\JfSNT 24 (1985) 33-48]

AN APOSTOLIC APOLOGIA? The Form and Function of 1 Corinthians 9 Wendell Willis

Department of Religious Studies Southwest Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri 65804-0095

The question of the integrity of 1 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 1 Corinthians 9 a real defense in response to real attacks on Paul's apostleship and/or how his apostolic work was 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 of idol 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 9.1-3. In the section 9.1-3 are found four rhetorical questions and two direct statements. The key tasks in their interpretation are to define their proper intent and discern their content.

34

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 24 (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 not continue the interests of ch. 8.7 It 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 of Paul's personal experience from 8.13. As noted already by Weiss, w . 1,2 are too brief for a real defense, and in content are a recollection of obvious truths, with no particular opponent in view.9 Moreover, these rhetorical questions assume a positive 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.10 So the could not be a defense of his apostolic officeat Corinth. 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 defense against 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 of Paul'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 of Paul's conduct is given in terms of exousia, a topic already important in v. 8 and continued in v. 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 12 to those who would examine me'). Then we could say that Paul is anticipating criticism rather than answering a 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 exousiaV Suspecting that some may object to this restriction, Paul procedes to give his personal example. 9.4-14. Verse 3 both concludes the argument of w . 1-2 and also

WILLIS Form and Function of 1 Cor. 9.1

35

begins a section, w. 4-14. On the basis of both style (first-person plural, rhetorical questions) and of content (arguments for the right to support) this unit runs as far as v. 14. It consists of twelve rhetoric cal questions and encompasses ten arguments for the right to financial support. It isfrequentlyregarded as a defense of Paul's conduct as an apostle in not accepting support from the Corinthian church. I refrain from examining each of Paul's arguments in support of financial aid, including the two very interesting cases of his exegesis of Deut. 25.4 (about muzzling oxen)13 and his (non-)use of the command of the Lord.14 However, with these two exceptions these ten verses have received scant scholarly attentionprobably because they are very straightforward and incontestable. The rhetorical arguments 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.15 A corollary to seeing vv. 4-14 as a statement of the obvious is that the particular issues mentioned by Paul in these verses need not refer to specific events which have become points of debate, as if Paul's non-married state16 or what he ate and drank17 were criticisms made in Corinth against him. To speak positively, v. 12b sets forth the purpose of w. 4-14. Paul has established his rights so strongly so that he can make something of his renunciation of them! The effect of this rhetorical plan would have been very arresting for thefirsthearers who, after the listing of the reasons why Paul should be supported, would most likely anticipate his 'accounts due' statement! It is not so striking to us, because we know that the message of the chapter is renunciation of the rights.18 In summary, the claims or illustrations in 9.4-14 can hardly be a defense of Paul's right to support, as if he were called into question by some in Corinth. Their brevity suggests that they are only illustrations, not arguments.19 The inclusion of Barnabas indicates that it is not just Paul's conduct which involves renunciation of support.20 If these were arguments in answer to actual objections, then Paul seems to have 21 proved too much, since he refuses to use hisrights. The rhetorical question, 'Do you not know ( )', in 9.13 assumes that the readers will agree to the claimworkers have a right to support.22 So the function of vv. 4-14 is not to establish Paul'srightto support, but to remind the readers that his authority () in this regard is secure.

36

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

Nor is he defending his right not to 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 he can show that he really has given up somethingin order not to be 23 an 'obstacle' () in the way of the gospel. This is a major theme 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, Christians are to do every thing possible to be 'inoffensive' (, 10.32) 24 to all men. 9.15-18. After expounding at some length the right of ministers to be 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 25 clearly is that Paul has never accepted money from Corinth, and 26 he is unwilling to change that practice. 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 of idealism, 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 Christian Maurer's observation about the importance of 'gospel' in this chapter.28 Maurer notes that Paul's concern in w . 15-18 in describing 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 and to assist in its progress by causing no offense in accepting payment. 9.19-23. Having set forth solidly his basis for receiving support (in vv. 4-14) and his own practice in foregoing such support for the sake of the gospel (vv. 15-18), Paul now states (w. 19-23) in a generalized

WILLIS Form and Function 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 missionary stance of Paul.31 However, I think that 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 regard for 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 of all persons in every way (note the repetition of ). The passage, as indeed all of chs. 8 and 10, is much concerned about the 'many', that is, most believers. The rhetorical style of these 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 if some 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, that they did later come back to haunt him as his relationship to Corinth continued to deteriorate.40 But it is unlikely that here they respond to real accusations. I do not deny that the passage does make clear that on different

