an apostle. Apostles were central leaders of the church; they and the prophets were the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20). Consequently, certain rights, freedoms, and responsibilities came with the office. In a very powerful sense, Paul was in charge of the church, not the other way around.
Paul also asked if it were not true that he had seen Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:3–8). No one should have doubted that he met the requirements of apostleship mentioned in Acts 1:21–22. Paul directed the final question to the Corinthians themselves, reminding them that they had come to Christ by Paul's own work in the Lord. The church at Corinth directly resulted from Paul's ministry (Acts 16:1–11). Those unfamiliar with Paul might have had grounds to doubt reports about him, but the Corinthians knew the truth because they themselves were the seal, or proof, of Paul's apostleship in the Lord.
These questions indicate that Paul's opposition in Corinth may have challenged the authenticity of his apostleship. The power of the Holy Spirit had so attended his preaching in Corinth that the Corinthians should have respected Paul's apostleship. Elsewhere Paul even called the Corinthian believers his letter of recommendation (2 Cor. 3:2). Their own conversion certainly should have been sufficient to satisfy the Corinthians in this regard.
9:3. Paul was about to give a defense against people who sat in judgment on him. To understand his defense, one must first understand the accusation. From the preceding and following contexts, it would appear that some people were displeased with Paul's refusal to eat meat sacrificed to idols. They particularly did not like his teaching that others should do the same. Those judging Paul knew that he understood the practice was theologically justifiable—it was a freedom that every knowledgeable, mature Christian had. To them it must have seemed that Paul contradicted the straightforward truth when he insisted that stronger Christians should not eat for the sake of weaker Christians.
To defend his actions, Paul drew upon the larger practices of his life. His position on eating meat sacrificed to idols was not a sign of weakness or inconsistency. Rather, it accorded with the basic Christian principles that guided his life. For this reason, the Corinthians who opposed him on the matter of meat sacrificed to idols actually opposed the fabric of Christian ethics.
9:4–6. Paul introduced his defense through a series of questions and considerations, establishing a set of true premises about the apostolic ministry. First, he asked questions directly about himself and Barnabas. The answers to these questions are so obvious that one can easily sense Paul's sarcasm.
Evidently, those who sat in judgment against Paul thought his refusal to take advantage of these rights proved that he actually lacked these rights. They must have reasoned that he did not exercise these advantages because he was not truly an apostle.
To counter this thinking, Paul affirmed his apostolic rights. Even though he supported himself making tents, he had a right to be fed and paid by the Corinthians. Similarly, even though he remained single for the sake of those to whom he ministered, he had a right to be married.
9:7. Paul led up to the question of why he and Barnabas did not take advantage of what they had rights to enjoy. Before he reached that point, however, he built his case even more strongly. He appealed not only to the example of the other church leaders but also to common daily life.
Common sense dictates that people have a right to make a living from their work. By appealing to these ordinary life analogies, Paul continued to assert his rights, and thereby led to questions surrounding his refusal to take advantage of these rights.
9:8–10. Finally, Paul asked a serious question. Were these expectations merely from a human point of view, or did God confirm them as well? Paul insisted that God agreed to these rights and that Scripture proved the point. He asked, Doesn't the Law say the same thing? Paul believed that Old Testament law actually undergirded his moral right to receive a livelihood from his ministry. To support his argument, Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4, Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.
In biblical times, at least two methods of treading grain were practiced. At times, stalks of grain were spread out over a flat hard surface called a threshing floor. Oxen or horses dragged a weighted board across the grain by walking around and around a central post. At other times, the animals simply walked on the grain with their feet. Old Testament law did not allow farmers to muzzle the treading animals. God's law permitted the animals to eat as they worked.
Paul applied this Old Testament law to the issue at hand, insisting that God was concerned about more than oxen. God said this for us (human beings). Paul knew that the law pertained to oxen treading grain, but also that a deeper moral principle undergirded this law. He summarized the principle in this way: when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.
9:11–12. With biblical support for his views, Paul returned to his own situation. Since he had sown spiritual seed in Corinth, he had every right to reap a material harvest of reasonable pay for his work. This passage is used today to support the idea that ministers of the gospel should be paid for their efforts. Paul argued that the Corinthians benefited from his ministry. For this reason, he had an even greater right to support than the other church leaders whom the Corinthians evidently supported.
In verse 12b the apostle hinted at the forfeiture of rights that he would talk about in later verses. He had every right to be paid, but he did not use this right. Instead, he put up with all kinds of troubles rather than do anything that would hinder the gospel of Christ.
