2 Cor 11–12. Why is this argument over money still raging after two years?

I will most gladly spend and be spent for you.

an outside wall of a monastery in Suceava, Romania.

Paul gets deeply emotional over the issue of his salary. Why? If they want to support him, why not take the money? If they don't want to support him, why not forget it and move on to more important issues? For it to span both first and second Corinthians, and grow more intense, seems out of character for Paul. He usually put things to bed much easier that this.

Conclusion

It's a long explanation. You should know what you're about to read.

The typical explanations for this tug-of-war over Paul's salary are that (1) the Corinthians were upset because they wanted to pay him and he refused or (2) the Corinthians refused to pay him and he was upset. In 1 Cor 9 Paul uses the issue of his salary as an example of how Christian freedom allows us to say no to our rights. These typical explanations do not work.

• First, there is no believable scenario were a church leader refusing a salary would set off a scandal like this. If they want him there, forget it and get on with the work at hand. If they don't want him there, send him packing. An otherwise-admired pastor whose only disappointment is that he refuses a salary, which then boils over into a two-year argument, is not believable.

• Second, it is understandable that a church leader would be upset over being denied a salary, but Paul uses his refusal as an example of how our Christian liberty allows us to say no to our rights, so he cannot be upset. It would be ludicrous for him to relinquish his right and then keep bringing it up.

• Third, he's not in Corinth. Why should they pay him if he's not there? Why would he expect to be paid if he's not there?

We cannot read Scripture as if it is a time and place so different from our own world that we invent explanations that make no sense. Yes, it was 2000 years ago, and yes it was in Greece, and yes Paul was a Jew and an apostle, but it was still planet earth. There must be a sensible explanation.

The explanation that fits this wrestling match between Paul and the church at Corinth is that it is not about money. The issue is that they distrust him. They have spent months and years knitting their suspicions into a solid case against him. They (his detractors anyway) prefer that he stay away. They can run things just fine without him. Their questions about food sacrificed to idols and man-woman headship in chapters 8, 10 and 11 are not questions: they are statements. They are telling him that they have sorted these things out and, yes, some don't like it, but wisdom and knowledge trump ignorance and superstition, so this is the way it is. They are not asking his opinion.

In chapter 9 is their naked assault on him. They want him to explain himself. They don't believe he is who he says he is. They don't believe he is doing this for free. There is no such thing as someone who does something for nothing. They insist that he explain himself: why he came there, where he gets his money, why the real apostles have problems with him, and why the real apostles don't act like him. He refuses.

Two years later the suspicions are even hotter. From chapters 2 to 7 in 2 Corinthians Paul insists he is not a peddler of God’s word, he does not practice cunning, he has wronged no one, he has taken advantage of no one. Their gossiping has reached ugly depths. They still want to know: Why are you here? Why are you doing this? Where are you getting your money? In 11.8 he lashes out in embarrassment: I robbed other churches to support you! In 11.19-20 he lets them have it, both bores:

You gladly put up with fools, being wise yourselves! You put up with it when someone makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or gives you a slap in the face!

This is not how a pastor talks to his people. Paul is hotly upset.

The reason he is upset is that everything in their world is about money and prestige and authority and so they paint him with the brush of their understanding. A man who does it for no payment, no reward, and no recognition must be a fraud. Paul considers it all garbage; they consider it all treasure. They have no way of understanding him so they assign him dark motives.

In 2 Cor 13.5 Paul says the time for examining him is over. Now it is time for them to examine themselves. People who are in the faith don't act like this. Possibly the reason for all this envy, dissension, slander, and suspicion is that they aren't even alive.

Bottom line: The issue is not Paul's salary. Yes, he tells them how they should act and how other people act, but that is not to get money from them: it is to tell them nothing suspicious is going on. The two letters are filled with sharp sarcasm from Paul. No pastor ever talks to his church that way. We must look at reality. We must forget what we think the church is. The issue is how they saw it. We must forget how we see Paul. The issue is what they saw him.

the setting

We cannot imagine the church at Corinth in modern-day terms. It is a difficult, slow process to start a church in an unchurched area. We must not think of it as a building with pews, a membership in the hundreds, and a large elder/deacon board. A more reasonable description would be 20-30 adults, or even just 15, with their children, and 3 or 4 men in positions of leadership. There is no data for this, but the church is four years old at the time of the writing of 1 Corinthians. In Dallas it is possible to get a large church going in four years, but try that in Laos or Morocco or India. Or a village in Romania. You'll be fortunate to have even 15 adults in four years, and if you can find two of them who are trustworthy, pure joy!

A first truth is that Paul was writing letters to Corinth because he was not in Corinth. The church is four years old, but he has been there for a year or more. Whatever motives we assign to the naysayers in Corinth, we must remember Paul was not there. All their criticisms must therefore be explained against this fact: he was not there. The opposition party had all this time to forget him. They also had unfettered freedom to run things their way, and to build a list of gossip-grievances against Paul (dissing the other person is a good way to raise yourself up).

We should not think that the trouble-makers were the majority. It could have been one or two of the leaders, with some supporters from the congregation. The pro-Paul people could have been the majority but cowed by the intensity of the opposition. If the people were weighted down by this division, they would have been unable to enjoy times of worship, and they would have made little progress because all their attention was fixed on this disagreement.

Paul can be both harsh and cajoling in his letters because he is not talking to just one group. Some of what Paul writes is in response to a letter from them. There might have been sincere questions from people who were being bullied into a stance they didn't think was right (such as marriage, the Lord's Supper, and the resurrection) and appealed to Paul for help, because they were hopelessly outclassed by the bullies. Other parts were from the troublemakers who wanted things their way (food sacrificed to idols, men-women roles) and scorned the silliness of people who couldn't understand such simple things.

