Paul's Self-Serving Use of the Law to Raise Financial Support

Paul had two problems in asking for salary for himself from the churches he visited. If Paul based it upon the tithe and the Mosaic commands to support priests, he did not qualify. Those monies were by the Law given Moses to go to the Temple in Jerusalem. Thus, Paul had no right to them under the Law. The second and more serious problem was if Paul were to rely upon principles in the Law to persuade others to provide support, Paul had clearly taught the Law was itself abrogated (Romans 7:1-7).  Thus how could Paul morally persuade Christians to give him financial support? Most important, Jesus taught those preaching and healing "freely received" and thus must "freely give," and "not to take wages" for serving the Gospel. (Matt 10:8.)

Paul had to make it sound like it was a moral obligation of the recipient, and thus he, Paul, was not himself asking. Paul had to make it appear that God was telling them to give money to Paul to support him. But without the Law, how could Paul do it? He couldn't, it turns out. So he took out of context a couple of passages, and saw in them a common-sense rationale reflected in the Law to help those who have helped you. Paul seemed oblivious that Jesus told those preaching in His name not to ask for money for the favor of having taught what the apostles freely received from Jesus. See Matt 10:8.

So Paul leaned on the Law to pique the conscience of his listeners. Doesn't it then seem Paul made the same self-serving use of the Law to redirect monies to himself as any of the Pharisees (who used the tithe command to do so)? For Jesus said the Pharisees cared a lot that their flock obey the tithe -- which meant money for them because they collected it (and evidently had an acknowledged right from temple authorities to take a portion of it), but otherwise the Pharisees, Jesus said, did not care about the rest of the Mosaic law. See Matt 23:23

The blatant contradictory and self-serving use of the Law, like any Pharisee, has dogged Paul's persona for centuries.

In 300 AD, Macarius Magnes, Apocriticus, III.30-36 recreated a debate between a Paul critic and a Paul defender. I personally think Magnes designed this to expose Paul because the defense is not very good. Just before this, the critic faulted Paul for inconsistency in saying the Mosaic law is abrogated, but when necessary Paul invoked it for his self-serving financial gain. Here is the exchange at XXXII -- 3.31, starting with the Objection.

CHAPTER XXXII. Objection based on S. Paul's use of the law for his own advantage (as in 1 Cor. ix. 7, etc.).

That he dissembles the Gospel for the sake of vainglory, and the law for the sake of covetousness, is plain from his words, "Who ever goeth to war at his own charges? Who shepherdeth the flock and doth not eat of the milk  of the flock?" (1 Cor. ix. 7). And, in his desire to get hold of these things, he calls in the law as a supporter of his covetousness, saying, "Or doth not the law say these things ? For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shall not muzzle an ox that is treading out the corn " (v. 9). Then he adds a statement which is obscure and full of nonsense, by way of cutting off the divine forethought from the brute beasts, saying, "Doth God take care of the oxen, or doth he say it on our account? On our account it was written" (v. 10).²⁰³ It seems to me that in saying this he is mocking the wisdom of the Creator, as if it contained no forethought for the things that had long ago been brought into being. For if God does not take care of oxen, pray, why is it written, "He hath subjected all things, sheep and oxen and beasts and birds and the fishes" (Ps. viii. 8-9) ? If He takes account of fishes, much more of oxen which plough and labour. Wherefore I am amazed at_such an impostor, who pays such solemn respect to the law because he is insatiable, for the sake of getting a sufficient contribution from those who are subject to him.

CHAPTER XXXIX. Answer to the objection based on S. Paul's use of the law for his own advantage (1 Cor. ix. 7, etc.).

It is not in order to get something for himself that Paul introduces the comparison of the soldier and the shepherd, but in order to make the Corinthians thankful. For a soldier does his work faithfully only as long as the State pays him; and just so a herald of the Gospel will give his best work when his hearers respond to it. Similarly, the spiritual shepherd's encouragement is to see his sheep with fair fleeces and abundant milk. Again, the labourer sows the seed of the knowledge of God in his hearers' hearts, and is grieved if it does not bear fruit.²⁰⁴

Therefore it was in order to benefit his hearers that Paul introduced these things, and supported them with the witness of the law, so that they might show their gratitude. For the divine grace, though lacking nothing, demands a little answering tribute from those whom it enriches.²⁰⁵]

My Reply

The reply is pure Rubbish. Truly, are we to believe Paul's intention was supposedly not to get something for himself? Really? It is solely so Paul does his "best work"? Oh my! The answer is so pathetic that I suspect Magnes is really criticizing Paul, and showing how weak any defense can be mustered. Christ said His ministers were not to take wages for preaching the Gospel -- and nothing justifies the hypocritical use of the Law to countermand Christ.