9:13–14. In a final effort to demonstrate the doctrinal correctness of his right to be paid, Paul noted that in the Old Testament the priests and Levites got their food from the temple and shared in what was offered on the altar.
He concluded that, in the same way, the Lord (not mere humans) has commanded that those who preach… should receive their living from the gospel. This may also be a reference to Jesus’ instructions to the apostles in Matthew 10:10 or to the seventy-two in Luke 10:7. Paul's conclusion could not have been put in stronger terms.
It would be difficult to overemphasize the force of Paul's argument. He created a watertight case for the fact that he should be paid for his apostolic ministry. Common fairness supported him. Current social practices agreed with his contention. Most importantly, the Old Testament law itself clearly taught his view. There was no reason that Paul should not be paid.
Forfeited Rights (9:15–27)
SUPPORTING IDEA: Just as Paul forfeited his right to be paid so the gospel might have greater success, the Corinthians should forfeit their rights to eat meat sacrificed to idols so they would not injure weaker brothers and sisters.
9:15. Paul declared, I have not used any of these rights. He had forfeited his right to making an honest living from his ministry, but he quickly countered any misunderstandings of his motivations in building such a strong case. He had not defended his rights in order that the Corinthians might begin to pay him, but rather to defend his apostleship.
The statement I would rather die than have anyone deprive me of this boast is not a single sentence. In the original language, the phrase I would rather die than is an incomplete exclamation that is interrupted by the statement “No one will deprive me of this boast.” On occasion Paul could not complete sentences because his emotions overcame him (see Rom. 3:25; 8:32). This was one such instance. He could not finish his sentence because he was overwhelmed by how important preaching the gospel was to him. He would never allow anyone to deprive him of the boast that he preached voluntarily—it was his reason for living.
9:16–17. Paul wanted to continue the practice of preaching without pay. He explained that he could not boast simply because he preached the gospel. He insisted, I am compelled to preach. In other words, he had no choice. God had called him to preach, and he had to fulfill that obligation or fall under divine judgment.
How did Paul enhance his preaching ministry? He preached voluntarily so he might receive a reward. Paul frequently spoke of himself and of other Christians being motivated to service by a desire for reward and praise (Rom. 2:29; Gal. 6:4–10; Col. 3:24). Eternal reward motivated him as it should all believers. Paul did not want to lose his eternal rewards for preaching willingly and eagerly and without pay. If he preached begrudgingly or received pay, he believed he would be doing nothing more than simply discharging the trust committed to him. To raise his preaching above the level of mere obedience, Paul voluntarily gave up his right to remuneration.
9:18. To sum up the matter, Paul asked what his reward was. This verse presents a number of complexities. If one reads the verse as a question and answer, then two understandings are possible. First, many interpreters have understood Paul to say that preaching was a reward in itself. To preach the gospel free of charge, and in so doing not to make use of his rights for pay, was sufficient reward. But in the light of 9:17, it seems better to understand Paul in another way. The second interpretation is that Paul knew he would one day receive a reward for having preached without remuneration. Christ would reward Paul for not seeking his own benefit in this world.
This verse may also be translated entirely as a question. It would thus read, “What then is my reward so that, when I preach the gospel, I offer it free of charge so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel?” Paul may have been asking what great reward motivated him to forfeit his rights by offering the gospel free of charge. In this case, his answer would come in 9:23: “I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
9:19. As a missionary in the Mediterranean world, Paul had to deal with many different cultural standards. In these varying circumstances, he committed himself not to exercise his right to pursue the norms of his own cultural preferences, and not to insist on his freedoms under the gospel. This argument is much like his forfeiture of his right to eat meat.
The apostle began this discussion with a strong assertion: I am free and belong to no man. In the ancient world, a slave had little freedom. Masters dictated most of what their slaves did. By asserting his free status, Paul restated an indisputable truth: he was free and did not have to conform himself to the preferences of others.
Nevertheless, Paul voluntarily made himself a slave to everyone. He gave up his rights to his own preferences in order to serve other people. He did this to win as many as possible, to further the kingdom of Christ. The desire to see many people come to faith in Christ overrode Paul's desire for his individual rights.
9:20–21. To illustrate just how far he was willing to follow this policy, Paul described two extremes of his multicultural ministry. First, he ministered to those under the law and to those not having the law —Jews and Gentiles. In the ancient world, the differences between these two groups could be enormous. Clothing, holidays, eating habits, religious beliefs, family practices, etc. were often very different between Jews and Gentiles. This diversity required great flexibility from Paul because he wanted to win those under the law and to win those not having the law.
