Homily XXI
Homily XXI
1 COR. IX. I. Am I not an Apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
Inasmuch as he had said, "If meat make my brother to stumble I will eat no flesh forever;" a thing which he had not yet done, but professed he would do if need require: lest any man should say, "Thou vauntest thyself at random, and art severe in discourse, and utterest words of promise, a thing easy to me or to any body; but if these sayings come from thy heart, shew by deeds something which thou hast slighted in order to avoid making thy brother stumble:" for this cause, I say, in what follows he is compelled to enter on the proof of this also, and to point out how he was used to forego even things permitted that he might not give offence, although without any law to enforce his doing so.
And we are not yet come to the admirable part of the matter: though it be admirable that he abstain even from things lawful to avoid offence: but it is his habit of doing so at the cost of so much trouble and danger "For why," saith he, "speak of the idol sacrifices? Since although Christ had enjoined that those who preach the Gospel should live at the charge of their disciples, I did not so, but chose, if need were, to end my life with famine and die the most grievous of deaths, so I might avoid receiving of those whom I instruct."
Not because they would otherwise be made to stumble, but because his not receiving wouldedify them: a much greater thing for him to do. And to witness this he summons themselves, among whom he was used to live in toil and in hunger, nourished by others, and put to straits, in order not to offend them. And yet there was no ground for their taking offence, for it would but have been a law which he was fulfilling. But for all this, by a sort of supererogations he used to spare them.
Now if he did more than was enacted lest they should take offence, and abstained from permitted things to edify others; what must they deserve who abstain not from idol sacrifices? and that, when many perish thereby? a thing which even apart from all scandal one ought to shrink from, as being "the table of demons."
The sum therefore of this whole topic is this which he works out in many verses. But we must resume it and make a fresh entrance on what he hath alleged. For neither hath he set it down thus expressly as I have worded it; nor doth he leap at once upon it; but begins from another topic, thus speaking;
[2.] "Am I not an Apostle?" For besides all that hath been said, this also makes no small difference that Paul himself is the person thus conducting himself. As thus: To prevent their alleging, "You may taste of the sacrifices, sealing at the same time:" for a while he withstands not that statement, but argues, "Though it were lawful, your brethren's harm should keep you from doing so;" and afterwards he proves that it is not even lawful. In this particular place, however, he establishes the former point from circumstances relating to himself. And intending presently to say that he had received nothing from them, he sets it not down at once, but his own dignity is what he first affirms: "Am I not an Apostle? am I not free?"
Thus, to hinder their saying, "True; thou didst not receive, but the reason thou didst not was its not being lawful;" he sets down therefore first the causes why he might reasonably have received, had he been willing to do so.
Further: that there might not seem to be any thing invidious in regard of Peter and such as Peter, in his saying these things, (for they did not use to decline receiving;) he first shows that they had authority to receive, and then that no one might say, "Peter had authority to receive but thou hadst not," he possesses thehearer beforehand with these encomiums of himself. And perceiving that he must praise himself, (for that was the way to correct the Corinthians,) yet disliking to say any great thing of himself, see how he hath tempered both feelings as the occasion required: limiting his own panegyric, not by what he knew of himself, but by what the subject of necessity required. For he might have said, "I most of all had a right to receive, even more than they, because 'I labored more abundantly than they.'"But this he omits, being a point wherein he surpassed them; and those points wherein they were great and which were just grounds for their receiving, those only he sets down: as follows:
"Am I not an Apostle? am I not free?" i.e. "have I not authority over myself? am I under any, to overrule me and forbid my receiving?"
"But they have an advantage over you, in having been with Christ."
"Nay, neither is this denied me." With a view to which he saith,
"Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?" For "last of all," (c. xv. 8.) saith he, "as unto one born out of due time, He appeared unto me also." Now this likewise was no small dignity: since "many Prophets," (S. Matthew chapter 13, verse 17) saith He, "and righteous men have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them:" and, "Days will come when ye shall desire to see one of these days." (S. Luke xvii. 22.)
