1 Corinthians 9:2–12

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.

"If to others I am not an Apostle, yet at least I am to you."

Do you see how far he is from enlarging here without necessity? And yet he had the whole world to speak of, and barbarous nations, and sea and land. However, he mentions none of these things, but carries his point by concession, and even granting more than he need. As if he had said, "Why need I dwell on things over and above, since these even alone are enough for my present purpose? I speak not, you will observe, of my achievements in other quarters, but of those which have you for witnesses. Upon which it follows that if from no other quarter, yet from you I have a right to receive. Nevertheless, from whom I had most right to receive, even you whose teacher I was, from those I received not."

"If to others I am not an Apostle, yet at least I am to you." Again, he states his point by concession. For the whole world had him for its Apostle. "However," saith he, "I say not that, I am not contending nor disputing, but what concerns you I lay down. 'For the seal of mine Apostleship are ye:'" i.e., its proof. "Should any one, moreover, desire to learn whence I am an Apostle, you are the persons whom I bring forward: for all the signs of an Apostle have I exhibited among you, and not one have I failed in." As also he speaks in the Second Epistle, saying, "Though I am nothing, truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works. For what is there wherein ye were made inferior to the rest of the Churches?" Wherefore he saith, "The seal of mine Apostleship are ye." "For I both exhibited miracles, and taught by word, and underwent dangers, and shewed forth a blameless life." And these topics you may see fully set forth by these two Epistles, how he lays before them the demonstration of each with all exactness.

I do not say that I am a teacher of the whole universe; but am I not a teacher to you at least? Why then did I take nothing from you, from whom I had a special right to take? Through such a concession he further strengthens his argument.

That is, the proof. If anyone wishes to be convinced whether I am truly an apostle, I will point to you. You constitute the seal and confirmation of my apostleship; for I have accomplished among you everything that an apostle must do.

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).

"My defence to them that examine me is this."

What is, "My defence to them that examine me is this?" "To those who seek to know whereby I am proved to be an Apostle, or who accuse me as receiving money, or inquire the cause of my not receiving, or would fain shew that I am not an Apostle: to all such, my instruction given to you and these things which I am about to say, may stand for a full explanation and defence."

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.

To those wishing to know whence it is evident that I am an apostle, I will present you in my defense. For having proved that you were taught everything by me, I will strike down those who condemn me.

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

And if we would persuade any of our fellow-guests to virtue, we are all the more on this account to abstain from those dainty dishes; and so exhibit ourselves as a bright pattern of virtue, such as we ourselves have in Christ. "For if any of such meats make a brother to stumble, I shall not eat it as long as the world lasts," says he, "that I may not make my brother stumble." I gain the man by a little self-restraint. "Have we not power to eat and to drink?" And "we know"-he says the truth-"that an idol is nothing in the world; but we have only one true God, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus. But," he says, "through thy knowledge thy weak brother perishes, for whom Christ died; and they that wound the conscience of the weak brethren sin against Christ."

"Have we no right to eat and to drink? Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer?"

Why, how are these sayings a defence? "Because, when it appears that I abstain even from things which are allowed, it cannot be just to look suspiciously on me as a deceiver or one acting for gain."

Wherefore, from what was before alleged and from my having instructed you and from this which I have now said, I have matter sufficient to make my defence to you: and all who examine me I meet upon this ground, alleging both what has gone before and this which follows: "Have we no right to eat and to drink? have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer?" Yet for all this, having it I abstain?

What then? did he not use to eat or to drink? It were most true to say that in many places he really did not eat nor drink: for "in hunger," saith he, "and in thirst, and in nakedness" we were abiding. Here, however, this is not his meaning; but what? "We eat not nor drink, receiving of those whom we instruct, though we have a right so to receive."

"Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Observe his skilfulness. The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of them: as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort or the more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort.

For the brethren too of the Lord, being freed from their first unbelief, had come to be among those who were approved, although they attained not to the Apostles. And accordingly the middle place is that which he hath assigned to them, setting down those who were in the extremes before and after.

That is, having taken what is needed from the disciples. But we do not use this authority, even though we have it.

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"? He offered himself as an exponent of this privilege. Very faithful women attended to the necessities of his life at their own expense.

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."

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.

Thus it comes to pass that "all things are lawful, but not all are expedient," so long as (it remains true that) whoever has a "permission" granted is (thereby) tried, and is (consequently) judged during the process of trial in (the case of the particular) "permission." Apostles, withal, had a "licence" to marry, and lead wives about (with them ).