Paul's description of these groups was not precisely symmetrical. He did not speak of those who had the law versus those who did not have it. Rather, he spoke of those who were under the law and those not having the law.
Under the law, on the one hand, was Paul's technical terminology for people under the curse of the law because they sought justification before God through obedience to the law of Moses (Rom. 6:14–15; Gal. 5:18). Paul understood the ways of Jews who sought to find favor with God through obedience to the law. They did not merely have the law, but they actually became its victims because reliance on obedience to the law always leads to frustration and failure.
Even so, many Jews in Paul's day were so committed to this lifestyle that they filled their lives with all kinds of biblical and extrabiblical observances of law. Although Paul knew these practices had nearly condemned him to God's judgment early in his life (Rom. 7:8–11), he cared so much about the Jewish community that he observed their customs and laws when he was with them so the gospel might take root in them.
On the other hand, not having the law meant that the Gentiles were “excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). They did not have the extensive rules of Scripture, but followed pagan rituals and lifestyles free of Jewish restrictions. Although Paul did not approve of all pagan lifestyles, he observed their customs and laws when he was among them so the gospel might spread among the Gentiles.
Paul was very flexible as he went from one community to another, but he knew where to draw the line. When he was with religious Jews, he always remembered that he did not seek justification through the law and was not subject to its curse (though I myself am not under the law).
Likewise, when with Gentiles who did not observe the laws of Scripture, Paul conformed his outward behavior to theirs in many ways, but he did not stray into paganism. Rather, he always remembered that he was bound to keep the law in Christ (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law).
Christ's law is not opposed to the law of Moses. Jesus himself said, “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matt. 5:17). Christ's law is the moral teachings of all the Scriptures as they were taught by Christ and his apostles. Paul often affirmed that God's law was designed as a guide for Christians (Rom. 2:26–29; 8:7; 1 Tim. 1:8). Yet, here he made it clear that God's law for Christians is interpreted in the light of Christ's coming, and thus has become Christ's law. While he sought to help others by becoming like them, Paul refused to fall into sin for the sake of others.
9:22. Paul added another class of people to whom he condescended besides Jews and Gentiles, one that drew attention to his concern for the Corinthian church—the weak. The strong and knowledgeable people in the Corinthian church refused to make allowances for the weak among them. The strong insisted on eating meat sacrificed to idols because they correctly understood their freedom to do so, but thereby they sinned against weaker brothers and sisters.
In contrast to them, Paul became weak by willingly conforming his behavior to that of the weak. By limiting his freedom in this way, Paul made certain that he did not cause weaker brothers and sisters to fall into sin.
In summary, Paul claimed that he had become all things to all men. Foregoing his rights to pursue his own preferences, he submitted to everyone so that by all possible means he might bring some to salvation. Paul's chief concern was to build the kingdom of Christ through the conversion of the lost. He refused to allow his own freedoms to prevent others from following the ways of Christ. In this regard he exemplified the principle with which he had begun this section: knowledge alone “puffs up” and makes a person not care about the well-being of others, but “love builds up” (8:1). Love for others leads a person to perform those actions that bring as many people as possible into the kingdom of Christ.
9:23. Paul was motivated for the sake of other people and for the sake of the gospel. He was concerned to see the good news of salvation in Christ proclaimed and believed throughout the world. He wanted the kingdom of God to come in full. He made himself the servant of all people in order to further these ends. Yet, Paul's motivation for this course of action was not entirely altruistic. He knew that God would reward him for his service. He sacrificed his own rights so that he might share in the gospel's blessings.
Paul's last words raised the stakes in the matter of meat sacrificed to idols. Those who pursue their own rights even when this results in the destruction of the weak reveal the true condition of their hearts. As the apostle John put it, “Anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20). The strong and knowledgeable at Corinth had correctly understood their rights, but they had forgotten the importance of love for others. Disregarding the weak in the Corinthian church would eventually bring the judgment of God.
9:24–25. Paul next turned to an analogy that illustrated the seriousness of this matter. He appealed to the athletic event of a race. Because of the Corinthians’ sponsorship and familiarity with the Isthmian Games, the analogy of a race spoke to an experience that Paul had shared with the Corinthian believers. Paul drew several comparisons between the Christian life and a race.
First, not everyone wins, just as not everyone who begins the Christian life endures to the end. Therefore, everyone who claims to be a Christian must always run… to get the prize. Christians must be “eager to do what is good” (Titus 2:14). They will express their faith through good works (Eph. 2:10; Jas. 2:17).
