Skip to main content

1 Corinthians 9:1-27

You can read the text here.

Paul continues to offer his own example as one where, for the sake of others, he has laid down his rights. He is an apostle after all. No one in the community would have higher status than he did. Certainly he (and his coworkers) had rights to financial support and also the personal support of a wife while he traveled just like Peter and the other apostles. Nothing could be more natural than for him to share in some financial benefit for his labors. Paul makes this point using a number of obvious analogies from normal life and Scripture. Others took advantage of this, should not Paul and his coworkers?

Paul does not make use of his rights because it would be a hindrance to the proclamation of the gospel. It would prevent some from coming to salvation. He is willing to endure anything for the sake of the advancement of the gospel, something the strong are not willing to do. The source of this commitment is rooted in Paul's transformed heart. He wants above all to be free, free to preach as God has compelled him to preach. This is both his obligation and his reward. If he accepts payment then he is under obligation to someone (presumably the strong) which will inevitably shape his preaching. In the process he demonstrates his Christlikeness.

The advancement of the gospel is Paul's primary concern.[1] Paul's entire mode of discourse varies depending on the group he is trying to reach. He argues from different bases depending on which group he is addressing.[2] He doesn't have to share their worldview to be able to connect with them and bring them to follow Jesus. He will do whatever it takes to ensure that others come to salvation in Jesus. That's where his arguments lead contrasted to the arguments of the strong which were leading some away from Jesus.

Paul caps the discussion while also transitioning to the next section by using athletic contests as an example. Great self-control is needed in the way one trains in order to win an athletic contest. Paul too is trying to win a reward for being as faithful as possible to his commission. He will argue in any mode, he will give up financial support and the companionship of a wife. Anything to bring people into the kingdom of God. Anything less would be unfaithfulness to God in the commission he had received.

--------------------------------------
[1] Ciampa and Rosner do an excellent job of reinforcing this point throughout.

[2] This is the position of Mark Nanos, which seems to create far fewer problems than the traditional view advocated in the commentaries. I'll provide fuller discussion of this interpretation in a follow-up post.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat...

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc...

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5...