The apostles were followed by wealthy women who provided them with necessities and took upon themselves all the care for this, so that they might occupy themselves solely with preaching. Note that he placed the chief apostle last, as the most important, expressing this thought: why speak of the others? Peter himself does this. And he calls the brothers of the Lord James, the bishop of Jerusalem, Joses, Simon, and Judas (Matt. 13:55), who were called brothers of the Lord because Joseph was betrothed to the Mother of God.

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.

"Or I only and Barnabas, have we not a right to forbear working?"

See his humility of mind and his soul pure from envy, how he takes care not to conceal him whom he knew to be a partaker with himself in this perfection. For if the other things be common, how is not this common? Both they and we are apostles and are free, and have seen Christ, and have exhibited the works of Apostles. Therefore we likewise have a right both to live without working and to be supported by our disciples.

For there is extant withal an Epistle to the Hebrews under the name of Barnabas-a man sufficiently accredited by God, as being one whom Paul has stationed next to himself in the uninterrupted observance of abstinence: "Or else, I alone and Barnabas, have not we the power of working? " And, of course, the Epistle of Barnabas is more generally received among the Churches than that apocryphal "Shepherd" of adulterers.

That is, do we really not have the authority to live without working and to be supported at the expense of our disciples, without laboring? He did not fail to mention Barnabas either, who, as he knew, was also scrupulous in this regard; for he lived by his own labor.

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. 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.

On that passage in 1 Corinthians 9: Who serves as a soldier, etc.; the Gloss says: "As the Lord ordained, those living from the Gospel ate bread freely given, received from those to whom they preached grace freely given"; but it is called bread freely given because it was not acquired through bodily labor: therefore those exercising the work of preaching are not bound to bodily labor.

"What soldier ever serveth at his own charges?"

For since, which was the strongest point, he had proved from the Apostles that it is lawful to do so, he next comes to examples and to the common practice; as he uses to do: "What soldier serveth at his own charges?" saith he. But do thou consider, I pray, how very suitable are the examples to his proposed subject, and how he mentions first that which is accompanied with danger; viz. soldiership and arms and wars. For such a kind of thing was the Apostolate, nay rather much more hazardous than these. For not with men alone was their warfare, but with demons also, and against the prince of those beings was their battle array. What he saith therefore is this: "Not even do heathen governors, cruel and unjust as they are, require their soldiers to endure service and peril and live on their own means. How then could Christ ever have required this?"

Nor is he satisfied with one example. For to him who is rather simple and dull, this also is wont to come as a great refreshment, viz. their seeing the common custom also going along with the laws of God. Wherefore he proceeds to another topic also and says, "Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof?" For as by the former he indicated his dangers, so by this his labor and abundant travail and care.

He adds likewise a third example, saying, "Who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk thereof?" He is exhibiting the great concern which it becomes a teacher to show for those who are under his rule. For, in fact, the Apostles were both soldiers and husbandmen and shepherds, not of the earth nor of irrational animals, nor in such wars as are perceptible by sense; but of reasonable souls and in battle array with the demons.

It also must be remarked how every where he preserves moderation, seeking the useful only, not the extraordinary. For he said not, "What soldier serveth and is not enriched?" but, "What soldier ever serveth at his own charges?" Neither did he say, "Who planteth a vineyard, and gathereth not gold, or spareth to collect the whole fruit?" but, "Who eateth not of the fruit thereof?" Neither did he say, "Who feedeth a flock, and maketh not merchandize of the lambs?" But what? "And eateth not of the milk thereof?" Not of the lambs, but of the milk; signifying, that a little relief should be enough for the teacher, even his necessary food alone. (This refers to those who would devour all and gather the whole of the fruit.) "So likewise the Lord ordained," saying, "The laborer is worthy of his food."

And not this only doth he establish by his illustrations, but he shows also what kind of man a priest ought to be. For he ought to possess both the courage of a soldier and the diligence of a husbandman and the carefulness of a shepherd, and after all these, to seek nothing more than necessaries.

When he teaches that every man ought to live of his own industry, he begins with a copious induction of examples-of soldiers, and shepherds, and husbandmen. But he wanted divine authority.

For all soldiers receive their sustenance from the public. He fittingly placed the service of a soldier first, for it bears a resemblance to apostolic service because of the dangers connected with it and because of the struggle against spiritual enemies.

By this example he pointed to the difficulty, the multitude of misfortunes and cares. However, he did not say: does not use all the fruit, but: "does not eat the fruits." Nor did he say: who does not grow rich from the fruit, but: does not "eat." Thus everywhere he persuades to seek what is necessary, and not what is superfluous.