Second, every athlete goes into strict training. Christians must devote themselves to self-denial, such as forfeiting their rights for the sake of weaker brothers and sisters, and to spiritual development and self-discipline.
Third, unlike athletes who work hard to get a crown that will not last, a ceremonial wreath, Christians will receive a crown that will last forever (cf. 2 Tim. 4:8; 1 Pet. 5:4). By this latter crown Paul referred to eternal rewards such as everlasting life, not to temporal blessings. Christians endure for eternal glory (Rom. 2:7; 2 Tim. 2:10).
9:26–27. Paul drew some moral implications for his life from the foregoing analogy. First, he did not live his Christian life like a man running aimlessly. He had a definite goal—winning the prize—and he ran to achieve it.
Second, shifting the analogy slightly, Paul commented that he did not fight like a man beating the air. Later, in a letter to Timothy, Paul again metaphorically wrote of running and boxing for the purpose of gaining a crown (2 Tim. 4:7–8). Here, he pointed out his care not to miss with his “spiritual punches.”
Third, he declared his determination to beat his body (literally, to give himself a “black eye”). Paul did not mean that he actually afflicted or beat his body. He was speaking metaphorically. When boxers fight vigorously, they usually end up with bruises. Paul probably meant that he followed Christ so vigorously that it sometimes caused him physical harm, such as being lashed, beaten with rods, stoned, and shipwrecked (2 Cor. 11:24–25).
Fourth, he made his body his slave. This is a metaphor describing the rigor of his spiritual life. He conditioned himself spiritually, denying himself as athletes deny themselves for the sake of winning the contest (cf. Titus 2:12).
Paul concluded this athletic analogy by restating his goal. He worked hard to make sure that after he had preached to others, he would not be disqualified for the prize. Again, Paul did not speak of losing salvation. Yet, he was aware that even he could fall away from Christ and prove he had never truly been regenerated. Paul knew that the prize is received only by those who endure to the end.
In this analogy the apostle spoke generally about his entire spiritual life. He lived like an athlete in every area of his life. In the context of this chapter, however, the more immediate reference is the way Paul gave up his rights for the sake of others. Self-denial in service to others is a difficult practice. Yet, Paul knew that it was necessary if he wanted to attain the prize of eternal life. By implication, the same is true of every believer, just as it was true of the knowledgeable ones in the Corinthian church. Paul used himself as an example for them to follow. Since he, an apostle, had been willing to make such sacrifices, the Corinthians should be willing as well.
MAIN IDEA REVIEW: In order to encourage the Corinthians to forfeit their rights for the sake of other Christians, Paul described his entire ministry as one of sacrifice and accommodation to others.
This passage challenged the strong and knowledgeable Corinthian believers to go even further. Rather than lord their knowledge over others, they were to realize their responsibility to serve others. It was their responsibility to give up their rights and freedoms for the sake of others.
PRINCIPLES
APPLICATIONS
You have seen the bumper sticker: “The one who dies with the most toys wins!” What a sad description of life. Yet, in the day-to-day affairs of our lives, we often live by the principle: get everything you can get out of life. There is some value in this principle. It motivates us to work hard and to plan for success. Yet, as Christians we are called upon to think in another way as well: give all you can give to life. In some ways, “The one who dies with the least toys wins!”—so long as he has given them in service to others.
This passage brings this perspective to bear on our relationships with other people, especially fellow believers. We should not seek our own rights and privileges but the good of others.
Christian ministers have used this passage to show that they should be paid for their labors, and this is one legitimate application. The thrust of Paul's argument surrounding payment for ministers, however, is not that they should be paid, but that ministers should forfeit their pay if accepting their wages hinders the gospel.
Ministers may be prone to ignore legitimate reasons that they should refuse pay. Legitimate reasons might include ministry in areas where people have been hardened to the gospel because of the monetary abuses of other Christian ministers or television evangelists. Congregations, in turn, particularly those with small budgets, might be tempted to use Paul's example to suggest that their own ministers be self-supporting—not because paying their ministers hinders the gospel, but because their members do not contribute enough to the church.
Ministers also have a right to be married. As with Paul, there may be situations in which marrying would hinder a minister's ability to preach the gospel, and these circumstances would contribute to an argument against marrying. Ultimately, though, marriage must be a personal judgment call.
