I corinthians 9 commentary

I CORITHIAS 9 COMMETARY
Edited by Glenn Pease
The Rights of an Apostle
1. Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not
seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not the result of my
work in the Lord?
1. BARES, Am I not an apostle? - This was the point to be settled; and it is
probable that some at Corinth had denied that he could be an apostle, since it was
requisite, in order to that, to have seen the Lord Jesus; and since it was supposed that
Paul had not been a witness of his life, doctrines, and death.
Am I not free? - Am I not a free man; have I not the liberty which all Christians
possess, and especially which all the apostles possess? The “liberty” referred to here is
doubtless the privilege or right of abstaining from labor; of enjoying as others did the
domestic relations of life; and of a support as a public minister and apostle. Probably
some had objected to his claims of apostleship that he had not used this right, and that
he was conscious that he had no claim to it. By this mode of interrogation, he strongly
implies that he was a freeman, and that he had this right.
Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? - Here it is implied, and seems to be
admitted by Paul, that in order to be an “apostle” it was necessary to have seen the
Saviour. This is often declared expressly; see the note at Act_1:21-22. The reason of this
was, that the apostles were appointed to be witnesses of the life, doctrines, death, and
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and that in their “being witnesses” consisted the
uniqueness of the apostolic office. That this was the case is abundantly manifest from
Mat_28:18-19; Luk_24:48; Act_1:21-22; Act_2:32; Act_10:39-41. Hence, it was
essential, in order that anyone should be such a witness, and an apostle, that he should
have seen the Lord Jesus. In the case of Paul, therefore, who was called to this office
after the death and resurrection of the Saviour, and who had not therefore had an
opportunity of seeing and hearing him when living, this was provided for by the fact that
the Lord Jesus showed himself to him after his death and ascension, in order that he
might have this qualification for the apostolic office, Act_9:3-5, Act_9:17. To the fact of
his having been thus in a miraculous manner qualified for the apostolic office, Paul
frequently appeals, and always with the same view that it was necessary to have seen the
Lord Jesus to qualify one for this office, Act_22:14-15; Act_26:16; 1Co_15:8. It follows
from this, therefore, that no one was an apostle in the strict and proper sense who had
not seen the Lord Jesus. And it follows, also, that the apostles could have no successors

in that which constituted the uniqueness of their office; and that the office must have
commenced and ended with them.
Are not ye my work in the Lord? - Have you not been converted by my labors, or
under my ministry; and are you not a proof that the Lord, when I have been claiminG to
be an apostle, has owned me “as an apostle,” and blessed me in this work? God would
not give his sanction to an impostor, and a false pretender; and as Paul had labored
there as an apostle, this was an argument that he had been truly commissioned of God. A
minister may appeal to the blessing of God on his labors in proof that he is sent of Him.
And one of the best of all arguments that a man is sent from God exists where multitudes
of souls are converted from sin, and turned to holiness, by his labors. What better
credentials than this can a man need that he is in the employ of God? What more
consoling to his own mind? What more satisfactory to the world?
2. CLARKE, Am I not an apostle? - It is sufficiently evident that there were
persons at Corinth who questioned the apostleship of St. Paul; and he was obliged to
walk very circumspectly that they might not find any occasion against him. It appears
also that he had given them all his apostolical labors gratis; and even this, which was the
highest proof of his disinterested benevolence, was produced by his opposers as an
argument against him. “Prophets, and all divinely commissioned men, have a right to
their secular support; you take nothing: - is not this from a conviction that you have no
apostolical right?” On this point the apostle immediately enters on his own defense.
Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? - These questions are all designed as
assertions of the affirmative: I am an apostle; and I am free - possessed of all the rights
and privileges of an apostle.
Have I not seen Jesus Christ - From whom in his personal appearance to me, I
have received my apostolic commission. This was judged essentially necessary to
constitute an apostle. See Act_22:14, Act_22:15; Act_26:16.
Are not ye my work - Your conversion from heathenism is the proof that I have
preached with the Divine unction and authority.