"What then, though thou be `an Apostle,' and `free,' and hast `seen Christ,' if thou hast not exhibited any work of an Apostle; how then can it be right for thee to receive?" Wherefore after this he adds,
"Are not ye my work in the Lord?" For this is the great thing; and those others avail nothing, apart from this. Even Judas himself was "an Apostle," and "free," and "saw Christ;" but because he had not "the work of an Apostle," all those things profited him not. You see then why he adds this also, and calls themselves to be witnesses of it.
Moreover, because it was a great thing which he had uttered, see how he chastens it, adding, "In the Lord:" i.e., "the work is God's, notmine."
Ver. 2. "If to others I am not an Apostle, yet at least I am to you."
Do you see how far he is from enlarging here without necessity? And yet he had the whole world to speak of, and barbarous nations, and sea and land. However, he mentions none of these things, but carries his point by concession, and even granting more than he need. As if he had said, "Why need I dwell on things over and above, since these even alone are enough for my present purpose? I speak not, you will observe, of my achievements in other quarters, but of those which have you for witnesses. Upon which it follows that if from no other quarter, yet from you I have a right to receive. Nevertheless, from whom I had most right to receive, even you whose teacher I was, from those I received not."
"If to others I am not an Apostle, yet at least I am to you." Again, he states his point by concession. For the whole world had him for its Apostle. "However," saith he, "I say not that, I am not contending nor disputing, but what concerns you I lay down. `For the seal of mine Apostleship are ye:'"i.e., its proof. "Should any one, moreover, desire to learn whence I am an Apostle, you are the persons whom I bring forward: for all the signs of an Apostle have I exhibited among you, and not one have I failed in." As also he speaks in the Second Epistle, saying, (2 Corinthians chapter 12, verse 12) "Though I am nothing, truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works. For what is there wherein ye were made inferior to the rest of the Churches?" Wherefore he saith, "The seal of mine Apostleship are ye." "For I both exhibited miracles, and taught by word, and underwent dangers, and shewed forth a blameless life." And these topics you may see fully set forth by these two Epistles, how he lays before them the demonstration of each with all exactness.
[3.] Ver. 3. "My defence to them that examine me is this." What is, "My defence to them that examine me is this?" "To those whe seek to know whereby I am proved to be an Apostle, or who accuse me as receiving money, or inquire the cause of my not receiving, or would fain shew that I am not an Apostle: to all such, my instruction given to you and these things which I am about to say, may stand for afull explanation and defence." What then arethese?
Ver. 4, 5. "Have we no right to eat and to drink? Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer?" Why, how are these sayings a defence? "Because, when it appears that I abstain even from things which are allowed, it cannot be just to look suspiciously on me as a deceiver or one acting for gain."
Wherefore, from what was before alleged and from my having instructed you and from this which I have now said, I have matter sufficient to make my defence to you: and all who examine me I meet upon this ground, alleging bothwhat has gone before and this which follows: "Have we no right to eat and to drink? have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer? "Yet for all this, having it I abstain?"
What then? did he not use to eat or to drink? It were most true to say that in many places hereally did not eat nor drink: for (c. iv. II.) "in hunger," saith he, "and in thirst, and in nakedness" we were abiding." Here, however, this is not his meaning; but what? "We eat not nor drink, receiving of those whom we instruct, though we have a right so to receive."
"Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Observe his skilfulness. The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of them: as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort or the more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort.
For the brethren too of the Lord, being freed from their first unbelief (vid. S. John chapter 7, verse 5), had come to be among those who were approved, although they attained not to the Apostles. And accordingly the middle place is that which he hath assigned to them, setting down those who were in the extremes before and after.
Ver. 6. "Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working?"
(See his humility of mind and his soul pure from envy, how he takes care not to conceal him whom he knew to be a partaker with himself in this perfection.) For if the other things be common, how is not this common? Both they and we are apostles and are free, and have seen Christ, and have exhibited the works of Apostles. Therefore we likewise have a right both to live without working and to be supported by our disciples.
