1 Cor 9 - Apostolic Apologia

7/28/2019 1 Cor 9 - Apostolic Apologia

1/17

\JfSNT24(1985) 33-48]

AN APOSTOLIC APOLOGIA?

The Form and Function of1 Corinthians 9

Wendell Willis

Department ofReligious Studies

Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri 65804-0095

The question of the integrity of1 Corinthians 8-10 is usually raised

on two grounds. One, it is alleged that the treatment of idol meat is

handled from different presuppositions and/or with different results

in chs. 8 and 10. Second, it is often argued that ch. 9 represents a

change in topic from what precedes and follows it, and also that it has

a change in tone. I wish here to review the evidence for finding in 1Corinthians 9 a real defense in response to real attacks on Paul's

apostleship and/or how his apostolic workwas conducted.1

In most of the commentaries, ch. 9 is regarded as either (1)

evidence of editorial misplacement in these chapters (so Weiss,

Hering, Schmithals),2

or (2) only loosely related to its context, and

hence an 'Exkurs' (Lietzmann),3

a 'digression' (Barrett),4

or an

'interruption' (Conzelmann).5

Many writers think that ch. 9 does

continue the discussion ofidol meat, but the chapter is said also to be

a defense, orto use technical languagean (Hock,

Agrell, Dungan).6

Methodologically, I will examine the basic sections of the chapter

and ask about their character and intent, then use information gained

in this way to consider the form and function of the chapter. In

treating such a large unit I must, regrettably, omit consideration of

many interesting details.

The Units of Chapter 9
http://jfsnt/http://jfsnt/http://jfsnt/


2/17

34 Journal for the Study of the New Testament24 (1985)

As D. Dungan has pointed out, the chapter divisions serve to

create the impression that a new section begins at 9.1, and may lead

expositors to assume what is really debatablethat ch. 9 does notcontinue the interests ofch. 8.

7It is true that 9.1 involves a change of

style from direct statement to rhetorical question. However, gramma

tically these verses remain in the first person singular as in 8.13, and

in fact, 9.1-4 continue the theme ofPaul's personal experience from

8.13.

As noted already by Weiss, w . 1,2 are too brieffor a real defense,

and in content are a recollection of obvious truths, with no particular

opponent in view.

9

Moreover, these rhetorical questions assume apositive response from the Corinthians. Finally, as also noted by

Weiss, Paul's apostleship cannot be contested by the Corinthians

who are the seal of his authenticity as an apostle.10So the

could not be a defense of his apostolic officeatCorinth.

These observations lead many to regard 9.3 as opening a defense

against real opponents. This interpretation of ch. 9 as a personal

defense relies on the presence of the word apologia. Specific charges

are alleged to be made in Corinth which evoke Paul's defense offered

here. Yet, in my opinion, because w . 1-2 are too slim a defenseagainst real opposition they cannot be a defense. Thus v. 3 is said to

belong to what follows in w . 4-14.

However, in style (first person singular) v. 3 fits quite well with

w . 1 and 2 and with 8.13 (which immediately precedes them).

Moreover, the topic ofPaul's 'apostleship', announced in vv. 1 and 2,

is not elaborated in subsequent discussion (although it had been

earlier in 4.9-15). Rather, the description ofPaul's conduct is given in

terms of exousia, a topic already important in v. 8 and continued inv. 10. Thus v. 3 is tied to 9.1, 2 in style, and yet relates also to what

follows in w . 4-14. It is a transition verse.

In 9.3 the participle could legitimately be

understood as future (RSV implies this when it renders: 'my defense

to those who would examine me').12

Then we could say that Paul is

anticipatingcriticism rather than answeringa previous complaint. He

is giving a 'reasoned response' {apologia) to anyone who might

contest his exhortation in 8.9-12 that they should be very considerate

of the weak Christians, and 'Watch out about your exousiaVSuspecting

that some may object to this restriction Paul procedes to give his


3/17

WILLIS Form andFunction of1 Cor. 9.1 35

begins a section, w. 4-14. On the basis of both style (first-personplural, rhetorical questions) and of content (arguments for the right

to support) this unit runs as far as v. 14. It consists of twelve rhetoriccal questions and encompasses ten arguments for the right to financialsupport. It isfrequentlyregarded as a defense ofPaul's conductas anapostle in not accepting support from the Corinthian church.

I refrain from examining each ofPaul's arguments in support offinancial aid, including the two very interesting cases of his exegesisof Deut. 25.4 (about muzzling oxen)

13and his (non-)use of the

command of the Lord.14

However, with these two exceptions these

ten verses have received scant scholarly attentionprobably becausethey are very straightforward and incontestable. The rhetoricalarguments are numerous, not because their validity is problematic,

but because it is obvious. It is only necessary for him to state them,not to elaborate each one.