The problems are complicated by the apostles who fueled the division by giving the anti-Paul people another reason to question his authority, and shockingly did nothing to set things straight. They should have corrected problems with the Lord's Supper. They should have expelled the man who was sleeping with his father's wife. They should have answered questions on marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection. It is understandable that a new church has questions and disagreements; but it is not understandable that the super-apostles were there and did not handle these issues. Why?

Which leads to the final question: who was Paul writing to? That is taken up in another post: "2 Cor 12.6-10. Who is Paul writing to at Corinth?" Spoiler alert: Not just the church at Corinth. He was also writing to Peter and James.

The issue of this argument over money is therefore a serious one: first, because it's not about money, and second, because he's not writing just to the church in Corinth.

1 Cor 9

The problem first appears in 1 Cor 9, when Paul insists he, the ox, should not be muzzled while he is treading out the grain, but that nevertheless he has not asked for anything and would not. The logic is: he has the right to be supported by them and their refusal to do so is a black mark on them: they have such a low estimation of the effort that is required to provide for their spiritual welfare that they thoughtlessly consider it "not actual work": it never crosses their mind to take care of Paul as he has taken care of them.

1 Cor 9.4-15

Do we not have the right to our food and drink? Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working for a living? Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk?

Do I say this on human authority? Does not the law also say the same? For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? Or does he not speak entirely for our sake? It was indeed written for our sake, for whoever plows should plow in hope and whoever threshes should thresh in hope of a share in the crop. If we have sown spiritual good among you, is it too much if we reap your material benefits? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?

Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ. Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is sacrificed on the altar? In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this so that they may be applied in my case. Indeed, I would rather die than that.

Paul, apparently offended that they have no regard for his needs, explains the facts of life: in all facets of life—soldiers, farmers, shepherds, priests, even beasts of burden—the ones who do the work get their living from the work. Paul's poverty is so extreme that he cannot even take his wife with him because his meager provisions, which aren't even enough for him, would then have to meet the needs of two people.

This all makes sense: anyone would be upset that poverty is imposed upon him when the people they care for have the ability to help, but won't. But, the pericope does not start with v 4; it starts three verses earlier:

1 Cor 9.1-3:

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If I am not an apostle to others, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. This is my defense to those who would examine me.

Now the reason for Paul being upset must be modified a bit. He does not begin with his right to be cared for, but with "Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? ". This seems a strange introduction to a discussion on their selfish lack of concern for his needs. Then Paul says "This is my defense to those who would examine me." Now we have evidence that the issue is not their thoughtlessness, but that he is reacting to a deeper issue: their examination of him.

Bruce Winter (NBC, p 1175), says Paul is defending his apostleship, and the listing of his rights as an apostle are a supporting part of the argument. William Baker (CBC, p 130) says that Paul establishes his apostolic credentials in 9.1-2 and then moves on to his refusal to accept compensation as an apostle from the Corinthians, which resulted in being criticized by them. Paul Barnett, NICNT, p. 620, explains the reasons that the Corinthians would criticize Paul for not taking a salary:

Paul’s practice of self-support in teaching by manual labor created three problems in a Greco-Roman culture like Corinth: (1) teachers at that time expected to be paid, (2) those to whom they came expected to pay them, and (3) those who worked with their hands were generally held in low esteem. See further R. F. Hock, Social Context, 59–65, and Martin, 344–45.

The points being made are that (1) Paul is offended they don't support the work or (2) the Corinthians are offended that Paul refuses their offer of support. They were further offended that a person in such a position of leadership would work in jobs that lowered him and embarrassed them, instead of accepting their support.

Verlyn Verbrugge (EBC) explains the beginning of chapter 9 (am I not free?) as a continuation of the discussion about liberty in chapter 8:

Having entered himself into the discussion in 8: 13, Paul now goes on to illustrate the basic principle he was trying to teach at the end of ch. 8—namely, that even though we may have certain rights, we are not obligated to exercise those rights at every possible opportunity; in fact, there may be times when we specifically refrain from doing so in order that the cause of Christ may be advanced.

William Baker agrees:

With his first question in 9:1 (“Am I not as free as anyone else?”), Paul seeks to establish that he was just as free as those who acted on the knowledge that idols are nothing.

These explanations do not convince. It is true that in ch 8 Paul says he would never eat meat again if it caused anyone to stumble, in contrast to those in Corinth who considered ignorance a non-convincing argument in determining how the educated can live their lives. Paul's reply is that caring for the weaker brother is, in fact, the responsibility of the stronger brother, and that he—being an example of both knowledge and strength—says he would never eat meat if it caused someone for whom Christ died to be harmed. The issue is not ignorance but being harmed, and not strength but being an aggressor.

For Paul to then immediately say "am I not free?" could understandably continue his discussion of their claim that knowledge is superior to ignorance, facts are superior to superstition, and that the truth is light and liberty while superstition is blindness and bondage.

All true, but that does not explain their criticism of Paul, nor does it explain why Paul feels he is being examined, nor does it explain why Paul feels it necessary to make a defense. The better explanation is exactly the opposite: they have no intention of paying Paul and his response is "yes, I understand that, and I would never take money from you".

