John Calvin Commentary 1 Corinthians 9:18

"What then is my reward? That, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel without charge, so as not to use to the full my right in the gospel." — 1 Corinthians 9:18 (ASV)

What then is my reward? He infers from what has been said before that he has a basis for glorying in this: that he labored gratuitously on behalf of the Corinthians. This is because it appears from this that he applied himself willingly to the office of teaching, since he vigorously set himself to obviate all hindrances to the gospel. Not satisfied with merely teaching, he endeavored to advance its doctrine by every method.

This then is the sum: “I am under the necessity of preaching the gospel. If I do not do it, woe is to me, for I resist God’s calling. But it is not enough to preach unless I do it willingly; for he who fulfills God’s commandment unwillingly does not act as befits him, suitably to his office. But if I obey God willingly, it will then be permissible for me to glory. Therefore, it was necessary for me to provide the gospel without charge, so that I might glory with good reason.”

Papists endeavor from this passage to establish their contrivance regarding works of supererogation. “Paul,” they say, “would have fulfilled the duties of his office by preaching the gospel, but he adds something further, 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 further than the ordinary calling of pastors required, because he refrained from taking pay, which the Lord allows pastors to take.

But since it was part of his duty to guard against every occasion of offense that he foresaw, and since he saw that the course of the gospel would be impeded if he used his liberty (though that was out of the ordinary course), I maintain that even in that case he rendered to God nothing more than what was due. For I ask: “Is it not the part of a good pastor to remove occasions of offense, as far as he is able 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 Him, since he did nothing but what the necessity of his office (though it was an extraordinary necessity) demanded.

Away, then, with that wicked imagination that we compensate for our faults in God’s sight by works of supererogation! Furthermore, away with the very term, which is replete with diabolical pride. This passage, assuredly, is mistakenly twisted to support that meaning.

The error of Papists is refuted in a general way as follows: Whatever works are comprehended in the law are falsely termed works of supererogation, as is clear from the words of Christ (Luke 17:10).

When you 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. I prove this second statement as follows: There are two classes of good works, for they are all reducible to either the service of God or to love. Now nothing belongs to the service of God that is not included in this summary: You shall love the Lord with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength. There is also no duty of love that is not required in that precept: Love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:30–31).

But as for the objection raised by Papists—that it is possible for one to be acceptable if he devotes the tenth part of his income, and they 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 this subtlety.

For the fact that the deeds of the pious are approved is not at all due to their perfection, but it is because their imperfection and deficiency are not reckoned to their account. Hence, even if they were doing a hundredfold 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 for offense is an uncontrolled liberty and an abuse. We must, therefore, keep within bounds so that we may not give occasion for offense. This passage also confirms more fully what I just touched upon: that Paul did nothing beyond what the duty of his office required, because it was not proper that the liberty allowed him by God should be abused in any way.