15A corollary to seeing vv. 4-14 as a

statement of the obvious is that the particular issues mentioned byPaul in these verses need not refer to specific events which have

become points of debate, as ifPaul's non-married state16

or what heate and drank

17were criticisms made in Corinth against him.

To speak positively, v. 12b sets forth the purpose of w. 4-14. Paulhas established his rights so stronglyso that he can make somethingofhis renunciation ofthem! The effect of this rhetorical plan wouldhave been very arresting for thefirsthearers who, after the listing ofthe reasons why Paul should be supported, would most likelyanticipate his 'accounts due' statement! It is not so striking to us,

because we know that the message ofthe chapteris renunciation ofthe rights.

18

In summary, the claims or illustrations in 9.4-14 can hardlybe adefense ofPaul's right to support, as if he were called into question

by some in Corinth. Their brevity suggests that they are onlyillustrations, not arguments.

19

The inclusion of Barnabas indicates that it is not just Paul'sconduct which involves renunciation of support.

20If these were

arguments in answer to actual objections, then Paul seems to haveproved too much, since he refuses to use hisrights.

21The rhetorical

question, 'Do you not know ( )', in 9.13 assumes that thereaders will agree to the claimworkers have a right to support.22

So thefunction of vv 4 14 is not to establish Paul'srightto support


4/17

36 Journal for the Study ofthe New Testament24 (1985)

Nor is he defending his right notto take support. He has made his

case too strong if he is defending himself against such a charge.

Rather, these verses establish his right to support solely so that hecan show that he really has given up somethingin order not to be

an 'obstacle' () in the way of the gospel.23

This is a majortheme in chs. 8 and 10: that Christians should not put a 'stumbling

block' (, 8.9) before other Christians, nor do anything

that would 'scandalize' (, 8.13) them. Rather, Christiansare to do every thing possible to be 'inoffensive' (, 10.32)

to all men.24

9.15-18. After expounding at some length the right of ministers tobe supported by their converts, Paul returns with great emphasis in

v. 15 to restate (from v. 12b) his own practice. This section is marked

off by its use of first person singular, the discontinuance of the

rhetorical questions, and the new stress on the 'gospel'. The message

clearly is that Paul has never accepted money from Corinth,25

and

he is unwilling to change that practice.26

The very provocative topics in the sectionPaul's boast, his

reward, the 'necessity' () which compels himare tempting

to take up. We are fortunate to have good treatments of them already.

Ksemann's typically insightful exposition on the union of these

themes, and their subsequent fate in the hands ofidealism, can serve

the present purposes. I agree that here can be related to Stoic

ideas, as can also the word-play on 'willingly'/'unwillingly' (/, 9.17). I accept his treatment of the content of the discussion,

although I am not sure that he regards the passage as integral to the

broader context as I think it ought to be.27

A valuable complement to Ksemann's discussion is ChristianMaurer's observation about the importance of 'gospel' in this

chapter.28 Maurer notes that Paul's concern in w . 15-18 in describ

ing his renunciation of support remains the gospelits path through

the world. His , and his free-will action, both concern the

overarching needs of the gospel. This concern for the gospel was

already set forth in v. 12 in his wish not to put a roadblock in the path

of the gospel, and it is restated in v. 23. Its practice is his boast, and

the boast is his love.

29

He is permitted to be a slave of the gospel andto assist in its progress by causing no offense in accepting payment.

9 19 23 H i t f th lidl hi b i f i i t (i


5/17

WILLIS Form andFunction of 1 Cor. 9.1 37

way the principle which underlies this practice. As Weiss showed,

this is a well-crafted piece of rhetorical style,30

an observation

further supported by Bornkamm in his article on the missionarystance of Paul.

31However, I thinkthat the present formulation does

not have in view Paul's mission practice, but rather relationships

among Christians. Hence the 'weals' in v. 22 are Christians, as in ch.

8.32

The rhetorical character of this section can be illustrated easily by

reference to some stock-in-trade parallels in Stoicism.33

Especially

striking in this regard is the way that Paul takes a key dogma for

Stoicismthe free man is one who does as he wishes without regardfor the opinions of othersand reverses it in a paradoxical manner.

Whereas a Stoic slave, such as Epictetus, might have said, 'The wise

man, even if he is a slave, is really a completely free man if he is

undetermined by others and their views',34

Paul says that the

Christian with exousia is a free man if he is a slave to the needs ofall

persons in everyway (note the repetition of). The passage, as

indeed all ofchs. 8 and 10, is much concerned about the 'many', that

is, most believers.