[4.] Ver. 7. "What soldier ever serveth at his own charges?" For since, which was the strongest point, he had proved from the Apostles that it is lawful to do so, he next comes to examples and to the common practice; as he uses to do: "What soldier serveth at his own charges?" saith he. But do thou consider, I pray, how very suitable are the examples to his proposed subject, and how he mentions first that which is accompanied with danger; viz. soldiership and arms and wars. For such a kind of thing was the Apostolate, nay rather much more hazardous than these. For not with men alone was their warfare, but with demons also, and against the prince of those beings was their battle array. What he saith therefore is this: "Not even do heathen governors, cruel and unjust as they are, require their soldiers to endure service and peril and live on their own means. How then could Christ ever have required this?"
Nor is he satisfied with one example. For to him who is rather simple and dull, this also is wont to come as a great refreshment, viz. their seeing the common custom also going along with the laws of God. Wherefore he proceeds to another topic also and says, "Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?" For as by the former he indicated his dangers, so. by this his labor and abundant travail and care.
He adds likewise a third example, saying, "Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk thereof?" He is exhibiting the great concern which it becomes a teacher to show for those who are under his rule. For, in fact, the Apostles were both soldiers and husbandmen and shepherds, not of the earth nor of irrational animals, nor in such wars as are perceptible by sense; but of reasonable souls and in battle array with the demons.
It also must be remarked how every where he preserves moderation, seeking the useful only, not the extraordinary. For he said not, "What soldier serveth and is not enriched?" but, "What soldier ever serveth at his own charges?" Neither did he say, "Who planteth a vineyard, and gathereth not gold, or spareth to collect the whole fruit?" but, "Who eateth not of the fruit thereof?" Neither did he say, "Who feedeth a flock, and maketh not merchandize of the lambs?" But what? "And eateth not of the milk thereof?" Not of the lambs, but of the milk; signifying, that a little relief should be enough for the teacher, even his necessary food alone. (This refers to those who would devour all and gather the whole of the fruit.) "So likewise the Lord ordained," saying, "The laborer is worthy of his food." (St. Matthew chapter 10, verse 10)
And not this only doth he establish by his illustrations, but he shows also what kind of man a priest ought to be. For he ought to possess both the courage of a soldier and the diligence of a husbandman and the carefulness of a shepherd, and after all these, to seek nothing more than necessaries.
[5.] Having shewn, as you see, both from the Apostles, that it is not forbidden the teacher to receive, and from illustrations found in common life, he proceeds also to a third head, thus saying,
Ver. 8. "Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same?"
For since he had hitherto alleged nothing out of the Scriptures, but put forward the common custom; "think not," saith he, "that I am confident in these alone, nor that I go to the opinions of men for the ground of these enactments. For I can shew that these things are also well-pleasing to God, and I read an ancient law enjoining them." Wherefore also he carries on his discourse in the form of a question, which is apt to be done in things fully acknowledged; thus saying, "Say I these things after the manner of men?" i.e. "do I strengthen myself only by human examples?" "or saith not the law also the same?"
Ver. 9. "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
And on what account hath he mentioned this, having the example of the priests? Wishing to establish it far beyond what the case required. Further, lest any should say, "And what have we to do with the saying about the oxen?" he works it out more exactly, saying, "Is it for the oxen that God careth;" Doth God then, tell me, take no care for oxen? Well, He doth take care of them, but not so as to make a law concerning such a thing as this. So that had he not been hinting at something important, training the Jews to mercy in the case of the brutes, and through these, discoursing with them of the teachers also; he would not have taken so much interest as even to make a law to forbid the muzzling of oxen.
Wherein he points out another thing likewise, that the labor of teachers both is and ought to be great.
And again another thing. What then is this? That whatever is said by the Old Testament respecting care for brutes, in its principal meaning bears on the instruction of human beings: as in fact do all the rest: the precepts, for example, concerning various garments; and those concerning vineyards and seeds and not making the ground bear divers crops, and those concerning leprosy; and, in a word, all the rest: for they being of a duller sort He was discoursing with them from these topics, advancing them by little and little.