"Am I not free?" is a connecting phrase to chapter 8, but not as a continuation of a discussion about liberty. Chapter 8 is not about knowledge and liberty: it is about bullies. They were not acting in knowledge and liberty: they were bullies and had created the argument about knowledge and freedom to justify their insolence. Paul is as delicate with them as possible, and he often points the finger away from the offender so as to not inflame a person who is already hot. In chapter 8 he is accepting their argument at face value and answering it rather than calling them out for what is actually going on: defending their arrogance by labeling it knowledge and justifying their aggression by saying the other person is ignorant. He wants to calm things down, not stir things up. Inciting anger cannot solve the problem because anger clouds the mind.

Paul cannot challenge them but he can use their own arguments against them. In 6.5 he asks if they are so smart why there is no one who is wise enough to decide simple matters. In chapter 3 he says they are unable to chew meat and must be fed milk. In chapters 4 and 5 and 6 he mocks them for being so wise. Chapter 7 is appears to be a peaceful interlude, but maybe it's not. Maybe it's another example of their habit of being busybodies, poking their noses into everything, wanting everything to be their way, and using their position and education as reasons for why they should be the ones making the rules.

It would not be the last time something like this has happened in the church.

When Paul gets to chapter 8 he is picking up steam, because he is deeply annoyed that they treat others with such a heavy hand. It's not a matter of knowledge or liberty: they just don't care. They defend their bullying and arrogance with religious language.

When we get to chapter 9 Paul is continuing the theme of bullying, not of liberty. When he says "am I not free?" he is not talking about liberty. He is asking, "Am I your slave? Who do you think you are to question me? Am I not a free man? Am I not a grown man who has the right to conduct his life as he sees fit? In what world do you think someone has the right to ask anyone to explain their personal affairs?!"

In chapter 4 he mocks them saying: You are kings! You are so wise! You are regarded with honor! It is not without reason that Paul says that, and the reason is here in 9.1: Who do you think you are to expect me to explain myself?!

The problem is not that Paul is refusing their gift, but that he is refusing their examination. They are upset because they are in charge and he is refusing to accept their authority. But he is an apostle! Who in their right mind thinks than an apostle is subject to the leadership of a local church?! He has been trained by Jesus Christ himself! Do they truly think that he must now submit to them?! He created them! They are the children; he is the father. Children do not interrogate their fathers! The temperature of his outrage is seen in 9.15: "I would rather die" than take anything from you!

Yes, Paul is saying he has a right to be supported by them. If a farmer or a soldier does his work, he gets his salary: full stop. He is not paid once he explains why he needs the money or what he did with his last salary. The fact that the work is done is the only thing that matters. What he does with the money is no one's business. No one is paid at the end of the month only if the employer thinks the money will be spent the way he wants. No one is paid only if he explains what he did with last month's salary. No one is paid less because he got money from some other work. Paul will not answer their outlandish questions. He is a grown man. How he conducts his life is none of their business.

The problem is that Paul is a mystery. They have never met anyone like him. He says he is doing this all for free, but clearly he has money, so where does he get it? He says he is doing this because of the demand of Jesus, but Peter and his group are also doing it for Jesus and they don't act like this. He says he is doing it for free, but no one does anything for free. He must have an angle. He is making money off this somehow, or he has made money off other churches and has a scheme to make money off Corinth too. Things don't add up. He's hiding something. He might have fooled them, but he won't fool us.

They concoct an explanation for Paul that makes sense to their dark imaginations. "To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure." They would never work for free, so Paul is not either. Why is he here? Why does he stay? We heard that he sometimes has a women with him. Who is she?

Paul asking "am I not free?" rejects loudly their outrageous insolence. He is an adult, a free man, a Roman citizen. He will not explain himself to them! They are insane to think they have the right to even ask!

If you think this is too strong then you fortunately don't have a lot of experience in the church. Church leadership is usually drawn from professionals who run the church based upon their legal, accounting, and business experience. When an elder board decides they don't want to deal with the pastor any longer they will use ugly methods to get what they want, or to get rid of him. Church splits are harsh and personal. A pastor or a missionary who comes under suspicion will be asked to explain parts of their life that no one would ever be asked, except by an elder board or a missions board. There are no secrets when the leaders of the church stiffen their backs against someone. They want information that will not satisfy them and will only expose your private life to their jaundiced gaze.

Paul is outraged that he, an apostle, is told to stand for their inquest. He couldn't say it more loudly: I would rather die! They will get no answer.

1 Cor 9.16-18

No one will deprive me of my ground for boasting! If I proclaim the gospel, this gives me no ground for boasting, for an obligation is laid on me, and woe to me if I do not proclaim the gospel! For if I do this of my own will, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with a commission. What then is my reward? Just this: that in my proclamation I may make the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my rights in the gospel.

Verbrugge says of 9.18:

In this way, Paul shows his own application of the principle offered in his earlier discussion on whether to eat meat sacrificed in an idol temple. While he felt a personal right to eat such meat, he voluntarily would not exercise that right so as not to put a stumbling block in the way of the gospel (8:13).

It is difficult to see how proclaiming the gospel free of charge would put a stumbling block in the way of the gospel. Is there an example from real life that could be used to make sense of this? The explanation doesn't convince. What does make sense is that Paul is being told to explain himself because they can't figure him out. Their dark minds create dark explanations. Eph 4.18-20:

They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. They have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity.

When Paul says "What then is my reward?" he is responding to their suspicions that he has a way to make money out of this. When Paul says "If I proclaim the gospel" and then reverses it to "I do not proclaim the gospel", and when says "if I do this of my own will" and then reverses it to "if not of my own will", he is laying the conundrum before them: there is no answer: they will find fault either way.

