Brethren, you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who would examine me. Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating any of its fruit? Who tends a flock without getting some of the milk? Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of a share in the crop. If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim upon you, do not we still more? Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.
+++
Paul’s approach to the unruly city of Corinth was to establish, guide and maintain the early Christian church. It is to be remembered that in those days the church was attempting to grow in a hostile environment of paganism and rejection by the main body of Judaism. This group of Christian people known as the ecclesiaor assembly were spiritual babies, who without a fierce shepherd to protect them would be like lambs to the slaughter for those who opposed them. And, make no mistake, the opposition was from both within and without for the early church.
These ecclesia of people had an overly high opinion of secular wisdom and as such were ready to be impressed more by rhetorical skills than by true doctrine. So Paul’s first priority was to repair the unity of the church – for after all, a house divided against itself perishes. However, as we all know, there are always opponents to those seeking to do good. So Paul was being undermined and challenged by the faction that supported Apollos who proved adept in rhetorical skills and steeped in the Alexandrian tradition, the same faction that championed the original Palestinian apostles led by Cephas.
Paul now begins his polemic against those who are attacking him – and he realises that he needs to persuade them back into the true faith. His apostleship is now under attack and he seeks to defend it. He begins by reminding them that although he may not be apostle to those who have rejected him – and there were many Judaisers who considered Paul heretical, he makes it plain that he is the apostle to the Corinthians. It is to be remembered that the word apostle means the one who is sent. And, Paul always claimed, and the book of Acts of the Apostles attests, that Paul is not only a true apostle but also an apostle to the Gentiles. Having declared that he is their shepherd, he points to the Corinthians themselves and says you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. In other words he, Paul, as Shepherd will be judged by the quality of understanding, orderliness, Orthodoxy and orthopraxis that the church of Corinth displays.
Paul begins his defence to the Corinthians by establishing his authority to be supported financially by the church. Paul is a free man and not a slave and as free man is entitled to payment. After all, Paul, in common with each and every one of us has a right to eat and drink. No one should assume that because Paul is working in the vineyard of the Lord, that he has no basic human needs. No one works for another for nothing. Further he asked the question; do we have no right to take along a believing wife as do the other married apostles? In other words, his mission as travelling apostle to the churches of Christ that he was beginning to establish would have made for an intolerable existence if he was deprived of support. Without the ability to meet one’s physical, psychological and emotional needs one would quickly fall away from such a ministry. And that is the point that he makes when he says do we have no right to refrain from working?Here’s the thing, we know that Paul was a tent maker. He refused to rely upon support from the church. He preferred to work with his own hands whilst preaching and carrying out the work of God. Therefore no one could say about him that he was in it for the money. No, he preferred to be self-reliant so he could not be accused of living off the proceeds given by the people.
As we all know, we priests, and I speak generally as a class, must be given material support. Without that support it is impossible to live in modern society. Everybody needs money to meet their needs and if their time is totally committed to the service of others then it is only right that they be supported by those others to continue their good works. As Paul puts it, who goes to war at his own expense? Are not soldiers paid and fed? Do they pay for the privilege of defending another? The answer is no – no one would go soldiering if they had to sustain themselves. Another example is he who plants a vineyard – does he not have the right to participate in the fruit, he who laboured and cared for and guarded the fruit against those who would seek to destroy it? What would be the point of owning a vineyard if you were precluded from its fruit? Another example Paul uses is that of the shepherd and he says this: which Shepherd cannot drink of the milk of the flock? Paul is saying nothing novel. He is pointing out that he, as much as any other person, has basic needs that need to be met by his own endeavours. The law affirms what Paul is saying. After all, does not our law punish wage theft by employers, for the law understands that for civil order there needs to be stability and only those who are content allow for a stable society.
Here’s the thing: a stable church is a church that is not turned against itself. A stable church is mature enough to understand that its Shepherd, who lives in the world, who is flesh and blood, must maintain body and soul together and must therefore be materially supported. No one can argue against that proposition. Neither then or now can anyone oppose someone receiving material support, especially those who are in fact sowing spiritual seeds within the church itself. As Paul puts it: the plougher should plough in hope and the thresher of the crop should thresh in hope.
In other words, if Paul has sown things of the spirit within this church of Corinth it is not too much to expect that they who labour in this vineyard of the Lord share in some of the benefits that arise out on the flock so that their labour be not in vain and may continue to grow the church?
All that makes great sense. Pay the one who is labouring for you spiritually. It is not only morally right but required by the law and by God. However, Paul, in order to show his authenticity and his commitment and his love for these Corinthians tells them that even though he is entitled to their support he will not seek to avail himself of it. He will be self-supporting and self-sufficient. Why? Because now no one can say then that Paul is doing it for the money. He is not doing it for any reason other than love of God. Thus in this way Paul is showing to his flock that not only is he sincere but he is a true worker of God who seeks only what is best for those who are a part of his flock.