Paul mentioned these rights in order to prove his apostleship. He also declared that he forfeited these rights in order to show the Corinthians how to interact with one another. We need to learn from Paul to value lost souls more than we value our rights, and to give up our rights for the sake of gaining an audience for the gospel. This means not only giving up our rights to be married or to receive pay for our ministries, but also being willing to adapt to unfamiliar—perhaps even unpleasant—cultural norms.
Exactly how can we be all things to all people? First, we need to develop a love for others that motivates us to seek their good above our rights. We need to repent of our self-centeredness and cold hearts and begin to feel a compassion for the lost that makes us eager to do whatever it takes to bring them the gospel.
Second, we should be motivated by the fact that God has promised us eternal rewards for doing what he has commanded, such as proclaiming the gospel. Our eternal rewards will far outweigh the rights we forfeit.
Third, we need to realize that a desire to advance the gospel is a fundamental quality of Christians. If we lack this desire, we should examine ourselves to make certain we are in the faith.
Fourth, we need to recognize that true belief leads to good works and that failing to produce good works may demonstrate that we are not saved.
Lord Jesus, we are taught from the beginning of life to protect our freedom and rights. Grant us wisdom, Lord, to know when to set those privileges aside for others. Grant us grace to live up to the call to live for others. Amen.
A. Apostle (9:1–2,5)
The modern tendency is to equate the term apostle with one of “the Twelve,” with the subsequent addition of Paul. This position understands “apostle” as an office, and accords well with most of the New Testament uses—particularly with those that describe the qualifications of an apostle (1 Cor. 9:1–2; 2 Cor. 12:12; Gal. 1:1). The qualifications appear to include these: seeing the Lord Jesus; working signs, wonders, and miracles; and being commissioned by God himself. Acts 1:20–26 also suggests the existence of the office of apostle, and the qualification of having been with the original apostles from the beginning. The problem with this last qualification is that it excludes Paul.
Other passages, however, call people beyond the Twelve and Paul “apostle,” namely: Andronicus, Junias (Rom. 16:7); Barnabas (1 Cor. 9:5–6); unnamed brethren (2 Cor. 8:23); James (Gal. 1:19); Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:25); and Silas and Timothy (1 Thess. 2:6–7). All these could not have fulfilled the apostolic requirements above because Timothy at least was converted by Paul.
It seems likely that the word apostle was used in a variety of ways. Sometimes it referred to a miracle-working, authoritative, Christ-commissioned office, while at other times it referred to those commissioned and sent by the church for the work of the ministry or as messengers. Such a distinction is possibly reflected in the qualification of Paul and Peter as apostles of Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:1; 2 Tim. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1), while certain unnamed brethren are apostles, or messengers, of the churches (2 Cor. 8:23).
In 1 Corinthians 9:1–5, verses 1–2 seem to imply an official, authoritative apostleship. Given the context and the lack of any indication that Paul changed his use of the word within the passage, a shift in meaning in verse 5 would be misleading at best. While verse 5 would seem to label Barnabas an apostle, the surrounding verses make clear that Paul's point was to defend his own apostleship, not Barnabas's. Thus, the phrase “other apostles” means “other than Paul” rather than “other than Paul and Barnabas.”
B. What Then Is My Reward? (9:18)
This verse is best translated in its entirety as a single question: “What then is my reward so that, when I preach the gospel, I offer it free of charge so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel?” Though this seems awkward in English, it makes better grammatical sense of the word hina (translated “that;” the NIV inserts “just this” to help the flow of the English). Hina is a conjunction that introduces subordinate clauses, so it is more proper to see the NIV's answer (Just this… in preaching it) as a subordinate clause, making it part of the question itself.
C. Race, Prize, Crown, Beat (9:24–27)
The Corinthians loved athletics. They sponsored the biannual Isthmian Games, which were second in importance only to the Olympic Games. They held these games only ten miles from Corinth, so most people in Corinth would have been familiar with the goals and practices of the games. They also would have had the opportunity to observe these games. Paul was in Corinth in A.D. 50–52, so he would have been present for the Isthmian Games held in the spring of A.D. 51.
The games included six events: wrestling, jumping, javelin and discus throwing, and, most importantly for Paul's analogy, racing and boxing. Competitors in the Olympic Games were required to train for at least ten months before the games in order to qualify for participation. It is possible that a similar requirement existed for the Isthmian Games, which may explain Paul's references to strict training and disqualification. Winners received crowns either of pine or of celery, both perishable materials.
A. INTRODUCTION
B. COMMENTARY
C. CONCLUSION: THE MOST TOYS