The rhetorical style ofthese verses also suggests that we need not

be concerned to identify the groups listed with precision.35

No

particular occasion may be in Paul's mind. In fact, one is struck by

the fact that Paul lists no examples of his 'accommodation' here, and

no probable occasion can be easily documented in his other letters.36

Accordingly, it is not necessary to seek some specific way in which

Paul 'without law' (), was nevertheless 'in-lawed of Christ'

( , 9.21).37

These two phrases are simply a qualifi-

cation of a possible misunderstanding of his rhetorical statements.His word could be misunderstood as meaning 'outlaw' (a

connotation found among Jews in referring to Gentiles) rather than

simply 'non-Jew', as Paul intended it.38

For similar reasons I do not think that these verses are really

defensive in tone, as ifsome in Corinth had asserted that Paul was

without scruples in his ideas or behavior.39

These 'confessions' are

too broadly stated and too poorly qualified if Paul was reacting

against known accusations of deception. It may be, however, thattheydid later come back to haunt him as his relationship to Corinth

i d d i40

B i i lik l h h h d


6/17


occasions Paul accommodated himself to varying groups. I acknow

ledge that he clearly says that this washis policy. This may mean an

'accommodation of epistemology' in mission work(as is implied inActs 17)

41and certainly included an accommodation in life style.

42

However, the concise formulation and the chiasmus form in w. 19-

23 lead us to think that here Paul is not alluding to specific

difficulties. Insofar as there is a particular accommodation in his

mind it may be for the sake of'the weak' (), who are the

real concern of the larger unit ofchs. 8-10. This self-description in

w . 19-23 is parallel to 10.32 which also speaks in broad categories of

Jews and Gentilesbut is really concerned about 'the church ofGod'.43

The point of9.19-23 is to set forth Paul's principles which ground

his rejection of support. Stated in a very general way, Paul says that

the free man in Christ (9.19), even if he be an apostle (9.1) who is

claimed by the fate of the gospel (vv. 14-18),44

will not use his 'rights'

() in ways which may injure the weaker brother. This general

description of his conduct has a specific interest in view, namely the

question of eating sacrificial meat. Paul gives his self-description, not

in defense to objections raised in Corinth, but as a personal example

which he wishes the Corinthians to imitate.45

The generalizing statement in v. 23 is designed to make explicit the

broad horizons ('all things', ) of obligation which Paul receives

in the gospel. At the same time it clearly relates to the issue of eating

sacrificial meat in Corinth.46

9.24-27. The concluding section ofch. 9 can be treated with even

greater brevity. Most noticeable in this section is a shift in method of

argument back to analogy, such as was found in w . 4-14; there is alsoa change in tone, a concern now being voiced that great effort is

required, even ofapostles, in living as a Christian.47

Weiss48

and Schmithals49

have stressed the similarity in theme of

9.24-27 to 10.1-13 and have sought to separate the last paragraph of

ch. 9 from w . 1-22. However, Conzelmann is correct, in my opinion,

in holding that the section is united with what precedes it both by the

theme of the imitation of Paul, and by the stylistic similarity of v. 27

to v. 23 (I would also note the interweaving of the section with

).50

One cannot avoid the impression that most writers are embarrassed


7/17

WILLIS Form and Function of 1 Cor. 9.1 39

some danger ofbeing lost. This passage, however, is very similar in

both topic and argument to 1 Thess. 2.2-6, where Paul also makes

clear that his stewardship of the gospel is something in which helabors continuously and still anticipates ultimate review by God.

51

In these verses Paul sets forth a negative example, or perhaps more

precisely, a transition to the negative examples of 10.1-5 and the

application ofthose examples to the Corinthian situation in 10.6-13.

Paul has just shown himself as one who does everything for the

benefit ofeveryone, as one who teaches the Corinthians to consider

the needs ofall in their conduct. He illustrates his warning against

overconfidence by saying that even he must be diligent in hisChristian walk. This warning is then documented in scripture by an

appeal to OT examples where overconfidence led to the fall ofmany.

The Function of 1 Corinthians 9 in its Context

To summarize, the following arguments can be brought forward to

relate ch. 9 to its present context. First, there is its rhetorical style.

This study has noted several rhetorical features in the components ofch. 9. Beyond this, one can say that the chapter as a whole shows

rhetorical skill in its organization and its placement.52

As noted by

Maurer53

and Johannes Munck,54

a parallel can be seen in 1 Cor.

12-14, with the center chapter (13) also showing marked rhetorical

characteristics in the service ofPaul's argument about glossalalia.55

That is to say, Paul's reference to his own behavior in the midst ofa

discussion of a concrete problem in Corinth is not an aside, or

interruption, but a skillful stylistic device.

