In 1 Corinthians 9:1–27, Paul defends his apostleship against Corinthian Christians who question it. This defense seems like a digression from his main argument about food sacrificed to idols in 8:1–11:1, but really it isn’t. The Corinthians disregard Paul’s instructions regarding idol food because they doubt his authority. And they doubt his authority because they question his apostleship.

So, Paul lays out his argument in several stages. Yesterday, we looked at the root and fruit of Paul’s apostleship (9:1–2). Today, we look at Paul’s apostolic rights as he outlines them in 9:3–12:

This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more?

Paul mentions two specific rights here: (1) material support and (2) marital support. Apostles have a right to be paid for their ministry. And because their ministry takes them abroad for long periods of time, they have a right to take their wives with them on ministry trips.

(Two quick notes here: (a) Traditionally, commentators have applied the logic of this passage to support of ministers in general, not merely apostles. (b) The fact that apostles have wives in this passage puts paid to the Roman Catholic notion that all priests—including bishops—must be celibate, and to the Greek Orthodox notion that bishops must be celibate.)

Paul grounds the right to material support in the church’s customary treatment of apostles (vv. 4–6), in the common sense notion that workers deserve to be paid (v. 7), and in the commandments of the law (vv. 8–11) applied to this case. Paul quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 here, which deals with the treatment of beasts of burden. The principle of justice underlying this specific commandment has broad application, however. (I wonder whether Paul cited this law because his workload combined with the Corinthians’ criticisms of him made him feel like a muzzled ox.)

If apostles have the right to material support based on custom, common sense, and commandment, then so does Paul, for he is an apostle. Paradoxically, though Paul defends his apostolic rights, he doesn’t make use of them at all.

More on that paradox tomorrow…