38

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

occasions Paul accommodated himself to varying groups. I acknow ledge that he clearly says that this was his policy. This may mean an 'accommodation of epistemology' in mission work (as is implied in Acts 17) 41 and certainly included an accommodation in life style.42 However, the concise formulation and the chiasmus form in w . 1923 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 of chs. 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 of God'.43 The point of 9.19-23 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 46 sacrificial meat in Corinth. 9.24-27. The concluding section of ch. 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 also a change in tone, a concern now being voiced that great effort is required, even of apostles, 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 at the thought that the apostle of grace must consciously strive to be acceptable to God, and by the subtle implication that even he is in

WILLIS Form and Function of 1 Cor. 9.1

39

some danger of being 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 he labors 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 of those examples to the Corinthian situation in 10.6-13. Paul has just shown himself as one who does everything for the benefit of everyone, as one who teaches the Corinthians to consider the needs of all in their conduct. He illustrates his warning against overconfidence by saying that even he must be diligent in his Christian walk. This warning is then documented in scripture by an appeal to OT examples where overconfidence led to the fall of many. 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 of ch. 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 55 characteristics in the service of Paul's argument about glossalalia. That is to say, Paul's reference to his own behavior in the midst of a discussion of a concrete problem in Corinth is not an aside, or interruption, but a skillful stylistic device. Second, simple work with a concordance will show several word links between 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 of Jew and Greek ( = ) in 9.20 and 10.32. Word count alone is, of course, insufficient. But not only are there verbal connections, there are thematic connections as well. There is the common idea of not placing obstacles before others (8.9 = 9.12), or, stated positively, doing all for the sake of others (9.23 = 10.32, 33). Also the theme of consideration of others in one's conduct (8.9,12,13 = 9.19-23 = 10.31, 32) binds the chapters thematically.

40

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

Perhaps the strongest connecting link between 1 Cor. 8 and 10 and ch. 9 is the reference to Paul's personal practice. Paul mentions his conduct explicitly as a model for believers in 11.1 and implicitly in 8.13 with regard to eating. But the appeal to imitate Paul is implicit also in the setting forth of his conduct and the principles which underlie it in 9.19-23 and also 9.24-27. One cannot limit appeals to his example to those cases where the word occurs.57 1 Cor. 8-10 may be analysed thus: In 1 Cor. 8 Paul takes up the question of Christian eating at sacrificial meals as it was raised by the Corinthian Christians and answers their arguments. He restricts their claim about Christian 'permission' or 'rights' () in 8.912 with a hortatory imperative: 'Watch out about the results of these "rights" of yours, lest you put a stumbling block before weak Christians!' Then in 8.13-9.23 Paul sets himself forth as a positive example in the discussion of and and warns about taking one's authority as unrestricted. In 9.24-27 he gives a negative example warning against presumption of security. Then in 10.1-13 a second negative example is taken from the OT and applied to the Corinthians' situation. Finally, in 10.14-30 the matter of eating sacrificial meat is once again taken up, in an explicit treatment of a specific situation.58 In summary, ch. 9 has as its purpose the advancement of the argument about how Christians are to express theirfreedomfor the benefit of others. Concretely, in chs. 8 and 10 this is a problem of eating sacrificial meat. The discussion of ch. 9 does not function as a defense, and Paul is not really defending his conduct, but is arguing from it. The chapter is wrongly understood when it is categorized as 'The rights of an apostle' (the UBS text heading), for it is not about rights, but about renunciation ofrightsin free service. That is why Paul establishes at length an which he will not use, and concludes by asserting that his motive in rejecting financial support is 'becoming all things', which in the question of eating sacrificial meat means consideration of others. In a word, although the word is not used, it is a matter of love.
NOTES 1. My initial study of 1 Corinthians 9 was done during research for my dissertation on 1 Corinthians 8 and 10 (the problem of idol meat) under Dr V.P. Furnish. It was completed in April, 1981, and is forthcoming in the SBL

WILLIS

Form and Function of 1 Cor. 9.1

41

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 strictly regards only w . 1-18 as an excursus, for he believes that in 9.19-27 Paul returns to the theme of 8.9-13, 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 First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1968). He thinks (p. 200) that 'Paul would hardly have spent so 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, Toil and Sustenance: An Examination of the View of Work 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 explanatory digression'. 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, thinks that in Corinth there was a specific occasion as well which evoked Paul's words in 1 Cor. 9. It ought to be noted that each of these works is fundamentally interested in other concerns than the function of ch. 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 'very misleading*. See also K. Nickle, Parenthetical Apologia: 1 Cor. 9.13', CTM 1 (1974), pp. 68-69.