Second, simple workwith a concordance will show several wordlinksbetween 1 Cor. 9 and chs. 8 and 10 which suggest coherence, for

example: (9.1, 19; 10.29) and (8.9; 9.4-6, 12-18;

10.23),56

and especially, (8.1, 6, 7; 9.12,19, 22, 23-25; 10.1,2,

3,17,23,25,27,31,33). Similarly related are: (8.7-12; 9.22);

(9.3; 10.25, 27); (9.10-12; 10.17, 21, 30); and the

combination ofJew and Greek(= ) in 9.20 and 10.32. Word

count alone is, ofcourse, insufficient. But not only are there verbal

connections, there are thematic connections as well. There is thecommon idea ofnot placing obstacles before others (8.9 = 9.12), or,

i i l d i ll f h k f 33)


8/17

40 Journal for the Studyofthe New Testament24 (1985)

Perhaps the strongest connecting linkbetween 1 Cor. 8 and 10 andch. 9 is the reference to Paul'spersonalpractice. Paul mentions his

conduct explicitly as a model for believers in 11.1 and implicitly in8.13 with regard to eating. But the appeal to imitate Paul is implicitalso in the setting forth of his conduct and the principles whichunderlie it in 9.19-23 and also 9.24-27. One cannot limit appeals tohis example to those cases where the word occurs.

57

1 Cor. 8-10 may be analysed thus: In 1 Cor. 8 Paul takes up thequestion of Christian eating at sacrificial meals as it was raised by theCorinthian Christians and answers their arguments. He restricts

their claim about Christian 'permission' or 'rights' () in 8.9-12 with a hortatory imperative: 'Watch out about the results ofthese"rights" of yours, lest you put a stumbling block before weakChristians!' Then in 8.13-9.23 Paul sets himself forth as a positiveexample in the discussion of and and warns abouttaking one's authority as unrestricted. In 9.24-27 he gives a negativeexample warning against presumption of security. Then in 10.1-13 asecond negative example is taken from the OT and applied to theCorinthians' situation. Finally, in 10.14-30 the matter of eatingsacrificial meat is once again taken up, in an explicit treatment ofaspecific situation.

58

In summary, ch. 9 has as its purpose the advancement of theargument about how Christians are to express theirfreedomfor the

benefit ofothers. Concretely, in chs. 8 and 10 this is a problem ofeating sacrificial meat. The discussion ofch. 9 does not function as adefense, and Paul is not really defendinghis conduct, but is arguingfrom it. The chapter is wronglyunderstood when it is categorized as

'The rights of an apostle' (the UBS text heading), for it is not aboutrights, but about renunciation ofrightsin free service. That is whyPaul establishes at length an which he will not use, andconcludes by asserting that his motive in rejecting financial supportis 'becoming allthings', which in the question of eating sacrificialmeat means consideration ofothers. In a word, although the word isnot used, it is a matter oflove.

NOTES

1 My initial study of 1 Corinthians 9 was done during research for my


9/17


Dissertation Series. However, space and time limitations precluded an

explicit investigation into ch. 9 at that time.

2. J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief(KEK, 5; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1910), pp. 231-49. More conveniently, and in relationship to his

views on the whole Corinthian correspondence, it can be found in his

Earliest Christianity (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959), I, pp. 323-32.

Weiss says that the renunciation of support in ch. 9 can scarcely be

compared with the question of the loss of salvation in ch. 8. Moreover, he

thinks that the 'freedom' discussed in the two chapters differs. Here I only

note that 9.24-27 (which, however, Weiss does not think goes with ch. 8)

does discuss the possibility of salvation being lost. See also J. Hering, The

First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (London: Epworth, 1962), p. 75.W. Schmithals, Gnosticism in Corinth (Nashville: Abingdon, 1971), pp. 92f.,

334.

3. H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I, H (rev. W.G. Kmmel; HNT, 9;

Tbingen: J.C.. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1949), p. 43. He strictlyregards only

w. 1-18 as an excursus, for he believes that in 9.19-27 Paul returns to the

theme of8.9-13, renunciation for the benefit of the weaker brother. The idea

of in both passages makes a connection to ch. 8 and also led Paul

into a defensive aside about his apostleship (9.1-18), occasioned by the

influence of the Cephas-party(v. 39).4. C.K. Barrett, The FirstEpistle to the Corinthians(HNTC; New York:

Harper & Row, 1968). He thinks (p. 200) that 'Paul would hardlyhave spentso long on the question of apostolic rights if his own apostolic rights had not

been questioned in Corinth'. To explain the seeming lack of continuity

between the argument about idol meat and the defense, Barrett suggests that

the letter was composed over an extended period of time.

5. H. Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress,

1975), p. 151.

6. G. Agrell, Work, ToilandSustenance: An Examination of the ViewofWork in the New Testament (Lund: Verbum-Haken Ohlssons, 1976),

pp. 106ff. D. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 4ff., calls it 'an explanatorydigression'. R.