And see how in what follows he doth not even confirm it, as being clear and self-evident. For having said, "Is it for the oxen that God careth?" he added, "or saith he it altogether for our sake?" Not adding even the "altogether" at random, but that he might not leave the hearer any thing whatever to reply.
And he dwells upon the metaphor, saying and declaring, "Yea for our sakes it was written, because he who ploweth ought to plow in hope;" i.e., the teacher ought to enjoy the returns of his labors; "and he that thresheth ought to thresh in hope of partaking." And observe his wisdom in that from the seed he transferred the matter to the threshing floor; herein also again manifesting the many toils of the teachers, that they in their own persons both plough and tread the floor. And of the ploughing, because there was nothing to reap, but labor only, he used the word, "hope;" but of treading the floor he presently allows the fruit, saying, "He that thresheth is a partaker of his hope."
Further, lest any should say, "Is this then the return for so many toils," he adds, "in hope," i.e., "which is to come." No other thing therefore doth the mouth of this animal being unmuzzled declare than this; that the teachers who labor ought also to enjoy some return.
[6.] Ver. 11. "If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?"
Lo, he adds also a fourth argument for the duty of yielding support. For since he had said, "What soldier ever serveth at his own charges?" and, "who planteth a vineyard?" and, "who feedeth a flock?" and introduced the ox that treadeth the corn; he points out likewise another most reasonable cause on account of which they might justly receive; viz. having bestowed much greater gifts, no more as having labored only. What is it then? "if we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?" Seest thou a most just allegation and fuller of reason than all the former? for "in those instances," says he, "carnal is the seed, carnal also is the fruit; but here not so, but the seed is spiritual, the return carnal." Thus, to prevent high thoughts in those who contribute to their teachers, he signified that they receive more than they give. As if he had said, "Husbandmen, whatsoever they sow, this also do they receive; but we, sowing in your souls spiritual things, do reap carnal." For such is the kind of support given by them. Further, and still more to put them to the blush.
Ver. 12. "If others partake of this right over you, do not we yet more?"
See also again another argument, and this too from examples though not of the same kind. For it is not Peter whom he mentions here nor the Apostles, but certain other spurious ones, with whom he afterwards enters into combat, and concerning whom he says, (2 Corinthians chapter 11, verse 20) "If a man devour you, if he take you captive, if he exalt himself, if he smite you on the face," and already he is sounding the prelude to the fight with them. Wherefore neither did he say, "If others take of you," but pointing out their insolence and tyranny and trafficking, he says, "if others partake of this right over you," i.e., "rule you, exercise authority, use you as servants, not taking you captive only, but with much authority." Wherefore he added "do not we yet more?" which he would not have said if the discourse were concerning the Apostles. But it is evident that he hints at certain pestilent men, and deceivers of them. "So that besides the law of Moses even ye yourselves have made a law in behalf of the duty of contribution."
And having said, "do not we yet more?" he does not prove why yet more, but leaves it to their consciences to convince them of that, wishing at the same time both to alarm and to abash them more thoroughly.
[7.] "Nevertheless, we did not use this right;" i.e., "did not receive." Do you see, when he had by so many reasons before proved that receiving is not unlawful, how he next says, "we receive not," that he might not seem to abstain as from a thing forbidden? "For not because it is unlawful," saith he, "do I not receive; for it is lawful and this we have many ways shown: from the Apostles; from the affairs of life, the soldier, the husbandman, and the shepherd; from the law of Moses; from the very nature of the case, in that we have sown unto you spiritual things; from what yourselves have done to others." But as he had laid down these things, lest he should seem to put to shame the Apostles who were in the habit of receiving; abashing them and signifying that not as from a forbidden thing doth he abstain from it: so again, lest by his large store of proof and the examples and reasonings by which he had pointed out the propriety of receiving, he should seem to be anxious to receive himself and therefore to say these things; he now corrects it. And afterwards he laid it down more clearly where he says, "And I wrote not these things, that it may be so done in my case;" but here his words are, "we did not use this right."
HOME 
TOP