So also the Lord has ordained to those that announce the glad tidings to live of the glad tidings.
Paul has just piled up examples — the soldier, the farmer, the shepherd, the ox, the priests at the altar. Now he points to the highest authority of all, the Lord's own command, and then refuses to use it himself.
The command goes back to words of the Lord in the Gospels, and a later letter quotes them as settled.
The labourer is indeed worthy of his food, and of his hire. There are other necessities beyond food, and the Lord forgot none. This twofold statement makes it plain (Matthew 10:10; Luke 10:7, as cited in 1 Timothy 5:18). So the apostle declares that the Lord ordained the same for those who preach the gospel: they should live by the gospel, as the law had done before for those who ministered about holy things.
"In the same way" ties this verse to everything before it — even the rule about the threshing ox.
All live on the return of their work — soldier, farmer, shepherd. By any human reckoning, no one can question that this is right. Did the law of God speak otherwise? It is even stronger in the same direction. When He spoke of not muzzling the ox while it treads out the grain, He did not have cattle in view. He meant His people, His servants in the word. The figure holds exactly. The one who ploughs ought to plough in hope, and the one who threshes ought to thresh in hope of sharing.
The phrase covers what a worker needs to keep going.
If a preacher gives up his trade for the Lord's sake, of course he may live by the gospel: others maintain and feed him, giving food, clothing, and what he needs. Or, if he has the energy, he may work like Paul all night. He can then support his household and stop selfish people, like some at Corinth, from saying, He is doing it for his pay. Not many have energy enough to do both things well. If you have a man preaching, supply him while he preaches.
So where does the worker look for that living?
It is not that they should look to those to whom they preach for a certain agreed sum. The workman must look to his Master, and to Him alone, for support. Woe to him if he looks to the church, or to men in any way.
It also matters who does the giving.
These and other scriptures show who should support the servant of the Lord: those who have received the Word through him, and other Christians. From the unsaved they were to take nothing (see 3 John 5-8). Think how out of place it is to preach to a room full of unsaved people. The preacher tells them of God's gift and urges them to accept it. He assures them they can give nothing to God until they receive Christ — and then comes the collection.
Failing to support a worker is not a neutral choice. It costs those who hold back.
An assembly would be to blame if they knew an evangelist was labouring and did not assist him. They would be losing one of their privileges. The Philippians were very forward to do it, and so it was now with some. Such help would bring blessing not only on the one side but on the other. Locality makes no difference. An evangelist is a servant of Christ, not of the assembly.
Paul proved the right, then refused to use it.
The Apostle has carefully asserted the rights of the servant. In the rest of the chapter he shows how he had used his own rights in the assembly at Corinth. He had turned them into an occasion for sacrificing himself in the interests of Christ and His gospel. He gave up one privilege to enjoy a higher privilege.
Paul's choice is not the rule for everyone, and not everyone who declines help gives up something.
The Lord ordained that "those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel." This is the normal thing. Some who labour in this way may have means of their own and not need such help. Others may need it and still be great enough, like Paul, to do without it. That is another matter. But there is just this difference: those who have enough gain no virtue by declining help. The virtue is when those who have nothing give up their rights.
- Ordained — the right rests on a command of the Lord Himself, not on custom or need. The Gospels record it and 1 Timothy repeats it.
- Ordinary — nature, the law of God and the altar all agree: the one who works eats. Support of a gospel worker is the normal thing, not a special favour.
- Ordered — the Lord ordained maintenance, not a salary. The servant looks to his Master, receives from those he has taught, and takes nothing from the unconverted.
- Owed — believers who leave a worker unsupported are not saving money. They lose a privilege the Philippians were quick to seize.
- Offered up — Paul proved the right, then handed it back. He traded a privilege for the higher privilege of sacrificing himself. The virtue lay in having nothing and still refusing.
But *I* have used none of these things. Now I have not written these things that it should be thus in my case; for [it were] good for me rather to die than that any one should make vain my boast.
Paul has just proved that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel — then he refuses that right for himself. So what was this "boast" he guarded, and why would a man sooner die than lose it?
The chapter defends the right of the Lord's workers to material support. Verse 15 shows what Paul did with that right in his own case.
The apostle had now affirmed the principle. It was for others however, not for himself. He makes sure the Corinthians understand this. He had written in love for the glory of the Lord, "but," says he, "I have made no use of any of these rights." … Divine love cares for others and sacrifices self. The apostle was a living example of the gospel he preached. The rights were real, and grace does not forget them for others — it simply does not use them for itself.
He made the rule for others, and then earned his own living.
Paul would not take a penny from the Corinthians (see 1 Cor. 9:15, 18; 2 Cor. 11:7-9), though he laid down the rule that the servant should be supported. He laid it down for others and flung it up for himself. He laboured and supported himself, ministered the truth, but kept the things of God far away from dirty money — from being "greedy for gain," as he himself puts it (Titus 1:7).