Hock, The Social Context of Paul's Ministry (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980),

pp. 59-62, although generally inclined to locate Paul's discussion about

support in a broad debate among popular philosophers in Hellenism, thinksthat in Corinth there was a specific occasion as well which evoked Paul'swords in 1 Cor. 9. It ought to be noted that each of these works isfundamentally interested in other concerns than the function ofch. 9 in its

context, so it would be unfair to fault them for not attending to this issue.

7. Dungan, pp. 4f., who calls such a chapter division in modern editions


10/17

42 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985)

8. To recall an obvious example where paragraph division in English

translations is misleading it is only necessary to look two chapters later in

this letter, for 11.1 clearly belongs with what precedes it, rather than whatfollows it.

9. Weiss, Korintherbrief p. 233.

10. Weiss, Korintherbrief p. 232, contra Agrell, pp. 106f. Nickle, p. 70,rightly notes: 'certainly the opponents attacking his apostleship were

exterior to Corinth. The and are mutually exclusive'.

11. Conzelmann, p. 190;Weiss, Korintherbrief p. 233; Lietzmann, pp. 39f.;

Hering, p. 76; Barrett, p. 202. Agrell, p. 200 n. 8, proposes that v. 3 goes both

with what follows and what precedes: the defense is announced in summary

form in vv. 1,2 and explained in w. 4-11. Similarly, Schmithals, p. 383, whofinds chiasm in 9.1-3.

Conzelmann, always thorough, notes (p. 152n.) that v. 2 is a conditional

sentence beginning with , but says, 'the result of the supposition ispresumably implied: "if, as is in fact the case'". He also says (revealingly, in

my view), 'It will be best not to specify the , "others", too closely'

(p. 155). This admission, I think, implies acknowledgment of the very

general character of this 'defense'.

12. I owe this valuable observation to Dr A.J. Malherbe, whose generous

reading of this paper in an earlier version was most helpful. This general-oriented apologia may be implied in a comment by Robertson and Plummer'There you have my defense when people ask me for the evidence of my

apostleship' (p. 179).

13. See Strack-Billerbeck, III, pp. 382-84. Also C. Maurer, 'Grund und

Grenze apostolischer Freiheit', in Antwort: K. Barth zum siebzigsten

Geburtstag (Zrich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1956), pp. 630-41 (631f.). I reject

Maurer's argument that the appeal to the law in v. 10 indicates that Paul

feels that his argument ad hominem up to that point was too weak.

14. See especially the thorough treatment by Dungan. Also, from adifferent angle, G. Theissen, 'Legitimation and Support', in The Social

Setting of Pauline Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), pp. 42-44. He

argues that the conflict involves an earlier model of a charismatic, itinerant

apostleship, based on Jesus' teaching as now exemplified in the synoptic

tradition, which insisted on a total reliance upon God to supply their needs,

and a model which Paul follows based on self-support. The scope of the

present study forbids full examination of this thesis, but I doubt that any real

defense is being carried on in this chapter.

Because I think that the argument defends the obvious, I cannot regardthe appeal to a word of the Lord as unique. It is neither the supreme

bj ti P l f d i d f f J t It t b


11/17


15. As Robertson and Plummer note: 'Vv. 4-11 are not so much a defense

as a statement ofclaims'(p. 179). H. Gale in his study of analogy in Paul's

letters notes that all these images are unelaborated. They are all used 'simplyfor the one idea that they have in common: those who labor should receive

their living from that labor' (The Use of Analogy in the Letters of Paul

[Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964], p. 108). As Weiss notes, Korintherbrief,

pp. 233f., the ' makes clear that Paul's right to support is not

denied. He is not seeking to prove his right to receive support, but to refrain

from it.

16. Most interpreters have noted that the right to 'lead a sister as a wife'

does not simply mean to be married, but to have the expenses ofhis married

life borne by the churches (Lietzmann, p. 40).17. Contra especially J.C. Hurd, Jr, The Origin of 1 Corinthians(New

York: Seabury, 1965), pp. 127f. Hurd argues that the key issue in the chapter

is Paul's past habit ofeating idol meat which he had subsequently agreed to

forego.

18. Robertson and Plummer, p. 186. G. Dautzenberg, 'Der Verzicht auf

die apostolische Unterhaltsrecht. Eine exegetische Untersuchung zu 1 Kor

9', Biblica 50 (1979), p. 220, says that Paul's renunciation is not based on an

acute danger of possible ; rather is it prophylactic (and also an

instructive analogy for the situation in Corinth about idol meat).19. Dungan says, 'We should not be insensible to the possible presence of

rhetorical artifice here' (p. 14). Weiss, Korintherbrief^ p. 233, rightly says

that Paul is not seeking to prove his right to support, but arguing from that

right. However, I cannot assent to his interpretation that this also is a real

defense against some who cross-examine Paul.