The Robert Frost poem, "The Road Not Taken", is regarded as a celebration of individualism and courage. The older person looking back on his life can say with satisfaction that the difficult path was the better choice. As a young person, presented with the choice between the narrow dark road and the wide well-lit road, the determination to not take the easy path proved to be the right one: the older person now surveys the terrain traveled and feels gratification in a life well decided.

Of course, that's not what the poem says. The road not taken is neither the road of the masses nor the road of the few. Both paths are equally traveled, and it is the necessity for confirmation years later that the person's life has been worthwhile that the statement of the more difficult path is made, undoubtedly with the nodding agreement of loved ones.

Robert Frost boasted of the trickiness of the poem by saying he doubted half a dozen people got it right. And thus we have the example of the tricky man who tricked himself. Frost self-confidently saying that he and possibly six others get it exposes his dark mind. He claims people cannot face the truth of their meaningless and worthless lives, so he writes a poem to prove it: despite all the evidence to the contrary, people will read it the way they must, because a person cannot evaluate himself honestly: his life—like everyone else, save himself and six others—is one of commonality and invented worth.

Frost, who is assured of a legacy, looks down upon the simple with a smile: my silly little admirers. But he does not ask; what value is there in being admired by the simple? Does that not make your mountain less of a mountain? How far up must a person be to look down on the commoners? Is a mountain required? Or a castle turret? Will not a five-foot stepladder do it? Possibly you're not as high up as you think you are. And what value is there in fooling the simple? How smart must you be to fool the simple?

Frost's poem is that he describes two paths. It is true that people survey their life and want to find value in it, and it is true that they will often deceive themselves: they were not given a full scholarship, they were not in the top 10, they were not singled out for honor, they were not in upper management, they did not make a profit off the sale of their house, they did not clean up in the stock market, they did not take early retirement, they did not take the narrow path.

But the problem is not that people deceive themselves but that Frost posits only two paths. There is a third one: the path of necessity. The path of necessity is taken by soldiers and police officers and firefighters who consider their lives not worth living if their friends' lives are not defended to the death. It is the path of a mother and father with a child who denies them their lives because if they leave for even 10 minutes the child could have a medical emergency and they would come back to a dead child. It is the path of people who care for an invalid parent or spouse and lose their life in the bargain. None of these people fit Frost's paths. They are not simple. They are not self-deceiving. They are wide awake, clear minded. They would never consider one of Frost's roads. There is only one: life right now for this one or death right now for me.

When Frost looks down on the simple and a smile forms on his face, he reveals that he has no understanding of the life of necessity. He took the common road. His claim to fame is being the least common of the common. He has not included in his estimation of humanity those who value their lives as nothing and care only for the welfare of people who a month ago, or a minute ago, they didn't even know. There are those who look back on forty years or forward to forty years and know that life is not worth living if it means saving themselves. Frost looks at all the two-road-takers and considers himself the best of them. He dangles the poem in front of their faces for them to misread to their advantage: the mirror that inevitably reflects what the person wants to see. But Frost knows nothing of the life of necessity, because it is a path he has not considered, and would not. He would not die for a friend, much less a stranger. His path is survival, not life. He knows nothing of the life that is not worth living if it means the death of this other one.

Paul dies every day. Paul considers it all garbage. To people who wring the last drop from life and consider it all treasure, Paul is impossible to get their arms around. A person who is so unlike them that he cannot be understood raises alarms. They truly believe there is no awareness except their own. No one does something for nothing.

Paul is a fish who they find suspicious because he breathes water. Paul is a bird who they find suspicious because he can fly. They would never do what Paul is doing. They would not suffer or sacrifice or go hungry; they would not work for free and pay their own expenses. But we would. More than that: it's how it's done. A person cannot follow Christ without following Christ. They don't understand. And so Paul must be an imposter; a con artist. Christ is so far past their horizon they can't even make out his crown of thorns. In their world, there is no one who doesn't have a profit motive.

Paul's "ground for boasting" might be a reply to their gossip. It's speculation, so don't get too worked up about it, but "boasting" is not something Paul would do, except about Christ or about them, because they are his children. It is possible that the list they keep against him includes being upset that he places himself above them, when he clearly is not: he is less educated, less skilled in oratory, not as wealthy, not as successful. It is an accusation Paul possibly notes in 2 Cor 1.24: "I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith; rather, we are workers with you for your joy."

So it could be that Paul is (again) answering sarcastically. His "ground for boasting" in 1 Cor 9.15 is a repeating of their words, to shame them. He accepts their slander that he has something up his sleeve, a way to outwit them, and applies it to absurdly: They have seen right through his charade. Yes, he works for "free" then huddles with his co-conspirators at night to laugh at how they have outwitted these Corinthians so easily. All these beatings and humiliations and sacrifices are about to pay off!

1 Cor 9.16 is a return to sanity. There is no ground for boasting. There is only duty. He can do it happily (for God loves a cheerful giver) or unhappily, but how he feels about the demand of God is of no concern God. The only thing that matters is that the gospel is proclaimed. (Later Paul will expand this to include even people who do it for selfish purposes (Phil 1.15-18). The point, unlike out modern view of things, is that how we feel about the demand of God is of consequence only to us. God cares only that his work is done, not whether we do it gladly or bitterly, selflessly or selfishly. How insane it is that we actually believe God wants us to obey only if we're happy, and if we are happier to not obey then he understands and says "okay".)