Several good MSS. and versions transpose the two first questions in this verse, thus:
Am I not free? am I not an apostle? But I cannot see that either perspicuity or sense
gains any thing by this arrangement. On the contrary, it appears to me that his being an
apostle gave him the freedom or rights to which he refers, and therefore the common
arrangement I judge to be the best.
3. GILL, Am I not an apostle? am I not free?.... The Syriac, Ethiopic, and Vulgate
Latin versions, put the last clause first; so the Alexandrian copy, and some other copies;
and many interpreters are of opinion that it is the best order of the words; the apostle
proceeding by a gradation from the less to the greater, having respect either to his
freedom in the use of things indifferent, as eating of meats, c. for though he did not
think fit to use his liberty, to the wounding of weak consciences, it did not follow
therefore that he was not free, as some might suggest from what he had said in the latter
part of the foregoing chapter: or he may have respect to his freedom from the ceremonial
law in general; for though, for the sake of gaining souls to Christ, he became all things to
all men; to the Jews he became a Jew, that he might gain them; yet in such a manner as
to preserve his liberty in Christ, without entangling himself with the yoke of bondage.

Some have thought he intends, by his liberty, his right to insist upon a maintenance, and
that he was no more obliged to work with his hands than other persons, of which he
treats at large hereafter; but to me it rather seems that the words stand in their right
order; and that, whereas there were some persons that either denied him to be an
apostle, or at least insinuated that he was not one, nor was he to be treated as such, he
goes upon the proof of it; and the first thing he mentions is his freedom, that is, from
men; no man had any authority over him; he was not taught, nor sent forth, nor
ordained by men as a minister, but immediately by Jesus Christ, as apostles were; they
were set in the first place in the church, and had power to instruct, send forth, and
ordain others; but none had power over them; and this being the apostle's case, proved
him to be one; he was an apostle, because he was free:
have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? He had a spiritual sight of him by faith, but
that did not show him to be an apostle; this is what he had in common with other
believers: whether he saw him in the flesh, before his crucifixion and death, is not
certain; it is very probable he might; yet this was no more than what Herod and Pontius
Pilate did; but he saw him after his resurrection from the dead, to which he refers, 1Co_
15:8 and designs here, as a proof of his apostleship, this being what the apostles were
chosen to be eyewitnesses of, Act_10:41 and publish to the world: now our apostle saw
him several times; first at the time of his conversion, next when in a trance at Jerusalem,
and again in the castle where the chief captain put him for security, and very probably
also when he was caught up into the third heaven:
are not you my work in the Lord? as they were regenerated, converted persons, and
were become new creatures; not efficiently, but instrumentally; they were God's
workmanship, as he was the efficient cause of their conversion and faith; his only, as an
instrument by whom they believed; and therefore he adds, in the Lord; ascribing the
whole to his power and grace: however, as he had been the happy instrument of first
preaching the Gospel to them, and of begetting them again through it; of founding and
raising such a large flourishing church as they were; it was no inconsiderable proof of his
apostleship.
4. HERY, Blessed Paul, in the work of his ministry, not only met with opposition
from those without, but discouragement from those within. He was under reproach;
false brethren questioned his apostleship, and were very industrious to lessen his
character and sink his reputation; particularly here at Corinth, a place to which he had
been instrumental in doing much good, and from which he had deserved well; and yet
there were those among them who upon these heads created him great uneasiness. Note,
It is no strange nor new thing for a minister to meet with very unkind returns for great
good-will to a people, and diligent and successful services among them. Some among the
Corinthians questioned, if they did not disown, his apostolical character. To their cavils
he here answers, and in such a manner as to set forth himself as a remarkable example of
that self-denial, for the good of others, which he had been recommending in the former
chapter. And, 1. He asserts his apostolical mission and character: Am I not an apostle?
Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? To be a witness of his resurrection was one great
branch of the apostolical charge. “Now,” says Paul, “have not I seen the Lord, though not
immediately after his resurrection, yet since his ascent?” See 1Co_4:8. “Am I not free?