20. It is often overlooked that by including Barnabas in his alleged defense

Paul must be defending a particular practice, not just repelling personal

attackagainst himself. It is not adequate to regard reference to Barnabas as

an 'after-thought' (so Robertson and Plummer, p. 182), since Paul explicitlycorrects himself: . Gale, p. 247, and Dautzenberg,

p. 218, say that Barnabas is Paul's tutor in his conception of mission work

without pay.

21. The parallelism of w . 12b and 15 should be noted. They make the

same point, although the in v. 15 adds emphasis myself have not

made use ofthis advantagewhatever course others follow* (Robertson and

Plummer, p. 188). Hurd, p. 204, suggests that the Corinthians had never

offered the money!

22. Agrell, p. 204, rightly notes these connections. I would also note that

is used in 9.24, and in 10.1. All are

familiar from the diatribe style. See Conzelmann, p. 77 n. 87. Theissen,


12/17

44 Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (1985)

he renounced it. Why does he go to such lengths to justify this privilege of

receiving support? Why does he pile up the arguments on a matter about

which he and the Corinthians agree?' He fails, in my opinion, to adequatelyanswer these decisive questions.

23. Dautzenberg, p. 218, rightly says that is a key term, equivalent

to the words (8.9), (8.13) and

(10.32). Similarly, Agrell, p. 110. He says that could refer to a varietyof hindrances, and perhaps others may have considered that Paul was

motivated by a concern for profit in his teaching and preching.

24. Weiss, Korintherbrief p. 239.

25. Whether in 9.15a refers to Paul's authority

or, as Weiss, p. 239, and Dungan, p. 21, take it, the arguments of w . 4-14,the result is the same for present purposes.

26. The anacoluthon of v. 15b has evoked considerable interest; it is noted

by Maurer, and Agrell, and discussed at length by R. Omanson, 'Some

Comments about Style and Meaning in 1 Cor. 9.5 and 7.10', Bible Translator

34 (1983), pp. 135-39. See also the important workon Pauline anacoluthon

by G. Bornkamm, 'Die paulinische Anakoluthe im Rmerbrief, in Das Ende

des Gesetzes (BEvTh, 16; Munich: Kaiser, 1966), pp. 76-93. It seems

incontestable that here, as in other places, Paul grows emotional over his

statements. What causes this alarm is not obvious. Perhaps it is that indescribing his personal achievement in his mission work he is aware that he

has gone beyond the needs ofhis argument.

27. E. Ksemann, Pauline Version of the "Amor Fati"', in New

Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), pp. 217-35

(218). He says of9.15-18: 'Within the frameworkof this chapter our verses

seem to be totally superfluous, because the design of the whole is quite clear

even without them. Their solemn character appears abruptly.' Although he

goes on to show how important 9.15-18 are for Paul's self-understanding, he

does not discuss the role of this passage in the overall purpose ofch. 9.28. Maurer, pp. 636f. In the whole chapter and cognates occur

nine times (once in v. 12; twice each in v. 14 and v. 16; three times in v. 18

and also once in v. 23). He notes that in 1 Cor. 1.17ff., as in Rom. 1.16, there

is set forth thematically the power of the gospel itself, to which Paul by his

actions can join in with his own voice in assent to its message of grace.Similarly, Agrell, pp. 11If.

29. Ksemann (see n. 27), p. 234. Thus I think that Agrell, p. 413, is

mistaken in saying that 'love for the weak is thus ofsome significance for

Paul, but seems to be subordinate to '.30. Weiss, Korintherbrief p. 242. He refers to it as a kabinetsstuck

('museum piece') arranged on the schema ABC CBA with two intricate


13/17


additional consideration of the question of literary form and thought

patterns, see J.A. Fisher, 'Pauline Literary Form and Thought Patterns',

CBQ 39 (1977), pp. 209-33.31. G. Bornkamm, 'The Missionary Stance of Paul in Acts and his

Letters', in Studies in Luke-Acts (ed. L. Keck and J.L. Martyn; Nashville:

Abingdon, 1966), pp. 194-207. He notes the chiasmus of w . 19, 22b and 23;

and the stylistic character of w . 20-22a. See also, Hock, p. 100 n. 114.

32. Rightly noted by P. Richardson, in 'Accommodation Ethics', Tyndale

Bulletin 29 (1978), p. 97. This renders the interesting examples from

Rabbinic mission practice cited by D. Daube, 'Missionary Maxims in Paul',

The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London: Athlone, 1956),

pp. 337-51, moot for the interpretation of the pericope. Weiss, Korintherbriefp. 245, thinks that the are the not-yet converted and finds this

confirmed by the verb . But he notes also that the reader cannot be

forbidden to thinkof the case of the weak Christians in 8.7f.

33. Weiss, Korintherbrief p. 243, and R.M. Grant, 'Hellenistic Elements

in 1 Corinthians', in A. Wikgren, Early Christian Origins (Chicago:

Quadrangle Books, 1961), pp. 60-66 (61f.).