The mention of "reward" (9.18) is also probably an answer to their suspicion that he has a way to make money out of this. His answer that his "reward" is making the gospel free of charge is actually no reward at all, but it does answer their gossip: yes, there is a reward, but nothing that they would understand. In 1 Tim 6.4-5 Paul says that a person like this

is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

Paul is not warning Timothy of something he might run into. These are warnings from a man who encounters conceit, ignorance, controversy, envy, dissension, slander, suspicion and depravity as a normal part of the work. Importantly, Paul is not saying that such people think there is a way for them to make money from the gospel: he says they imagine it is a means of gain—for him. This repeats what Paul is answering here: yes, there is gain, but not in the sense these people mean.

2 Cor 10-12

Two years later the accusation rears its ugly heard again: Paul has an angle. Paul does not fully take up the matter until ch 11, but he does drop quite a few bread crumbs leading up to the doorstep:

2.17 We are not peddlers of God’s word

4.2 We have renounced the shameful things that one hides

We refuse to practice cunning

5.10 All of us must appear before the judgment seat of Christ

5.11 I hope that we are also well known to your consciences

5.14 The love of Christ urges us on

6.3 So that no fault may be found with our ministry

6.12 There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours

7.2 Make room in your hearts for us; we have wronged no one

We have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one

And about the collection:

8.3 They voluntarily gave according to their means, and even beyond their means

8.4 Begging us earnestly for the privilege of sharing in this ministry to the saints

8.20 No one should blame us about this generous gift that we are administering

8.21 We intend to do what is right not only in the Lord’s sight but also in the sight of others

It is a thin tightrope Paul must walk to make sure no wrong words are used and no wrong impressions are left. He insists he is not profiting from his work, he insists that the collection in chapters 8 and 9 is not for him, and he keeps his hands as far away from the money as possible. He knows the situation in Corinth. He knows any crack will be peered into and pried open. He also knows he is about to tackle the issue head-on.

Chapter 10 is sometimes regarded as a different letter because of the abrupt change from 9.15 (thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!) to an intense defense of his ministry. It's possible, but it does not matter. If Paul wrote it, it is of no consequence if chapter 10 starts a new letter.

What does matter is that the Corinthians have still not figured out Paul and apparently it is driving them nuts. Their attempts to draw a box around this mercurial man have failed. In chapters 10, 11, 12, and 13 is Paul taking them on with a force that is not seen since his letter to the Galatians. In 13.5 he puts it to them squarely: are you even Christians? Their tactics are purely those of the world. The only difference is that they do it in church, and now Paul questions whether they truly belong there. It is a serious matter.

Chapter 10 begins with their gossip-emboldened slander. They have created the charge that Paul is bold only when he is as a safe distance and that he thinks he's better than them. In truth, they are bold when he is away; they think they are better than him. The minds of the accusers dredge up accusations from their own experience. When Paul is away they talk about him. The more they talk the more they convince themselves they are onto something, and as others join in the gossip grows more intense and further from the truth because every log they throw on the fire is from their own storehouse.

It is a deep ache for Paul that his children conspire against him. It is a deep ache that Peter and the others from Jerusalem steal away his children's affections. He is helpless. He cannot stay in Corinth forever but every time he leaves things fall apart.

In 10.2 Paul begins the task of making them understand that they are thinking wrongly, not just of Paul, but of everything. He is telling them that their thinking is off course. He cannot convince them because their mind cannot receive such explanations, but he can tell them that they are wrong from the start, for the basis for their thoughts is human understanding. 10.6 is awkward (We are ready to punish every disobedience when your obedience is complete) but possibly he is saying that we will not discuss individual issues when the train is off the tracks, lying on its side, cars buckled and metal twisted.

Paul allows in 10.8 that it is possible he gave the wrong impression when he spoke of his authority as an apostle. He uses their word "boast" as an olive branch: "Okay, let's say I did boast (though I didn't), but my authority as an apostle is only for building you up and that is the only way I have used it, so I will not apologize for that." The adding of "and not for tearing you down" might be a first shot at those who were not building up: they are the ones who should apologize.

Verses 9-11 are Paul's attack of their months of gossiping about him. They have created a false world where everything they want to believe is true. By mob vote they have fashioned a list of accusations that have little to do with reality. They interpret his gentleness as weakness. They have decided he writes letters because he is unable to answer them face to their face. It is a fantasy world they live in, but it is a real one nevertheless. Verse 11 intends to rock their fantasy world a bit: they have not remembered everything precisely.

We arrive at chapter 11, and the full-on reply to their suspicions about why he is in Corinth.

2 Cor 11.7-12

Did I commit a sin by humbling myself so that you might be exalted, because I proclaimed God’s good news to you free of charge? I robbed other churches by accepting support from them in order to serve you. And when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone, for my needs were supplied by the friends who came from Macedonia. So I refrained and will continue to refrain from burdening you in any way. As the truth of Christ is in me, this boast of mine will not be silenced in the regions of Achaia. And why? Because I do not love you? God knows I do!

And what I do I will also continue to do, in order to deny an opportunity to those who want an opportunity to be recognized as our equals in what they boast about.

Typical explanations are that by accepting payment Paul would make himself their employee (and the church leaders his boss) or that certain rich people gave with the intention of gaining promotion or leverage. Another is that the visiting apostles took payment from the church and Paul didn't, so he is upset that they are profiting off the people.

These explanations don't fit. Some may have some merit, but none explain why Paul is so emotional about this and uses a lot of ink arguing his case.

We can agree that Paul would be upset that the church was paying people who were only visiting, but that would be a passing remark at best: not a protracted discussion. Whether there was a custom in Greco-Roman culture to pay teachers may or may not be true: it does not matter. It is inconceivable this would stir up such trouble that only got worse as the years went on.

