1 Corinthians 9:7

Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who plants a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Or who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock?

Paul had stated the guiding principle of his life to be: All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient, chap. 6:12. In accordance with this principle he had been practicing self-denial out of love to the Lord and to his brethren, he had renounced his own rights and privileges for the sake of winning souls for Christ and spreading the Gospel. And therefore he now defends his position and his Christian liberty in one of the most elevated and beautiful passages in the entire New Testament. He has the same rights as other Christians, as other apostles, and if he chooses not to exercise these rights, this fact does not deprive him of his privileges, but should rather cause the Corinthian Christians to esteem him all the more highly for his self-denial in their behalf. These were his prerogatives: He was free, he had become a partaker of the liberty wherewith Christ had made him free, and in the exercise of this liberty was accountable to no man; he was an apostle, and this in spite of the fact that some deceivers were casting suspicions on the certainty of his call, 2 Corinthians 11:13. So far as the Corinthians are concerned, his apostleship is substantiated in two ways: He has, with the eyes of the body, seen the Lord, their common Lord, Jesus Christ, Acts 9:1, when the Lord appeared to him on the way to Damascus; the Corinthians themselves are his work, the concrete evidence of his calling, through his work the Lord had created them to be new creatures, the preaching of the Gospel had been effective in their case, what they had received was the Lord's grace and blessing which is given through the word and work of His servants.

The apostle feels constrained to emphasize this point: If to others I am not an apostle, at any rate, most certainly, I am to you. In other congregations, where the Judaizing teachers were very strong, they might deny his apostleship, in their view or opinion his claims may not be well founded. But so far as the Corinthians were concerned, they surely cannot but acknowledge him, since the simple fact of their conversion was a constant confirmation of his contention: they were the seal of his apostleship in the Lord. The Lord affixed His seal to the work of His servant by making his words powerful for the conversion of the Corinthians. See John 3:33. Paul had been among the believers of Corinth with the signs of an apostle, 2 Corinthians 12:12, and the Lord had given the increase in such a signally wonderful manner as to confirm Paul's commission in the eyes of all men that were not blinded by prejudice. And this is the apology, the answer to his critics, to those that question his apostleship, that wish to investigate his claims; he simply points to the Corinthian congregation, as he needed no other defense.

Paul now vindicates other rights: Is it that we have not the right to eat and to drink? Does anyone question our claim to maintenance? Mark 6:10; Luke 10:7; Luke 22:30. He had the right to expect that the people whom he served should make proper provision for his support, that he might live at the expense of the congregation in whose interests he was laboring. Another right: Have we not power to take about with us a Christian sister as wife? He maintains his right to be married if he so chooses. It is not only a right of Christian ministers that they may enter holy wedlock, but the apostle even declares it to be a matter of Christian liberty for a traveling preacher, a missionary, to be married and to take his wife along to the various stations. For a congregation to prefer an unmarried pastor because his maintenance will not require such large amounts of money is to impose a condition which cannot be made to conform with Scriptures. The other apostles made use of their right, and their wives usually accompanied them. The brothers (step-brothers, cousins) of the Lord Jesus followed the custom of the Jews in being married, and of Peter it is expressly stated that he had a wife. Note: The expression, "brothers of the Lord," may be taken literally. For, as one commentator has it, "the statement, 'born of the Virgin Mary,' is an article of the Church's creed; but the question whether she bore children afterwards involves no point of Christian faith. " A final right: Is it that only I and Barnabas have not the power to stop working, to give up manual labor for our own support? Barnabas, who had been associated with Paul in the early labors in Asia Minor, Acts 4:36; Acts 11:22; Acts 13:14, had disposed of his property in Jerusalem for the benefit of the congregation and had followed the example of Paul in supporting himself, even when on missionary trips, by the labor of his hands, a fact which Paul here openly acknowledges. Incidentally, this reference to his former colleague shows that their difference of opinion, Acts 15:37, did not result in a lasting estrangement, but that the two leaders adjusted their difficulty, even though they continued to hold their individual opinion as to their preference in the matter. Paul insists that they were not under obligation to work for their livelihood while they preached, which implied that they should not misunderstand him, but should rather realize that his intention was not to burden them, 2 Corinthians 12:16. So the three rights which Paul argues for "in fact amount to the one which Paul contends for in the sequel: he might justly have imposed his personal support, and that in the more expensive character of a married man, upon the Christian communities for which he labored, thus sparing himself the disadvantages and hardships of manual toil."

With three parables the apostle illustrates his right and his power to receive maintenance at the expense of the congregation, the figures being taken from the camp, the vineyard, and the flock: Who ever serves in the army at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat its fruit? Or who acts as a shepherd to a flock and does not eat of the milk of the flock? In case someone should serve as soldier at his own private charges, in case someone should go to the trouble of planting a vineyard and not use the fruit, in case a shepherd should have charge of a flock and not use the part of the milk which was his portion, he would be doing something out of the ordinary and could boast a goodness which no man demanded of him, for the rule was altogether the other way. Note that all three figures find their application in the work of a faithful minister: the valiant soldier, fighting the battles of the Lord; the indefatigable vine-dresser, busy with the plants of the Lord's vineyard; the faithful shepherd, feeling the responsibility for every sheep and lamb of the Lord's flock.