34. For a succinct statement of the point, see Epictetus, 3.24.70. Cf.

Diogenes Laertius, 7.121f. G. Friedrich, 'Freiheit und Liebe im ersten

Korintherbrief, TZ 26 (1970), pp. 81-98, gives a good discussion of the ideaof freedom in popular philosophy.

35. Thus I thinkthat it is unnecessary to try to find a separate group of

, as is attempted, unsuccessfully I think, by R. Longenecker,

Paul, Apostle ofLiberty (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), pp. 230-44. They

are simply Jews (Lietzmann, p. 43). Weiss, Korintherbrief pp. 243f., is right

when he says that in 9.20 and do not speak ofa

series of actual cases. But I thinkhim wrong when he asserts that v. 21 is no

longer rhetorical, but alludes to specific mission practices of Paul. Bornkamm,

'Mission Practice', p. 196, suggests that here Paul recognizes differentStandorte, but not Standpunkte, where the calling ofthe gospel meets man.

His assumption that the concern of the pericope is Paul's mission methods I

dispute.

36. Quite often as an accommodation to Jewish sensitivities, reference is

made to the circumcision of Timothy (Acts 16.3), or to the Jewish men with

vows (Acts 21.20-27). However, regardless of the historical accuracy ofthese

accounts (which are clearly apologetic in Acts), Paul himself makes no

reference to them. Indeed, Gal. 2.5 implies that he was intransigent on at

least one occasion (however, here there is a textual problem). Conzelmann,p. 160, thinks that this refers to participation in Jewish cultus. Weiss,

K i th b i f p 244 thinks that these are all ded to as 'accommodations'


14/17


Korintherbrief p. 245, it was in enduring pagan moral failures as Paul

sought to win them to the gospel.

37. As argued by C H . Dodd, 'Ennomos Christou', in Studia Paulina inHonorem J. de Zwaan (Haarlem: E.F. Bohn, 1953), pp. 96-110. Neither am I

persuaded by Theissen's argument (p. 48), that by Paul

refers to God's requirement that he disregard the dominical norm of

itinerant begginghe is under divine necessity! I do thinkthat Paul has a

conscious understanding of the lifestyle ofJesus which guides him; I doubt

that it can be tabulated in specifics as a 'teaching of Christ'.

38. Weiss, Korintherbrief p. 244, so that his readers would not see in his

an . Similarly, Conzelmann, p. 161.

39. As H. Chadwick, '"All Things to All Men" (1 Cor. 9.22)', NTS 1(1954-55), pp. 261-75, appeals to the accusation in Gal. 1.10 and 5.11

suggesting that Paul was accused of being a 'trimmer'. He adds that the very

wording of 9.20-21 'could conceivably have been made in the charge-sheet

against him, whether in Galatia or Corinth' (p. 263).

40. Richardson, 'Pauline Accommodation', p. 97, notes that the repeated

can be regarded as implying a pretense, and that thereby Paul lays

himself open to the charge of inconsistency and hypocrisy. This he finds

confirmed in 2 Cor. 10. Of course, Hurd makes much of this idea. Theissen,

p. 45, points to a number of connections between Paul's argument in 1 Cor.9 and the defense of his conduct in 2 Cor. 10, and uses this to explain the

present chapter. I doubt that the concerns of the later discussion (2 Cor. 10-

12) can be assumed to be involved already in the first letter. Theissen, p. 44,

does note a distinction between the situations of1 Cor. and 2 Cor., but, in

my opinion, does not keep this sufficiently in mind in his exposition (for

example, when he explains and in 1 Cor. 9 by

reference to 2 Cor. 12.19).

41. As seen in Bornkamm, 'MissionaryStance', Chadwick, and P. Richard

son, Paul's Ethic of Freedom (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), p. 88.42. Richardson, 'Pauline Accommodation', p. 99, proposes three types of

accommodation: 'theological' (which he equates with syncretism and there

fore denies in Paul), 'epistemologica!' (as in the Mars' Hill sermon of Acts

17), and 'ethical'. He suggests, rightly I think, that the latter is found in 1

Cor. 9.19-23. P.J. Sampley, Pauline Partnership in Christ (Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1981), p. 109, makes a reasonable conjecture to explain why Paul

did accept finances from Philippi and not Corinth. In the nature of the case,

his hypothesis cannot be proven.

43. There are these parallels: both passages list three groups: Jews = , Greeks = , the church of God = .

B th f t P l' d t (i 10 33 11 1) b th


15/17

WILLIS Form and Function of1 Cor. 9.1 47

44. Robertson and Plummer, p. 190, refer to 9.1 as pre-figuring 9.19-23.45. This too has Stoic parallels, see below note 58.