One explanation that has merit (but is not the answer) is that Paul knew that these people would make themselves his bosses if he accepted a salary, so it is understandable that he would strongly refuse that. What is not understandable is that it would become a conflict. In any real-world situation, a pastor or teacher who refuses a salary is not criticized. It doesn't happen that often, but it makes no sense that refusing a salary would lead to criticism or hostility.

It is a risky thing in the modern church to accept support because inevitably the church will want reports and possibly oversight. When we left for Romania we made it clear we were not missionaries. We did not apply to a missions board and did not go around to churches (or friends) asking for help. A lot of friends did help, and our church insisted that we be their missionaries and receive support. It was not much: $50 a month. It made them happy so we agreed. When we returned one of the elders took me aside for a talk and said now that we were under the elders' authority we needed to begin acting like that. I reminded him we had not asked for support; the church insisted we take it. The conversation was dropped. Over the years the church increased its giving, then a new pastor came in and wanted to review missionary giving. I was warned by one of the pastors that I should expect to be cut off. I printed a pie chart showing the percentage of support given by this church. It was 2%. I knew their annual budget. Ours was larger. We had 35 salaried employees and were working with hundreds of children. They had 3 salaried employees and a membership of about 100. I was prepared to ironically suggest that possibly I should begin supporting their church. The meeting lasted a couple hours and we never got around to the subject of money. We still have a strong relationship with the church, but they stopped support after another pastor came in and I never bothered to attend another meeting to discuss restarting support.

It is understandable that Paul would have resisted an attempt to use money to gain an advantage over him, but his reply would have been short and simple: keep your money. It would not have festered for years, spanning his letters to Corinth, and becoming more serious as the years went by.

What does explain Paul's emotions is this: he was not understandable to them. If you are someone who considers it all garbage, no one who considers it all treasure can understand you. Actually, it is stronger than that: they won't believe you. Actually, it is stronger than that: they will disbelieve you. Actually, it is stronger than that: if you attempt to explain, they will mock you. Your closest friend will give a gentle tug on your shirt sleeve to remind you that you still have clothing.

It is a subject that is not tolerated. If you tell a friend you are changing churches or denominations, or are now charismatic, or are now not charismatic, have changed political parties, are headed for a divorce, are declaring bankruptcy, or an uncle died and left you some old Microsoft stock, you will get a conversation out of it. Not so if you want to explain why you have left everything. You would get more understanding telling a friend you were arrested for a DUI than that you have left everything.

This cannot be brought up in public. People take it personally. You learn that the only way to have friendly conversations is to avoid the subject. That's not an easy thing to do. Having friends with limits is not a comfortable thing. It makes your life more alone. But you learn, over time, that this uncomfortable issue is comfortable with God. Recognizing this—that it creates uncomfortableness with friends but a softness between you and God—you protect it. You don't want it to be tromped on so you hide it, deep inside, where it's safe, protected. Sacred.

No one—not the church, not the apostles, not the super-apostles, not the false apostles—believed that Paul truly considered it all garbage. Some of Paul's people did, but probably not in its extremity. Paul refused to discuss it with anyone except his closest helpers, like Timothy, because the conversion would convince no one and there was a danger his treasure would be tromped on. So he doesn't tell anyone. He uses terms they will understand: things like "it is right for a father to pay the children but not the children for the father". But that doesn't fully explain it. The truth is: everything is garbage but a few things are valuable, and he will allow those few remaining things to be demeaned.

But why does he mention it at all? Because they disbelieve him. Paul is a mystery to them, and mysteries must be solved. A Jew walks into a Gentile city and starts a Gentile church, for no reason. In our modern understanding of things starting a church is not so unusual, but in Corinth it had not happened before. Then he leaves for a couple years, writes some letters, comes back, leaves again, writes some more letters. They want to know: who is this guy? Some other Jews arrive and tell the people that yes, Paul is off the rails a bit. Already they didn't understand him and now they have a clue that things are even more mysterious than they thought. Gossip is the factory where suspicions are forged into facts. Now they are certain something is going on. Paul is doing this for a reason. No one does it for no reason; no one does it for nothing. He has a plan. A scheme. A scam.

This is seen in 1 Cor 4.1-5 where Paul, in the discussion about divisions in the church, abruptly adds that they should be careful about judging things they know nothing of:

Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God.

Paul is warning them: yes, there are things about me you don't understand, but that does not make them sinister. They cannot attach dark motives to him just because they can't understand someone who would work for free—less than free actually: he pays so they can have a church. Paul tells them flatly: it is a very small thing to me that you are so worked up about this. God knows my motives; God will judge. You must not.

The idea that they insist on paying Paul and are offended when he rejects their gift does not fit the text, or common sense. Someone coming into your community, setting up a church that no one asked for, and then expecting to be paid would be outrageous. In today's world we understand that a pastor must be paid, but churches call pastors; we don't accept walk-ins.

It is not true that Paul went from city to city setting up churches. If he found a synagogue where people listened, that could give him a starting point, but aside from that he was a bit helpless. There was no such thing as a "church" that people understood as a common thing. Paul left Athens without being able to start anything there. Starting a church in Corinth was not just a matter of going to the other side of town a comfortable distance away from the other church and starting a church for people who preferred to not travel so far on Sunday morning.

The church was a new thing. To start a church where there was none—and not even the idea of one—was difficult. Getting a few people to come would have been a delight. To then astonish them by passing the hat would have been unthinkable. It is enough that they come. Be happy about that.