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 what follows 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, who finds 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 is presumably 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 generaloriented 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 a different 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 regard the appeal to a word of the Lord as unique. It is neither the supreme objection Paul faces, nor a coup de grace in defense of Jus support. It must be remembered that the topic is not the right to supportbut the renunciation of that right.

WILLIS

Form and Function of 1 Cor. 9.1

43

15. As Robertson and Plummer note: 'Vv. 4-11 are not so much a defense as a statement of claims' (p. 179). H. Gale in his study of analogy in Paul's letters notes that all these images are unelaborated. They are all used 'simply for 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 of his 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 of eating 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 attack against himself. It is not adequate to regard reference to Barnabas as an 'after-thought' (so Robertson and Plummer, p. 182), since Paul explicitly corrects 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 of this 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, pp. 42f., seems to be aware of a real difficulty for his own reconstruction: 'What is remarkable is that Paul feels he must justify in such detail his right to support, even though he came under attack in Corinth precisely because

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 adequately answer 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 variety of 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 work on 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 in describing his personal achievement in his mission work he is aware that he has gone beyond the needs of his 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 of 9.15-18: 'Within the framework of 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 of ch. 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. 11 If. 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 of some 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 designs in sound and concept. He also notes that in substance it belongs with ch. 8, and suggests that it is misplaced. See also Conzelmann, p. 160. For

WILLIS

Form and Function of 1 Cor. 9.1

45

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, Korintherbrief p. 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 think of 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 idea of freedom in popular philosophy. 35. Thus I think that it is unnecessary to try to find a separate group of , as is attempted, unsuccessfully I think, by R. Longenecker, Paul, Apostle of Liberty (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 of a series of actual cases. But I think him 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 different Standorte, but not Standpunkte, where the calling of the 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 of these 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, Korintherbrief p. 244, thinks that these are alluded to as 'accommodations' which had been suggested to Paul. It is even more difficult to suggest a specific occasion where Paul 'accommodated' to the Gentiles. Weiss suggests,

46

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

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 in Honorem 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 think that Paul has a conscious understanding of the lifestyle of Jesus 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. 1012) can be assumed to be involved already in the first letter. Theissen, p. 44, does note a distinction between the situations of 1 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, 'Missionary Stance', 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 = . Both passages refer to Paul's own conduct (in 10.33-11.1); both are concerned about living to the benefit of the 'many* (, , 9.19; and in 9.22, compare , in 10.33) in all that one does ( in 9.23 and 10.32).

WILLIS Form and Function of 1 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, suggests that because of what follows in w. 24-27 Paul here has both his own commission 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, Korintherbrief p. 240, feels that v. 23 is too differentfromthe argument of w. 19-22 and is probably a later interpolation to make a transition to w. 23-27. He specifically objects to the conclusion that Paul does everything for the gospel. J.H. Schtz, Paul and the Anatomy ofApostolic Authority (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's own power. In this way, as Schtz rightly argues, these verses repeat the earlier arguments in ch. 9. 47. Many commentators have pointed out that the athletic/contest metaphors can be documented in parallel Stoic arguments. See Weiss, Korintherbrief pp. 246f. A.J. Malherbe sets forth examples of the use of these metaphors 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 (NovT Supp., 16; Leiden: Brill, 1967). He says that ties w. 24-27 to 9.1-23, but that this paragraph is only loosely connected to 10.1-13 (p. 83). I think that 10.1-13 also advances Paul's argument. 48. Weiss, Korintherbrief thinks 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 he elaborates in some detail (pp. 85-87). 51. Pfitzner, who says that the concern is with Paul's own work and not all believers (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 gospel and 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 a renunciation of one's advantage with the goal of divine approval 52. W. Wuelner, 'Greek Rhetoric and Pauline Argumentation', in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition: In Honorem Robert M. Grant (Thologie Historique, 53; Paris: Editions Beauchesne, 1979), pp. 177-88, does term this chapter a 'digression' but still insists that it is integral to the development of the argument of chs. 8 and 10. He uses 'digression' in a technical sense drawnfromGreek rhetoric (pp. 186-88). On chiasmus, see also, J. Jeremas, 'Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen', ZNW 49 (1958), pp. 155-56. Dungan, p. 23, also notes the rhetorical style, although he thinks that there is a specific occasion which evokes Paul's defense.

48

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

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 in 13.7. On the parallelism to ch. 13 see also J.J. Collins, 'Chiasmus, the "ABA" Pattern and the Text of Paul', Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis 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 the enlightened 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 of popular philosophy unite the philosopher's words and conduct as a pattern 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.

^ 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.