Behind the verse stand real accusations. Paul is not being modest for its own sake. He is shutting a door his critics were trying to push open.
False teachers accused the apostle. They claimed that he preached and worked for what he could get out of it. They claimed that he took the property of Christians and traded on their devotion. … Now the Lord's will was that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel. … Still, he had not used this right. The Lord's call obliged him to preach, and woe to him if he failed to do it! His glory was to preach free of charge, and so remove every opening from those who were looking for one.
The second half of the verse blocks an easy misreading. Paul is not asking them for money.
The Apostle has carefully set out the rights of the servant. In the rest of the chapter he shows how he himself had used those rights in the assembly at Corinth. He had turned them into an occasion for sacrificing himself in the interests of Christ and His gospel. As one has said, "In his hands this privilege turns into a completely different privilege: the privilege of sacrificing himself for Christ and for His service". He gave up one privilege to enjoy a higher one. He did not write this letter to ask them for material help. He would not take help from them, and so let anyone make his boast worthless.
Not the preaching. The Lord's call made that a duty, so there was no credit in it. The boast lay in something he chose himself and could have kept.
Love, burning with energy, rises above a privilege it is allowed to take. Paul would have argued less strongly for the rights of spiritual work if he had not firmly decided to give up his own claim. He was not seeking what they had; he was seeking them. By his own example he wanted to stir their minds to a nobler ambition than any they had yet imagined. He would show them that there is a spiritual heroism as well as a natural one, and that a person can win prizes in Christ as well as on the Olympic track. He admits that, as a Christian, he is an ambitious man.
This is strong language, and it shows what Paul valued above his own life.
Even what Christ has sent me, I do not take it for His sake. I glory in this, that I have given up everything I had a title to for the gospel's sake. It is a very strong expression. Better for me to die, than for me to do anything that would hinder the gospel.
- Right. The rule stands — those who preach the gospel are to live by it — and Paul argues for it hardest on behalf of others.
- Refused. He refused that right at Corinth, so that no one could say he preached from interested motives.
- Reframed. He gave up the lower privilege and gained a higher one: sacrificing himself for Christ's service.
- Rejoicing. His boast was not the preaching — the Lord's call made that a duty — but the love that served for nothing.
- Rather die. He would sooner lose his life than lose that boast, because losing it meant putting a price tag on the gospel.
For if I announce the glad tidings, I have nothing to boast of; for a necessity is laid upon me; for it is woe to me if I should not announce the glad tidings.
Paul has just argued that a preacher has every right to be paid by the people he serves. Then he refuses to use that right. This verse explains why: preaching is not something he can take credit for, because it was never his own idea.
Paul wants something he can call his own boast. His work as a preacher does not qualify.
His calling gave him nothing to boast about, and neither did his mission as an apostle. He could not even boast in carrying out his trust faithfully, because the commission he was given was also a necessity laid on him. When God sends a person, refusing to go brings a woe instead of a blessing... Yet he does have a boast, and he guards it jealously. What it is, he tells us in the words that follow.
Paul says a necessity is laid on him. Who laid it there? The answer also settles who a preacher answers to.
It is important to see that preaching is not something to boast about. It is an obligation — a duty to Him who has called a person and given him a gift for this very purpose. So it is a necessity laid on everyone He calls, not a position of honour to claim, nor a right to plead. Christ has the right to send workers into His vineyard, and He does send them. That is what makes it a real necessity for the one who is sent. According to Scripture, the church never sends anyone to preach the gospel... And the One who sends also directs the worker. It is vitally important that this is kept in place, with the worker directly responsible to the Lord.
"Woe" is a heavy word, and Paul turns it on himself.
Notice the word "Woe." I do not find it anywhere else in the New Testament letters, except where the apostle applies it in a very different way to himself: woe to him if he did not make the good news known (1 Cor. 9:16).
Suppose a preacher hates the job. Commentators point to Jonah, the prophet God sent to the city of Nineveh, who did not want to go.
He knew that God had entrusted a "stewardship" (or an "administration") to him, and that woe would come on him if he failed in it. The work might have been unpleasant to him and against his will, just as preaching to Nineveh was against Jonah's will. But necessity rested on him. He would have had to serve through a good deal of woe, as Jonah did. In his case, though, the work was not distasteful. He gloried in it, though in doing it he had nothing to boast about.
Since the duty holds either way, willingness is the wiser response.
Since that is how things stand, a person may as well have a willing heart in the matter, and Paul holds that a willing spirit will reap a reward. If instead he is unwilling, that does not change his responsibility for the gospel entrusted to him. He must still prove faithful in it.
The pressure of human need is real. But it is not the first claim on a worker.