Almost all churches begin as a clover field. An established field of churches expands itself by sending out runners. Those runners do not go far: they stay close to the clover field where they get nutrients and protection. As runners take root the field is enlarged. Rarely do we see a sole sprig of clover far away from the field.

Paul was planting a sprig of clover where none had ever existed before. The soil was not good and there was no protection. That any of them took root is remarkable. Consider the impossibility of it. A Jew walks into a Gentile city, starts setting up a Gentile church where the word "church" or "Christian" isn't even in their vocabulary, brings it to a point where it can stand upright on its own feet, then leaves for another city where such a thing has never happened before. This is nothing like starting a new branch church of a denomination, or to provide a church with an alternate worship style to an area already populated with churches. The significant factor in each of these modern situations is that people want it there and are accustomed to the idea of a church: worship services, Bible studies, prayer, doctrine, the Lord's Supper, Christmas, Easter, baptisms, weddings, funerals. To start a church with none of these as part of the local understanding is monstrously difficult. To start a church with none of these as part of the local understanding, and then expect payment, is absurd.

In Romania when we began working in the villages we would have stunned them if we asked for support. We come in, uninvited, to start something that we wanted for them. The expense was completely ours. The villagers didn't expect to pay anything; they expected to be paid. If we asked to use a house they expected rent, reimbursement for utilities, and wood for the heating stove. They expected us to organize events like Christmas plays—and to pay the costs. They expected us to provide microphones and speakers, Bibles, songbooks, and bread and juice for communion. When we began talking about this house-church becoming a real church with a pastor, the salary was ours to pay—along with (it was suggested) a new roof and inside flushing toilets.

We were in a community where they understand the general idea of churches. In Paul's day he had no such advantage. Paul was a not-too-impressive person going from place to place telling people about some guy who was executed in Jerusalem 15 years earlier, was resurrected from the dead, and they should care! Not easy.

Paul was overjoyed that he got even a few to listen without being driven out of the city or stoned. Expecting them to pay for the privilege of listening was not in his mind. It was enough that they came. This tender shoot could be watered and cared for. With time and patience it would become a plant, then it would mature and a first bud would emerge: the promise of a flower that would be followed by fruit. Joy in heaven!

When Jesus tells his disciples to start in Jerusalem and then go to Samaria and then to the ends of the earth, it is common sense. In Jerusalem the people have a long-held idea of God in their experience. Adding Jesus onto that is the starting point. He was envisioning a clover field that sent out runners in all directions, getting its sustenance and protection from the field. Going to Rome in 33AD and preaching Christ crucified would have been absurd. No one was going to listen. But if it started in Jerusalem, grew into Samaria, then to Antioch, and curving west along the top of the Mediterranean, in a few years Rome would be reached. Steady growth is how a small field becomes a big one. It needs to be supported by the field at each new step of growth. The field is not created by planting sprigs hither and yon. That is a monstrously difficult way to do it.

The Holy Spirit is a practical and necessary part of the expansion of the work of God when his people would no longer be Israel only. In Jerusalem was the Temple with priests and the high priest. In Israel were synagogues with priests and helpers. There is an infrastructure of teachers and a solid foundation of belief in the Scriptures. They had an identity through circumcision, the Sabbath, their diet, and the fathers: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, and the twelve sons. They have a kingly line, a prophetic tradition, a priestly line. The people of God in Israel have everything they need to be the people of God.

In the territories, not so. The meager messenger proclaims the Gospel message. The Spirit excites interest, then instills belief and devotion where there was none before. If God so determines, the Spirit baptizes the person into the Body of Christ and we have a new life. Baptism, first in the Spirit, then in water, brings the person through the curtain from death into life. (It is a curtain which can never be passed through again. God opened the Red Sea. Once. Look: all the people in that Sea are dead. By the hand of God. Do you think there is a way back to Egypt that gets you there safely?) A few new lifes is the start. With that we can begin removing the aura of uncertainty. Parents bring their children, children bring their parents, friends bring their friends... it is an expansion of spiritual life through the relationships God has established in life.

As the new lifes add layers of bark they can bear up against some harshness. Their excitement draws them to get involved. They ask what they can do. Now we have a thriving church body, even if it is only ten. It can thrive.

But there are always an Ananias and a Sapphira to pollute the holy soil. There is always a Simon the Magician who sees a way to get rich and powerful off this. In every field there are weeds. Some fields are almost all weeds.

Paul would never have asked the new church in Corinth for a salary. The more likely scenario in Corinth is that they are unwilling to do anything. When Paul says he "robbed other churches by accepting support from them to serve you", why do we think it is for his salary? The only expense in starting a church is Paul's salary?! Impossible. In 12.15 he says "I will most gladly spend and be spent for you." Paul was spending on them.

Other churches that were mature and aware that Paul was leaving them to start in new areas, asked to help. Paul would never allow a hand or a foot to not do their part, so he happily agreed. Certainly he and those traveling with him had needs, but he had already considered the lilies: his needs were tiny.

In Corinth he encountered people who were not maturing at the speed they should. They were self-important, harsh with one another, dismissive of the poor and needy, and distracted by every sparkling thing that caught their eye. They insisted on being babied.

When Paul says "I proclaimed God’s good news to you free of charge" he is saying, flatly, that he never took anything, and never asked for anything. When Paul says "when I was with you and was in need, I did not burden anyone," he is not saying he asked for help and was refused: he is saying he never asked and would not have asked. Why? Because it was unseemly to ask. He came into a foreign city with the desire to start a church. He had no right to ask for anything. His duty was to do it. It was his dream, not theirs. It was his idea, not theirs. He tells them that friends from Macedonia helped, to include them in the ministry: they were also partners in the work. Yes, Paul wanted the church in Corinth to understand that their birth was possible because of the help of other churches and that once they are partners in the work it would also be good for them to do the same thing, but right now they are not workers: they are the work. Paul cannot depend upon them or lean on them. They are not partners; they are children. He says that to them: they require milk; "children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children".

