why does Paul compare ministry to soldiers being paid by the government?
Paul uses the soldier-pay comparison to show that a servant of God is worthy of support. Just as the government pays troops a living wage or stipend, so apostles deserved compensation for their labor, time, and suffering—though Paul refused payment to prevent any accusation that he ministered for money.
Les explains that Paul is still defending his apostleship. Paul argues from Scripture and common sense that a servant of God—pastor, teacher, or evangelist—is worthy of his labor. The soldier analogy asks whether a nation expects a man called into the armed forces to pay his own wages; the government provides a living wage. Rome also paid its troops a stipend so they could buy necessities. Paul adds the vineyard and flock illustrations: the vineyard owner deserves a return, and the shepherd should partake of the milk. Paul’s point is that as an apostle he deserved compensation for his time and suffering, but he never took it so no one could accuse him of doing it for money. Les notes Paul had seen in Judaism how money could corrupt him, which is another reason he was adamant against taking pay; Les shares that same fear in his own ministry.
Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?
More Questions
How were Roman soldiers paid, and what does that have to do with Paul's argument?
Roman troops were paid a certain stipend so they could buy their necessities, and Paul is referring to that practice.