Paul begins this chapter with a defense of his rights as an
apostle, particularly his right to “material benefits” from his congregations.
Even though Paul forgoes his right to such benefits, he reasserts the
principle, asking, “Do you not know that those who work with the holy things (ta
hiera) eat the things from the temple, and those who serve at the altar (thusistēriō)
share in the altar? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who preach
the gospel should live by the gospel” (1 Cor 9:13-14). (The “command of the
Lord” may refer to Matt 10:10 and Lk 10:7-8. See Archibald Robertson and Alfred
Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul
to the Corinthians (ICC) (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1967), 187; William
Orr and James Arthur Walther, 1 Corinthians (Anchor Bible Series 32)
(New York: Doubleday, 1964), 239) Here, Paul draws directly upon the analogy
between Christian preachers and cultic priests, those who “work with holy
things” and “serve at the altar.” Paul suggests that just as a priest receives his
livelihood from his priestly work, so also the Christian minister ought to be
supported by his gospel work. The analogy only works if there is some assumed
continuity between the work of one and the work of the other.
On the surface, it is not clear whether Paul refers to Israelite
priests or pagan priests, and as it stands, either reference could be taken
legitimately. However, I suggest that while Paul leaves open the possibility of
a pagan priestly analogy, he is most likely thinking of biblical priests. Just
a few verses prior, Paul cites Deut 25:4 (“You shall not muzzle an ox when it
is treading out the grain”) and concludes: “Does God care about oxen or does he
speak entirely for our sake? It was written for our sake” (1 Cor 9:9-10). He is
drawing upon Old Testament models to make his case.
Then in chapter 10, he continues his appropriation of Old
Testament events for Christian interpretation, stating:
I want you to know, brethren, that all our fathers were under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the
cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the
same spiritual drink. . . Nevertheless God was not pleased with most of them. .
. Now these things happened as types (tupoi) for us (1 Cor 10:1-6).
In other words, Paul sees the events of the Old Testament as
working “types” and models upon which the Christian draws in order to gain a
fuller realization of their own situation. The Old Testament law about oxen
becomes a model for the rights of the Christian preacher. The Old Testament
exodus event and wilderness wandering become “types” (tupoi) of the
Christian life. Between these two bookend examples, Paul inserts the analogy
between priestly service and Christian preaching, between priestly rights and
apostolic rights. The surrounding context from 9:9-10:6 thus suggests that Paul
is working primarily from Old Testament, biblical models, rather than pagan
ones. (Of course, they need not be mutually exclusive for Paul’s argument to
work, and many in his congregation may have thought of pagan priests first.
C.K. Barrett, for example, takes this reference to be primarily pagan
priesthood, although even he admits “it does apply to the Jewish also” (The
First Epistle to the Corinthians [London: Adam & Charles Black, 1968],
207). Harry Nasuti makes the same point that “whether the temple referred to
here is the Jewish Temple or the pagan temples (or both), the point [of Paul’s
argument] is the same” (in “The woes of the prophets and the rights of the
apostle : the internal dynamics of 1 Corinthians 9” Catholic Biblical
Quarterly 50 [1988]: 246-264, at 251). The larger context of Paul’s
argument, however, suggests he was thinking in biblical terms) Paul, therefore,
likely derives his reference to the entitlements of priests for their work in
the temple from Numbers 18:8-24 which speaks explicitly of the priests share of
the “holy things”. As such, the work of the Christian leader “is analogous to
that of the Levitical temple servants so far as support is concerned.” (Orr and
Walther, 242)
Again we see that while Paul does not designate himself a hiereus
in explicit terminology, he freely draws upon biblical priestly service as
an analogy for Christian leadership. Among his many arsenal of models and
paradigms to explain the work of Christian ministry, the priestly image is one
which Paul demonstrates no hesitation in using. Thus Paul provides a set of
vocabulary and interpretive method which will continue to shape the thought and
practice of the later church. Paul’s suggestion of a correspondence between Christian
leadership and Old Testament priesthood is then picked up and developed by
subsequent Christian thinkers. As we have seen in previous chapters, later
writers turn to these same ideas in 1 Cor 9 for their understanding of the
bishop as a priest. (See for example Didascalia, chapter 8; Apostolic
Constitutions 2.25, in Metzger 1:228-230; and Origen, Hom. Numb.
11.2.2, SC, vol. 2, 22-24.) (Brian Alan Stewart, "'Priests
of My People': Levitical Paradigms for Christian Ministers in the Third and
Fourth Century Church" [PhD Dissertation; University of
Virginia, May 2006], 238-40)