When Paul says "How have you been worse off than the other churches, except that I myself did not burden you? Forgive me this wrong!" he is scolding them for insisting on remaining children. He is talking to children. If he could talk to them as adults he wouldn't even be having this conversation. He has friends in Macedonia; he does not have friends in Corinth. Not friends he can trust with the work that is. He loves them all, desperately, but can one of them stand with him in the work? Never. Can he have a moment of deep conversation with any of them, telling of his troubles and fears? Never. Anything he gave them to do would be ruined. Any personal secret he told someone would be on the church gossip hotline before bedtime.

Paul says these things, for years, because they are still children. There is still no one who can solve the simplest problem; that's why problems smolder for years. There is still no one who can lead the church; that's why he must continually send in people. There is still no one who has matured enough to see the big picture; that's why he can trust no one to help him start churches deeper into his path.

Paul insists in 12.19 that "Everything we do, beloved, is for the sake of building you up." We don't know that is included in "everything", but when he then tells them that he fears he will find "quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder" when he visits again, that can mean nothing except that he expects to find quarreling, jealousy, anger, selfishness, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder: toward one another and toward him, about one another and about him, and because of one another—but not because of him. He is guiltless in this. He has spent everything on them, has done nothing wrong, has sacrificed and suffered and starved for them.

We don't know, and it's not necessary to get into an argument about it, but it's possible that when Paul says "I did not burden anyone" he is reminding them that they had burdened him, and when Paul says he "robbed" other churches it is because other churches were happy to help but Paul was abusing their help by spending it on the Corinthians. They weren't offended that he didn't accept a salary: they were offended he asked them to contribute to the running of their own church. They were so narcissistic and so childish that he had to use money from other churches to keep theirs running. If he asked to use a house, the answer was yes, if you pay. If he needed seats for the people, he had to provide them. There was not even someone to bring bread for communion. Of all the simplest, basic requests a person could make for the people of a church, having someone bring bread for communion seems to be the most reasonable, yet they would not do even that.

It is likely that Paul, at this point in his relationship with the church at Corinth, is exasperated that he still has no way to keep the church afloat except to ask other churches and friends for help. The argument over money has been going on for years because it has been going on for years. It has now reached a point where Paul cannot ever again ask another church for help: it's just too embarrassing. He asked Apollos to come back and help; Apollos said no. He "urged" Titus to go. Why wouldn't Titus want to go without "urging" except that Titus knew what he was in for? He tells them Timothy might come, and asks them to not despise him! When was the last time you heard of something as ridiculous as that?! Paul asks a church to not despise his friend if he comes to help?!

This is not how churches work.

Paul is emotional in the letter because this has been going on for years and he sees the church only sinking lower into the water. It cannot float. He must continually bail water. It's a mess.

And then, to put the icing on the cake, friends from Jerusalem show up to load their own ballast onto this floundering ship. Paul is beside himself. He cannot spoon-feed this church for the rest of his life. He cannot ask any more churches for help; he cannot ask any more friends for help. God told him to stay in Corinth so he does, but it is a miserable thing to watch: these people who will do nothing for their own growth, insist he do it all, and expect him to respond with selflessness to every selfish act.

And they won't even bring bread for communion.

2 Cor 11.19-21

You gladly put up with fools, being wise yourselves! For you put up with it when someone makes slaves of you, or preys upon you, or takes advantage of you, or puts on airs, or gives you a slap in the face. To my shame, I must say, we were too weak for that!

2 Cor 12.14-18

Here I am, ready to come to you this third time. And I will not be a burden, because I do not want what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children. I will most gladly spend and be spent for you. If I love you more, am I to be loved less? Let it be assumed that I did not burden you. Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit. Did I take advantage of you through any of those whom I sent to you? I urged Titus to go, and sent the brother with him. Titus did not take advantage of you, did he? Did we not conduct ourselves with the same spirit? Did we not take the same steps?

Paul is not understandable, and because he is not understandable people invent explanations for why he acts as he does. Because he spends on them they think he has money. He says he doesn't, but they don't believe him because they would never spend even a small amount on a stranger unless they were fabulously rich. They don't believe him because he's unbelievable. They're sure he's hiding something. He explains that he is only a father caring for his children, but that doesn't convince. They think he's somehow profiting off this. No one goes to a foreign city and helps people for nothing. There has to be some reason for it. It cannot be for the reason he says because it makes no sense.

They let him spend on them because it's his deal. He wanted it; it's his responsibility. They will watch and see how things come out, but their suspicion is that this is a sting: a hustle. Paul swears by everything holy that he is genuine. He insists that Titus did nothing to take advantage of them. "Nevertheless (you say) since I was crafty, I took you in by deceit." Can that mean anything except they thought he was crafty and deceitful?!

They don't understand so they invent. They don't understand Paul so they use their own experiences and beliefs to define him. He can't be genuine. He just can't. And now they have proof. People from his own home town who say they don't trust him either.

Baker, William. 1-2 Corinthians (Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Book 15) (pp. 129-130). Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Barnett, Paul. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament) (p. 620, footnote 5). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.

Verbrugge, Verlyn; Harris, Murray J.. 1 and 2 Corinthians (The Expositor's Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 3845-3847). Zondervan Academic. Kindle Edition.