18 What then is my reward? That, when I preach the Good News, I may present the Good News of Christ without charge, so as not to abuse my authority in the Good News.
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
What then is my reward? He infers from what goes before, that he has a ground of glorying; in this, that he labored gratuitously in behalf of the Corinthians, because it appears from this, that he applied himself willingly to the office of teaching, inasmuch as he vigorously set himself to obviate all the hindrances in the way of the gospel; and not satisfied with merely teaching, endeavored to further the doctrine of it by every method. This then is the sum. "I am under the necessity of preaching the gospel: if I do it not, wo is unto me, for I resist God's calling. But it is not enough to preach, unless I do it willingly; for he who fulfils the commandment of God unwillingly, does not act, as becomes him, suitably to his office. But if I obey God willingly, it will in that case be allowable for me to glory. Hence it was necessary for me to make the gospel without charge, that I might glory on good ground." Papists endeavor from this passage to establish their contrivance as to works of supererogation. [1] "Paul," they say, "would have fulfilled the duties of his office by preaching the gospel, but he adds something farther over and above. Hence he does something beyond what he is bound to do, for he distinguishes between what is done willingly and what is done from necessity." I answer, that Paul, it is true, went a greater length than the ordinary calling of pastors required, because he refrained from taking pay, which the Lord allows pastors to take. But as it was a part of his duty to provide against every occasion of offense that he foresaw, and as he saw, that the course of the gospel would be impeded, if he made use of his liberty, though that was out of the ordinary course, yet I maintain that even in that case he rendered to God nothing more than was due. For I ask: "Is it not the part of a good pastor to remove occasions of offense, so far as it is in his power to do so?" I ask again, "Did Paul do anything else than this?" There is no ground, therefore, for imagining that he rendered to God anything that he did not owe to him, inasmuch as he did nothing but what the necessity of his office (though it was an extraordinary necessity) demanded. Away, then, with that wicked imagination, [2] that we compensate for our faults in the sight of God by works of supererogation. [3] Nay more, away with the very term, which is replete with diabolical pride. [4] This passage, assuredly, is mistakenly perverted to bear that meaning. The error of Papists is refuted in a general way in this manner: Whatever works are comprehended under the law, are falsely termed works of supererogation, as is manifest from the words of Christ. (Luke 17:10.) When ye have done all things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done what we were bound to do. Now we acknowledge that no work is good and acceptable to God, that is not included in God's law. This second statement I prove in this way: There are two classes of good works; for they are all reducible either to the service of God or to love. Now nothing belongs to the service of God that is not included in this summary: Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength There is also no duty of love that is not required in that precept -- Love thy neighbor as thyself (Mark 12:30, 31.) But as to the objection that is brought forward by Papists, that it is possible for one to be acceptable, if he devotes the tenth part of his income, and infer from this, that if he goes so far as to devote the fifth part, he does a work of supererogation, it is easy to remove away this subtilty. For that the deeds of the pious are approved, is not by any means owing to their perfection, but it is because the imperfection and deficiency are not reckoned to their account. Hence even if they were doing an hundred-fold more than they do, they would not, even in that case, exceed the limits of the duty that they owe. That I may not abuse my power. From this it appears, that such a use of our liberty as gives occasion of offense, is an uncontrolled liberty and abuse. We must keep, therefore, within bounds, that we may not give occasion of offense. This passage also confirms more fully what I just now touched upon, that Paul did nothing beyond what the duty of his office required, because it was not proper that the liberty, that was allowed him by God, should be in any way abused.
1 - "C'est a dire, d'abondant;" -- "That is to say, over and above."
2 - "Ceste perverse et mal-heureuse imagination;" -- "That perverse and miserable fancy."
3 - "C'est a dire, lesquelles nous faisons de superabondant;" -- "That is to say, what we do over and above."
4 - Our Author expresses himself in similar terms elsewhere as to the word merit. See Harmony, [14]vol. 2, p. 197. -- Ed.
What is my reward then? - What is the source of my reward? or what is there in my conduct that will show that I am entitled to reward What is there that will demonstrate that my heart is in the work of the ministry; that I am free and voluntary, and that I am not urged by mere necessity? Though I have been called by miracle, and though necessity is laid upon me, so that I cannot but preach the gospel, yet how shall I so do it as to make it proper for God to reward me as a voluntary agent? Paul immediately states the circumstance that showed that he was entitled to the reward, and that was, that he denied himself, and was willing to forego his lawful enjoyments, and even his rights, that he might make the gospel without charge.