He did not say: sells the sheep, or: eats them, or: all the milk, but: "of the milk," showing us by this that a teacher must be content with small compensation and necessary sustenance. By the name "shepherd" he indicates that a teacher must have great care.

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.

Having shewn, as you see, both from the Apostles, that it is not forbidden the teacher to receive, and from illustrations found in common life, he proceeds also to a third head, thus saying,

"Do I speak these things after the manner of men? or saith not the law also the same?"

For since he had hitherto alleged nothing out of the Scriptures, but put forward the common custom; "think not," saith he, "that I am confident in these alone, nor that I go to the opinions of men for the ground of these enactments. For I can shew that these things are also well-pleasing to God, and I read an ancient law enjoining them." Wherefore also he carries on his discourse in the form of a question, which is apt to be done in things fully acknowledged; thus saying, "Say I these things after the manner of men?" i.e. "do I strengthen myself only by human examples?" "or saith not the law also the same?"

That is, do I confirm this only by human examples, and have no testimony from Scripture? I can prove that this is also pleasing to God; the Law commands the same thing, which is not from men, but from God.

Let him use those tenths and first-fruits, which are given according to the command of God, as a man of God; as also let him dispense in a right manner the free-will offerings which are brought in on account of the poor, to the orphans, the widows, the afflicted, and strangers in distress, as having that God for the examiner of his accounts who has committed the disposition to him. Distribute to all those in want with righteousness, and yourselves use the things which belong to the Lord, but do not abuse them; eating of them, but not eating them all up by yourselves: communicate with those that are in want, and thereby show yourselves unblameable before God. For if you shall consume them by yourselves, you will be reproached by God, who says to such unsatiable people, who alone devour all, "You eat up the milk, and clothe yourselves with the wool;" [Ezekiel 34:3] and in another passage, "Must you alone live upon the earth"? [Isaiah 5:8] Upon which account you are commanded in the law, "You shall love your neighbour as yourself." [Leviticus 19:18] Now we say these things, not as if you might not partake of the fruits of your labours; for it is written, "You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox which treads out the grain;" [Deuteronomy 25:4; 1 Corinthians 9:9] but that you should do it with moderation and righteousness. As, therefore, the ox that labours in the threshing-floor without a muzzle eats indeed, but does not eat all up; so do you who labour in the threshing-floor, that is, in the Church of God, eat of the Church: which was also the case of the Levites, who served in the tabernacle of the testimony, which was in all things a type of the Church.

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.

"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."

And on what account hath he mentioned this, having the example of the priests? Wishing to establish it far beyond what the case required. Further, lest any should say, "And what have we to do with the saying about the oxen?" he works it out more exactly, saying, "Is it for the oxen that God careth;" Doth God then, tell me, take no care for oxen? Well, He doth take care of them, but not so as to make a law concerning such a thing as this. So that had he not been hinting at something important, training the Jews to mercy in the case of the brutes, and through these, discoursing with them of the teachers also; he would not have taken so much interest as even to make a law to forbid the muzzling of oxen.

Wherein he points out another thing likewise, that the labor of teachers both is and ought to be great.

And again another thing. What then is this? That whatever is said by the Old Testament respecting care for brutes, in its principal meaning bears on the instruction of human beings: as in fact do all the rest: the precepts, for example, concerning various garments; and those concerning vineyards and seeds and not making the ground bear divers crops, and those concerning leprosy; and, in a word, all the rest: for they being of a duller sort He was discoursing with them from these topics, advancing them by little and little.

And see how in what follows he doth not even confirm it, as being clear and self-evident. For having said, "Is it for the oxen that God careth?" he added, "or saith he it altogether for our sake?" Not adding even the "altogether" at random, but that he might not leave the hearer any thing whatever to reply.

And he dwells upon the metaphor, saying and declaring, "Yea for our sakes it was written, because he who ploweth ought to plow in hope;" i.e., the teacher ought to enjoy the returns of his labors; "and he that thresheth ought to thresh in hope of partaking." And observe his wisdom in that from the seed he transferred the matter to the threshing floor; herein also again manifesting the many toils of the teachers, that they in their own persons both plough and tread the floor. And of the ploughing, because there was nothing to reap, but labor only, he used the word, "hope;" but of treading the floor he presently allows the fruit, saying, "He that thresheth is a partaker of his hope."

Further, lest any should say, "Is this then the return for so many toils," he adds, "in hope," i.e., "which is to come." No other thing therefore doth the mouth of this animal being unmuzzled declare than this; that the teachers who labor ought also to enjoy some return.