46. Bornkamm, 'Missionary Stance', pp. 197f. Conzelmann, p. 161, suggeststhat because of what follows in w . 24-27 Paul here has both his owncommission and the Corinthians in view. Hefindsparallels in 2 Cor. 1.14;3.1-3; 5.10; 1 Thess. 2.15; Phil. 2.16. On the other hand Weiss, Korintherbriefp. 240, feels that v. 23 is too differentfromthe argument of w. 19-22 and isprobably a later interpolation to make a transition to w. 23-27. Hespecifically objects to the conclusion that Paul does everything for thegospel. J.H. Schtz, Paul andtheAnatomy ofApostolicAuthority (SNTSMS,26; Cambri4ge: CUP, 1975), pp. 51-53, shows that v. 23 does not express

Paul's self-interest, but his deep interest in not interfering with the Gospel'sown power. In this way, as Schtz rightly argues, these verses repeat theearlier arguments in ch. 9.

47. Many commentators have pointed out that the athletic/contest metaphors can be documented in parallel Stoic arguments. See Weiss, Korinther-brief pp. 246f. A.J. Malherbe sets forth examples of the use of thesemetaphors in his article, 'The Beasts in Ephesus', JBL 87 (1968), pp. 71-80.See also the fuller treatment of this contest imagery in V.C. Pfitzner, Paul

and the Agon Motif (NovTSupp., 16;Leiden: Brill, 1967). He says that

ties w. 24-27 to 9.1-23, but that this paragraph is only looselyconnected to 10.1-13 (p. 83). I think that 10.1-13 also advances Paul'sargument.48. Weiss, Korintherbriefthinks that possibly it could go with 9.1-18 but

not with 9.19-22.49. Schmithals, pp. 93,334.50. Conzelmann, pp. 161f. Pfitzner notes the tie to v. 16 and argues that

the point of the entire chapter is (9.25), which heelaborates in some detail (pp. 85-87).51.

Pfitzner, who says that the concern is with Paul's ownwork

and not allbelievers (p. 96). However, it seems to me that in both 1 Thess. 2 and 1 Cor.9 Paul's conduct is shown to be congruent with the character of the gospeland is expected of all believers. See Schtz, esp. pp. 249-60. Dautzenberg,p. 231, calls attention to Phil. 3.3-10 as parallel to 9.27 in combining arenunciation of one's advantage with the goal of divine approval52. W. Wuelner, 'Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation', in Early

Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In HonoremRobert M. Grant (Thologie Historique, 53; Paris: Editions Beauchesne,1979), pp. 177-88, does term this chapter a 'digression' but still insists that itis integral to the development of the argument ofchs. 8 and 10. He uses'digression' in a technical sense drawnfromGreek rhetoric (pp. 186-88). On


16/17


53. Maurer, p. 634.

54. J. Munck, Christ and Israel(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), p. 76.

55. I would note that in 9.12 is parallel to in13.7. On the parallelism to ch. 13 see also J.J. Collins, 'Chiasmus, the "ABA"

Pattern and the Text ofPaul', Studiorum Paulinorum CongressusInternation-

alis Catholicus(Rome, 1963), II, pp. 581-83.

56. See my forthcoming SBLDS study. R. Horsley, 'Consciousness and

Freedom among the Corinthians; 1 Corinthians 8-10', CBQ 40 (1978),

pp. 579f., rightly notes that the uses of and in 1 Cor. is

quite distinctive from Paul's other letters: 'Paul's autobiographical argument

concerning "freedom" in chap. 9, in which he further explains his instruc

tion in 8.13, is aimed directly at this "freedom" and "authority" of theenlightened Corinthians'. H. von Soden, 'Sakrament und Ethik bei Paulus',

in Marburger Theologische Studien I (Gotha: L. Klutz, 1931), pp. 6-7,

comments briefly on ch. 9. He concludes that it does serve as an analogy for

the Corinthian strong. This is why Paul 'puffs' in 9.4-14 the strong basis of

his support, only to renounce it.

57. See the fine summary in V.P. Furnish, Theology and Ethics in Paul

(Nashville: Abingdon, 1972), pp. 218-23. A.J. Malherbe, 'Exhortation in

First Thessalonians', NovT 25 (1983), pp. 246-49, shows how the exhort

ations ofpopular philosophy unite the philosopher's words and conduct as apattern for imitation. This observation does not minimize theological

dimensions, unless theology is too narrowly described.

58. See AJ. Malherbe, 'Gentle as a Nurse: The Cynic Background to 1

Thess. ii', NovT 12 (1970), pp. 203-17.


17/17

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific

work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,

or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association

(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American

Theological Library Association.

1 Cor 9 - Apostolic Apologia

Documents

Transcript of 1 Cor 9 - Apostolic Apologia