Have I not the same commission, and charge, and powers, with the other apostles? What
respect, or honour, or subsistence, can they challenge, which I am not at liberty to
demand as well as they?” It was not because he had no right to live of the gospel that he
maintained himself with his own hands, but for other reasons. 2. He offers the success of

his ministry among them, and the good he had done to them, as a proof of his
apostleship: “Are not you my work in the Lord? Through the blessing of Christ on my
labours, have not I raised a church among you? The seal of my apostleship are you in
the Lord. Your conversion by my means is a confirmation from God of my mission.”
Note, The ministers of Christ should not think it strange to be put upon the proof of
their ministry by some who have had experimental evidence of the power of it and the
presence of God with it.
5. JAMISO, 1Co_9:1-27. He confirms his teaching as to not putting a stumbling-block
in a brother’s way (1Co_8:13) by his own example in not using his undoubted
rights as an apostle, so as to win men to Christ.
Amos I not an apostle? am I not free? — The oldest manuscripts read the order
thus, “Amos I not free? am I not an apostle?” He alludes to 1Co_8:9, “this liberty of
yours”: If you claim it, I appeal to yourselves as the witnesses, have not I also it? “Amos I
not free?” If you be so, much more I. For “am I not an apostle?” so that I can claim not
only Christian, but also apostolic, liberty.
have I not seen Jesus — corporeally, not in a mere vision: compare 1Co_15:8,
where the fact of the resurrection, which he wishes to prove, could only be established by
an actual bodily appearance, such as was vouchsafed to Peter and the other apostles. In
Act_9:7, Act_9:17 the contrast between “the men with him seeing no man,” and “Jesus
that appeared unto thee in the way,” shows that Jesus actually appeared to him in going
to Damascus. His vision of Christ in the temple (Act_22:17) was “in a trance.” To be a
witness of Christ’s resurrection was a leading function of an apostle (Act_1:22). The best
manuscripts omit “Christ.”
ye my work in the Lord — Your conversion is His workmanship (Eph_2:10)
through my instrumentality: the “seal of mine apostleship” (1Co_9:2).
6. RWP, Am I not free? (Oukeimieleutherosʤ). Free as a Christian from Mosaic
ceremonialism (cf. 1Co_9:19) as much as any Christian and yet he adapts his moral
independence to the principle of considerate love in 1Co_8:13.
Am I not an apostle? (oukeimiapostolosʤ). He has the exceptional privileges as an
apostle to support from the churches and yet he foregoes these.
Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? (ouchiIēsountonKurionhēmōnheorakaʤ). Proof
(1Co_15:8; Act_9:17, Act_9:27; Act_18:9; Act_22:14, Act_22:17.; 2Co_12:1.) that he has
the qualification of an apostle (Act_1:22) though not one of the twelve. Note strong form
of the negative ouchi here. All these questions expect an affirmative answer. The perfect
active heoraka from horaō, to see, does not here have double reduplication as in Joh_
1:18.
Are not ye? (ouhumeisesteʤ). They were themselves proof of his apostleship.
7. CALVI, 1.Am I not free? He confirms by facts what he had stated immediately
before, — that he would rather never taste of flesh during his whole life, than give
occasion of stumbling to a brother, and, at the same time, he shows that he requires

nothing more from them than what he had himself practiced. And, assuredly,
natural equity requires that whatever law is imposed by any one upon others,
should be submitted to by himself. More especially a Christian teacher should
impose upon himself this necessity, that he may have it always in his power to
confirm his doctrine by an exemplary life. We know by experience, that it is a very
unpleasant thing that Paul required from the Corinthians — to refrain, for the sake
of their brethren, from making use of the liberty that was allowed them. He could
scarcely have demanded this, if he had not taken the lead and shown them the way.
And he had, it is true, promised that he would do this, but, as he might not be
believed by all on his simply promising for the future, he makes mention of what he
had already done. He brings forward a remarkable instance, in respect of his having
denied himself the liberty which he might otherwise have used, purely in order that
he might give the false Apostles no occasion for calumniating. He had preferred to
earn his food with his own hands, rather than be supported at the expense of the
Corinthians, to whom he administered the Gospel.