God's care was not only for the oxen but moreso for the apostles, for whose sake he uttered these words.

But the new law's wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land. Therefore as we have shown above that the coming cessation of the old law and of the carnal circumcision was declared, so, too, the observance of the new law and the spiritual circumcision has shone out into the voluntary obediences of peace.

But why enlarge on such a subject? When the very apostle whom our heretics adopt, interprets the law which allows an unmuzzled mouth to the oxen that tread out the corn, not of cattle, but of ourselves; and also alleges that the rock which followed (the Israelites) and supplied them with drink was Christ; teaching the Galatians, moreover, that the two narratives of the sons of Abraham had an allegorical meaning in their course; and to the Ephesians giving an intimation that, when it was declared in the beginning that a man should leave his father and mother and become one flesh with his wife, he applied this to Christ and the church.

What was the use, however, of adducing the Creator's, which he was destroying? It was vain to do so; for his god had no such authority! (The apostle) says: "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," and adds: "Doth God take care of oxen? "Yes, of oxen, for the sake of men! For, says he, "it is written for our sakes.

He confirms the desired point abundantly, which is why he brings up the example of oxen as well.

What then? Does He truly not care? He does care, but not so as to give laws about them. Therefore, by His concern for dumb animals He was suggesting something else, namely He was training the Jews in caring for their teachers. From this we also learn that everything said in the Old Testament about dumb animals serves for the edification of people.

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

To these prime counsels of innocence, chastity, and justice, and piety, are also added prescriptions of humanity, as when every seventh year slaves are released for liberty; when at the same period the land is spared from tillage; a place is also granted to the needy; and from the treading ox's mouth the muzzle is removed, for the enjoyment of the fruit of his labour before him, in order that kindness first shown in the case of animals might be raised from such rudiments to the refreshment of men.

He used the word "certainly" (πάντως), as about a universally acknowledged matter, so as not to give the listener occasion to object anything.

That is, the teacher must cultivate the field of hearts and labor with the hope of recompense and reward.

From sowing he passed to threshing, so as to express by this as well how many labors the apostles have: for they both plow and thresh. Since the one who plows only hopes, while the one who threshes already partly enjoys as well, he said that the one who threshes receives what he expects. And lest someone say: "What then? For such great labors of the apostles you assign them a reward consisting only in receiving sustenance?" he added: "in hope," that is, of future blessings, so that one should hope for those blessings as well, and besides that also eat and drink at the expense of the disciples.

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.

Behold, however, he who forbade carrying a purse and bag grants expenses and food from that same preaching. For it is added: "And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as are with them. For the laborer is worthy of his hire." If our peace is received, it is fitting that we remain in the same house eating and drinking such things as are with them, so that we may obtain earthly provisions from those to whom we offer the rewards of the heavenly homeland. Hence Paul also, receiving these very things as of little account, says: "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?" And it should be noted what is added: "The laborer is worthy of his hire," because the very food for sustenance is already part of the wages of the work, so that here the reward from the labor of preaching may begin, which is perfected there in the vision of truth. In this matter it should be considered that two rewards are owed to our one work: one on the way, the other in the homeland; one which sustains us in labor, another which recompenses us in the resurrection. Therefore the reward which is received in the present ought to accomplish this in us: that we may strive more vigorously toward the subsequent reward. Therefore every preacher should not preach in order to receive a reward in this time, but should receive a reward in order to continue preaching. For whoever preaches in order to receive here a reward of either praise or gift, without doubt deprives himself of the eternal reward. But whoever desires that what he says please men so that, while what is said pleases, through those same words not he himself but the Lord may be loved, or who therefore obtains earthly provisions in preaching lest he be wearied from the voice of preaching through want—for this one without doubt nothing stands in the way of receiving the reward in the homeland, because he took expenses on the way.

"If we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?"

Lo, he adds also a fourth argument for the duty of yielding support. For since he had said, "What soldier ever serveth at his own charges?" and, "who planteth a vineyard?" and, "who feedeth a flock?" and introduced the ox that treadeth the corn; he points out likewise another most reasonable cause on account of which they might justly receive; viz. having bestowed much greater gifts, no more as having labored only. What is it then? "if we sowed unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things?" Seest thou a most just allegation and fuller of reason than all the former? for "in those instances," says he, "carnal is the seed, carnal also is the fruit; but here not so, but the seed is spiritual, the return carnal." Thus, to prevent high thoughts in those who contribute to their teachers, he signified that they receive more than they give. As if he had said, "Husbandmen, whatsoever they sow, this also do they receive; but we, sowing in your souls spiritual things, do reap carnal." For such is the kind of support given by them.