In these last days it seems as if God allows a great deal of pressure on people's spirits to go to everyone. But as a rule there is also the thought of God's claim, not only the claim of souls, and then the worker is guided by Him who has that claim. Where that is present, it is "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" — but we do it guided by Him who has the claim over us.
Necessity sounds cold. Paul's own account of it is not.
His debt was a debt of love... Ceasing to preach the gospel would have caused him grief of heart, which comes through in his words, "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!"
So what could he boast in? It was the right he had just given up.
What is his reward? In what does he glory? His answer is: "that in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel." In this way nothing hindered the gospel; it became more effective.
- Called — Christ sent Paul; he did not volunteer. The call came first, so the work is owed.
- Constrained — preaching is a duty to the One who called him and gave the gift. It is not an honour to claim.
- Woe — Paul turns this heavy word on himself. Refusing to go brings woe instead of blessing.
- Willing — the trust stands whether the heart is in it or not, as Jonah shows. A willing spirit reaps a reward.
- Free of charge — his boast was not that he preached, but that he preached for free, so nothing would hinder the gospel.
For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if not of my own will, I am entrusted with an administration.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
What is the reward then that I have? That in announcing the glad tidings I make the glad tidings costless [to others], so as not to have made use, as belonging to me, of my right in [announcing] the glad tidings.
Paul asks what pay he gets for preaching, and answers that he takes none. That raises two questions: how can a loss be a "reward", and what is the "right" he refuses to press?
Paul answers his own question with something that costs him rather than pays him:
Let us note well what Paul considers his reward. It is the opposite of mere material reward: he would willingly give up all material benefits connected with the gospel, thinking of this self-sacrifice itself as a reward. For his own soul rejoiced in doing this for the sake of others.
What was a claim on other people became an opportunity to spend himself:
That which was only a matter of self-interest before now becomes an opportunity for self-sacrifice on behalf of Christ and His gospel. This was a privilege indeed. Only this spirit can carry a man safely through Satan's world, not deceived and not lured by anything Satan may use against him.
Older translations end the verse with "that I abuse not my power in the gospel." That word misleads modern readers, because the Greek is not about misuse at all:
Note that the word "abuse", used here and also in 1 Cor. 7:31, does not carry in either place the meaning we usually give it. The force of the word is "to use as one that has possession of a thing", or a person "using it as he likes, as his own". The Lord sent the Apostle to preach, and the Lord ordained that he had a right to be supported. He did not, however, use this right as if it were a possession that he could use as he liked.
That distinction removes a false accusation from anyone who does accept support:
There is really no thought of "abusing" in it. It would not be "abusing" to take a salary, or whatever you call it.
Paul gives up something that was really his. That is what makes his argument for other workers so strong:
He made the gospel without cost to others, at all cost to himself. He did not use his right to a support for himself. This is the giving up of one's right for special reasons of grace. It is all the more beautiful in a man who had as deep a sense of righteousness as perhaps anyone who ever lived. So no one could question his plea for the rights of others, because nothing in it was mixed with any desire for himself.
Commentators differ on his motive. Some tie it to rival teachers who attacked him at Corinth:
False teachers accused him. They claimed that he preached and worked from selfish motives, and that he took the property of Christians, taking advantage of their devotion. Now the will of the Lord was that those who preached the gospel should live by the gospel. Still, he had not used this right. His glory was to do it free of charge, so as to take away all occasion from those who sought it.
Another finds the reason in Paul's heart, not in his critics:
In 1 Cor. 9, where he gives his motives, he makes no reference to these evil workers. In fact there could be no such people in Corinth when Paul came to preach, for no assembly existed there yet. What drove him was a heart filled with love, burning to show the gospel in action and in truth as he preached it in words.
The same principle shapes how the good news should be offered today:
This should be the aim of every gospel preacher — to present the free gift of God, eternal life in Christ Jesus, free of charge. If someone passes the collection plate around after the service and urges everyone to give, unsaved as well as saved, the gospel is not free of charge. The unsaved are not asked to give to the Lord's work; the saved are to do it cheerfully, out of a free will.
Yet Paul's practice was not a blanket refusal of all help. One writer points out the exception:
That seems to have been Paul's usual principle in his work. But the assembly at Philippi was a bright exception, for from them he received gifts again and again.
- Right — the Lord ordained that gospel preachers should live by the gospel. Paul never denied that claim; he chose not to use it.
- Refusal — "abuse" is a misleading translation. The word means treating a thing as your own, to use as you please. Taking support is not abuse.
- Reward — his wages were the privilege of charging nothing: the gospel free to others, costly to himself.
- Reason — commentators differ. Some see him removing the ground rival teachers stood on. Others see love alone, before any rival existed.
- Result — a free message is best carried by messengers who ask nothing for it. Yet Paul gladly received gifts freely given, as from Philippi.