Having argued vigorously for his right to the Corinthians' support, Paul now proceeded to argue just as strongly for his right to give up this right, his point from the beginning. He explained why he had deliberately not accepted their patronage. This pericope gives the reader a window into the apostle's soul. We see here what made him tick.
9:15 Paul had this right, but he chose not to use it. He did not want his readers to interpret what he had said on this subject as a veiled request for support. He had made his decision to support himself while he preached freely; the Lord did not require this of him. Consequently he could take justifiable pride in it, as anyone who makes a sacrifice for the welfare of others can.
9:16 He could not take justifiable pride in the fact that he preached the gospel, however. Even though it involved sacrificing for the benefit of others, he had made those sacrifices in obedience to the Lord (Acts 26:16-18; cf. Matt. 28:19-20). He had no choice about preaching the gospel as he did about how he would live while he did so. Preaching was his divine destiny. Indeed he would be in serious trouble with his Lord if he did not preach the gospel. (And so will we.)
9:17 If he preached the gospel willingly, he would receive a reward (pay) from the Lord. If he did so unwillingly, he would not receive a reward but would be simply doing his duty as a steward (manager of a household; cf. 4:1-2).
9:18 Paul's reward for preaching the gospel willingly was the privilege of preaching it without cost to his hearers. His highest pay was the privilege of preaching without pay.209This choice may seem as though it was Paul's decision rather than a reward from the Lord, but he viewed it as a privilege that came to him from the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 11:7-12).
Paul had all the rights of an apostle and was free to insist on them if he chose to do so. He also had the freedom not to insist on them. His relinquishing his right to support corresponds to his giving up his right to eat in a pagan temple (8:13). In both cases it was the welfare of others that led him to forgo a legitimate right.