Here he proves the justice of the cause. You, he says, repay unequally for what you have received. For we sowed in you spiritual things, and you repay us with carnal things. Is this a great thing?

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.

"If others partake of this right over you, do not we yet more?"

See also again another argument, and this too from examples though not of the same kind. For it is not Peter whom he mentions here nor the Apostles, but certain other spurious ones, with whom he afterwards enters into combat, and concerning whom he says, "If a man devour you, if he take you captive, if he exalt himself, if he smite you on the face," and already he is sounding the prelude to the fight with them. Wherefore neither did he say, "If others take of you," but pointing out their insolence and tyranny and trafficking, he says, "if others partake of this right over you," i.e., "rule you, exercise authority, use you as servants, not taking you captive only, but with much authority." Wherefore he added "do not we yet more?" which he would not have said if the discourse were concerning the Apostles. But it is evident that he hints at certain pestilent men, and deceivers of them. "So that besides the law of Moses even ye yourselves have made a law in behalf of the duty of contribution."

And having said, "do not we yet more?" he does not prove why yet more, but leaves it to their consciences to convince them of that, wishing at the same time both to alarm and to abash them more thoroughly.

"Nevertheless, we did not use this right;" i.e., "did not receive." Do you see, when he had by so many reasons before proved that receiving is not unlawful, how he next says, "we receive not," that he might not seem to abstain as from a thing forbidden? "For not because it is unlawful," saith he, "do I not receive; for it is lawful and this we have many ways shown: from the Apostles; from the affairs of life, the soldier, the husbandman, and the shepherd; from the law of Moses; from the very nature of the case, in that we have sowed unto you spiritual things; from what yourselves have done to others." But as he had laid down these things, lest he should seem to put to shame the Apostles who were in the habit of receiving; abashing them and signifying that not as from a forbidden thing doth he abstain from it: so again, lest by his large store of proof and the examples and reasonings by which he had pointed out the propriety of receiving, he should seem to be anxious to receive himself and therefore to say these things; he now corrects it. And afterwards he laid it down more clearly where he says, "And I wrote not these things, that it may be so done in my case;" but here his words are, "we did not use this right."

And what is a still greater thing, neither could any have this to say, that being in abundance we declined using it; rather, when necessity pressed upon us we would not yield to the necessity. Which also in the second Epistle he says; "I robbed other Churches, taking wages of them that I might minister unto you; and when I was present with you, and was in want, I was not a burden on any man." And in this Epistle again, "We both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted." And here again he hints the same thing, saying, "But we bear all things." For by saying, "we bear all things," he intimates both hunger and great straits and all the other things. "But not even thus have we been compelled," saith he, "to break the law which we laid down for ourselves. Wherefore? "that we may cause no hinderance to the Gospel of Christ." For since the Corinthians were rather weak-minded, "lest we should wound you," saith he "by receiving, we chose to do even more than was commanded rather than hinder the Gospel," i.e., your instruction. Now if we in a matter left free to us, and when we were both enduring much hardship and having Apostles for our pattern, used abstinence lest we should give hindrance, (and he did not say, "subversion," but "hindrance;" nor simply "hindrance," but "any" hindrance,) that we might not, so to speak, cause so much as the slightest suspense and delay to the course of the Word: "If now," saith he, "we used so great care, how much more ought you to abstain, who both come far short of the Apostles and have no law to mention, giving you permission: but contrariwise are both putting your hand to things forbidden and things which tend to the great injury of the Gospel, not to its hindrance only and not even having any pressing necessity in view." For all this discussion he had moved on account of these Corinthians, who were making their weaker brethren to stumble by eating of things sacrificed to idols.

He hints at certain false teachers who took from them shamelessly and of their own accord. Therefore he did not say: if others take, but: "have authority over you," that is, they lord it over you, rule over you, order you about like slaves; do we not have all the more right, we who are true apostles?

Though we have the authority to eat and drink at your expense, yet we did not make use of this authority, lest you be led into temptation. But you do not abstain even from food offered to idols, so as not to lead the weaker among the brethren into temptation through this!

Lest anyone should say: "you had no need, therefore you did not take," he says: although we find ourselves in great hardship, we nevertheless endure all things—both hunger, and thirst, and nakedness—so that no hindrance, that is, no delay, should arise for the Gospel and the preaching.