The really great thing was that the Corinthian Christians were Paul’s workmanship in the Lord. Even Judas was an apostle and saw Christ, but because he did not have the work of an apostle, these things were of no benefit to him.

Those Jewish believers who nevertheless continued to observe the law of Moses denied that Paul was an apostle because he taught that it was no longer necessary to be circumcised or to observe the sabbath. Even the other apostles thought that he was teaching something different because of this, and they denied that he was an apostle. But to the Corinthians Paul was an apostle, because they had seen the signs of God’s power in him.

Once again, Paul makes his point by concession, for the whole world had him as its apostle.

Here Paul begins to develop the argument which he set out above, namely: All things are lawful for me, but I will not be enslaved by anything (6:12).

Paul says that if anyone wants to examine his works, let him look at the Corinthians, for they are a sufficient witness to his labors.

This is what Paul meant when he said that all things were lawful to him.

The apostles concentrated on undistracted preaching and took their wives around as Christian sisters rather than as spouses, to be their fellow ministers to the women of the household, so that the gospel would reach them without causing scandal.

When his identity has been established, he shows that the privileges granted to the other apostles are his also, namely, exemption from manual labor and livelihood in recompense for his preaching as the Lord appointed. This is stated most clearly according to the verses where St. Paul argues explicitly that faithful women, possessing the goods of this world, went along with the apostles and ministered to them from their own supplies that the servants of God might lack none of those commodities which constitute the necessities of life. . . . Certain persons, not understanding this passage, have interpreted it as wife. The obscurity of the Greek word deceived them, since, in Greek, the same word is used for wife and woman. Yet the apostle has placed the words in such a way that people should not be deceived, since he says not merely a woman but a sister woman, and not to take in marriage but to take about.

To what right does he refer unless it be to the one which the Lord gave to those whom he sent to preach the kingdom of heaven when he said: Eat what they have; for the laborer deserves his wages?^[1] He offered himself as an exponent of this privilege. Very faithful women attended to the necessities of his life at their own expense.

Paul means by this that he and Barnabas do have this right, but they do not want to exercise it.

The Lord directed those who preach the gospel to live by the gospel, that is, to maintain at the expense of the faithful that life for which food and clothing are essential.

The apostleship was much more dangerous than being a soldier. For their warfare was not just with men but with demons as well. The apostles were both soldiers and husbandmen and shepherds, not of the earth, nor of irrational animals, nor in such wars as are perceived by the senses, but of rational souls and in battle array with the demons.

The church has its own soldiers and its own provincial officers . . . its vineyard and its planters, its flock and its shepherds. . . . Thus some are rightly fed and clothed at the expense of the charitable rich. They accept nothing for their own necessities except from those who sell their goods. They are not to be judged and condemned by the more perfect members of Christ who furnish their own needs with their own hands—a higher virtue which the apostle strongly commends.^[1] They in turn ought not to condemn as Christians of lower grade those from whose resources they are supplied. . . . The servants of God who live by selling the honest works of their own hands could, with much less impropriety, condemn those from whom they receive nothing than could those others who are unable to work with their hands because of some bodily weakness yet who condemn the very ones at whose expense they live.

Paul indicates here that his position corresponds to the teaching of Scripture and that his refusal to accept any payment from the Corinthians was with good reason.

God’s care was not only for the oxen^[1] but moreso for the apostles, for whose sake he uttered these words.

Why does Paul mention this, when he could have used the example of the priests?^[1] The reason is that he wanted to prove his case beyond any shadow of doubt. If God cares about oxen, how much more will he care about the labor of teachers?

These animals accomplish their life and purpose in this world according to the incomprehensible will of the Creator. They render no account of their deeds because they are not rational. Is God concerned about oxen? Human beings, however, because they have been made rational, will render an account to God for themselves and for all the things which they have received for use in this present life.

The whole of Scripture applies to us by way of analogy.

Paul points out that those who contribute to their teachers receive more than they give.

Paul emphasizes the fact that his fellow apostles were not transgressing in any way when they did not engage in manual labor to provide the necessities of life, but, as the Lord directed, living on the gospel, they accepted, without offering payment, bodily nourishment from those to whom they in turn furnished spiritual nourishment without demanding payment.

Paul does not exercise his rights because they might be an obstacle to the gospel. That left him free to argue that he was not one of the false apostles.

The case of the apostles was much stronger than that of the priests. The priesthood was an honor, but the apostles were exposed to dangers, slaughters and violent deaths. In saying We have seen spiritual good among you he points to the storms, the dangers, the snares, the unspeakable evils endured in preaching. But Paul was unwilling to despise the things of the old law or to exalt what belonged to him. He even provided his own possessions. He reckoned their value not from the dangers but from the greatness of God’s gift. He did not say if we have exposed ourselves to danger but if we have sown spiritual things among you.

It was not by the law of Moses that God followed the practice of the Gentiles, but natural reason itself decrees that a person should live from his labor.

The apostle says this [here and in 2 Timothy 2:3-6] so that Timothy might understand that what he took from those for whom he was, as it were, fighting, and whom he was cultivating as a vine, or feeding as a flock, was not a sign of begging but an acknowledgment of a right.

The Lord directed that those who preach the gospel should have their living from the gospel. But I for my part have appealed to none of these rights. . . . What is clearer than this? What is more definite? My only fear is that, when I discuss the passage in an attempt to explain it, I may obscure that which is of itself patent and forceful. For, they who do not understand these words, or pretend that they do not understand them, understand mine much less.

For the laborer deserves his hire.^[1] He showed that this practice^[2] was permitted, though not commanded, lest perhaps a disciple who took some compensation for his personal needs from those to whom he was preaching might think he was doing wrong. That it was more commendable to omit this practice is shown clearly in the life of the apostle . . . [who] declared: Nevertheless I have not used this right. . . . He possessed the right, but he did not bind his followers by a command. Since we are, then, unable to comprehend many passages, we gather from the deeds of the saints how to understand those passages which may easily be misinterpreted if reference is not made to the example set by the saints.

It is better that I die than that they ravish and plunder some of my brothers and by sly verbal deception lead captive the little children and sucklings in Christ.

Paul says he would rather die because he knew it would be better from the standpoint of his future salvation.

The servant sent by the Lord does what he has to do even if he is not willing, because if he does not do it he will suffer for it. Moses preached to Pharaoh even though he did not want to,^[1] and Jonah was forced to preach to the Ninevites.^[2]

What then shall I do, to whom the dispensation of the Word is committed? Although I am an unprofitable servant,^[1] I have, nevertheless, received from the Lord the commission to distribute the measure of wheat to the master’s servants.^[2]

Surely it is better to merit a reward than to serve as a steward. Let us not be bound by the yoke of slavery, but let us serve in charity of spirit.

Up to now I am so far restored in that glory that I confess I am ignorant not only how near I come to it but even whether I shall come to it at all. It is true I am a dispenser of eternal salvation along with my other innumerable fellow servants. For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward. To be a dispenser of that salvation by word and sacrament is not at all the same as to be a partaker of it.

What can equal preaching? For it makes men vie even with the angels themselves.