I may make the gospel of Christ without charge - Without expense to those who hear it. I will support myself by my own labor, and will thus show that I am not urged to preaching by mere "necessity," but that I love it. Observe here:
(1) That Paul did not give up a support because he was not entitled to it.
(2) he does not say that it would be well or advisable for others to do it.
(3) it is right, and well for a man if he chooses and can do it, to make the gospel without charge, and to support himself.
(4) all that This case proves is, that it would be proper only where a "necessity" was laid on a man, as it was on Paul; when he could not otherwise show that his heart was in the work, and that he was voluntary and loved it.
(5) this passage cannot be urged "by a people" to prove that ministers ought not to have a support. Paul says they have a right to it. A man may forego a right if he pleases. He may choose not to urge it; but no one can demand of him that he should not urge it; much less have they a right to demand that he should give up his rights.
(6) it is best in general that those who hear the gospel should contribute to its support. It is not only equal and right, but it is best for them, We generally set very little value on that which costs us nothing; and the very way to make the gospel contemptible is, to have it preached by those who are supported by the state, or by their own labor in some other department; or by people who neither by their talents, their learning, nor their industry have any claim to a support. All ministers are not like Paul. They have neither been called as he was; nor have they his talent, his zeal, or his eloquence. Paul's example then should not be urged as an authority for a people to withhold from their pastor what is his due; nor, because Paul chose to forego his rights, should people now demand that a minister should devote his time, and health, and life to their welfare for nothing.
That I abuse not my power in the gospel - Paul had a right to a support. This power he might urge. But to urge it in his circumstances would be a hinderance of the gospel. And to do that would be to abuse his power, or to pervert it to purposes for which it was never designed.
That I abuse not my power - I am inclined to think that καταχρησασθαι is to be understood here, not in the sense of abusing, but of using to the uttermost - exacting every thing that a man can claim by law. How many proofs have we of this in preachers of different denominations, who insist so strongly and so frequently on their privileges, as they term them, that the people are tempted to believe they seek not their souls' interests, but their secular goods. Such preachers can do the people no good. But the people who are most liable to think thus of their ministers, are those who are unwilling to grant the common necessaries of life to those who watch over them in the Lord. For there are such people even in the Christian Church! If the preachers of the Gospel were as parsimonious of the bread of life as some congregations and Christian societies are of the bread that perisheth, and if the preacher gave them a spiritual nourishment as base, as mean, and as scanty as the temporal support which they afford him, their souls must without doubt have nearly a famine of the bread of life.
What is my reward then? [Verily] that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ (o) without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.
(o) By taking nothing from those to whom I preach it.
What is my reward then?.... None at all, I have none to expect, hope for, or claim, in a way of debt; I am a servant intrusted by my Lord with the Gospel, and an unprofitable one I am; I do, at most and best, but what is my duty, and for that I can claim no reward: all the reward that remains is only this,
verily, that when I preach the Gospel, which I am obliged to do,
I may make the Gospel of Christ without charge; to them that hear it, as he did to the Corinthians, which was his glorying in 1-Corinthians 9:15 and is the same with his reward here; for this means not any reward from God, but his glorying among men, and against the false teachers; that when he preached the word at Corinth, he was not chargeable to any, nor would he ever be: his reason for it is,
that I abuse not my power in the Gospel; his right of having a maintenance, whilst he was preaching the Gospel; to have made use of which would have been an abuse of it, since it would have given occasion to the false apostles to reproach and calumniate, and might have been an hinderance to the Gospel of Christ, and a stumbling to some weak minds.
What is my reward?--The answer is in 1-Corinthians 9:19; namely, that by making the Gospel without charge, where I might have rightfully claimed maintenance, I might "win the more."
of Christ--The oldest manuscripts and versions omit these words.
abuse--rather "that I use not to the full my power." This is his matter for "glorying"; the "reward" ultimately aimed at is the gaining of the more (1-Corinthians 9:19). The former, as involving the latter, is verbally made the answer to the question, "What is my reward?" But really the "reward" is that which is the ultimate aim of his preaching without charge, namely, that he may gain the more; it was for this end, not to have matter of glorying, that he did so.
What then is my reward - That circumstance in my conduct for which I expect a peculiar reward from my great Master? That I abuse not - Make not an unseasonable use of my power which I have in preaching the gospel.
*More commentary available at chapter level.