He treats, however, at great length of the right of the Apostles to receive food and
clothing. This he does, partly for the purpose of stirring them up the more to forego
many things for the sake of their brethren after his example, because they were
unduly tenacious in the retaining of their own rights, and partly for the purpose of
exposing more fully in view the unreasonableness of calumniators, who took
occasion for reviling from what was anything but blameworthy. He speaks, also,
interrogatively, in order to press the matter home more closely. The question — Am
I not free? is of a general nature. When he adds — Am I not an Apostle ? he
specifies a particular kind of liberty. “If I am an Apostle of Christ, why should my
condition be worse than that of others?” Hence he proves his liberty on the ground
of his being an Apostle.
Have I not seen Jesus Christ ? He expressly adds this, in order that he may not be
reckoned inferior in any respect, to the other Apostles, for this one thing the
malevolent and envious bawled out on all occasions — that he had received from the
hands of men whatever he had of the gospel, inasmuch as he had never seen Christ.
And, certainly, he had not had converse with Christ while he was in the world, but
Christ had appeared to him after his resurrection. It was not a smaller privilege,
however, to have seen Christ in his immortal glory, than to have seen him in the
abasement of mortal flesh. He makes mention, also, afterwards of this vision, (1
Corinthians 15:8,) and mention is made of it twice in the Acts, (Acts 9:3, and Acts
22:6.) Hence this passage tends to establish his call, because, although he had not
been set apart as one of the twelve, there was no less authority in the appointment
which Christ published from heaven.
Are not ye my work ? He now, in the second place, establishes his Apostleship from
the effect of it, because he had gained over the Corinthians to the Lord by the
gospel. ow this is a great thing that Paul claims for himself, when he calls their
conversion his work, for it is in a manner a new creation of the soul. But how will
this correspond with what we had above — that

he that planteth is nothing, and he that watereth is nothing?
(1 Corinthians 3:7.)
I answer, that as God is the efficient cause, while man, with his preaching, is an
instrument that can do nothing of itself, we must always speak of the efficacy of the
ministry in such a manner that the entire praise of the work may be reserved for
God alone. But in some cases, when the ministry is spoken of, man is compared with
God, and then that statement holds good — He that planteth is nothing, and he that
watereth is nothing; for what can be left to a man if he is brought into competition
with God? Hence Scripture represents ministers as nothing in comparison with
God; but when the ministry is simply treated of without any comparison with God,
then, as in this passage, its efficacy is honorably made mention of, with signal
encomiums. For, in that case, the question is not, what man can do of himself
without God, but, on the contrary, God himself, who is the author, is conjoined with
the instrument, and the Spirit’s influence with man’s labor. In other words, the
question is not, what man himself accomplishes by his own power, but what God
effects through his hands.
8. EBC, MAINTENANCE OF THE MINISTRY
IN the preceding chapter Paul has disposed of the question put to him regarding meats
offered in sacrifice to idols. He has taken occasion to point out that in matters morally
indifferent Christian men will consider the scruples of weak, and prejudiced, and
superstitious people. He has inculcated the duty of accommodating ourselves to the
consciences of less enlightened persons, if we can do so without violating our own. For
his own part, he is prepared, while the world standeth, to abridge his Christian liberty, if
by his using that liberty he may imperil the conscience of any weak brother. But keeping
pace, as Paul always does, with the thought of those he writes to, he no sooner makes
this emphatic statement than it occurs to him that those in Corinth who are ill-affected
towards him will make a handle even of his self-denial, and will whisper or boldly
declare that it is all very fine for Paul to use this language, but that, in point of fact, the
precarious position he holds in the Church makes it incumbent on him to deny himself
and become all things to all men. His apostleship stands on so insecure a basis that he
has no option in the matter, but must curry favour with all parties. He is not on the same
platform as the original Apostles, who may reasonably stand upon their apostleship, and
claim exemption from manual labour, and demand maintenance both for themselves
and their wives. Paul remains unmarried, and works with his hands to support himself,
and makes himself weak among the weak, because he has no claim to maintenance and
is aware that his apostleship is doubtful. He proceeds, therefore, with some pardonable
warmth and righteous indignation, to assert his freedom and apostleship (1Co_9:1-2),
and to prove his right to the same privileges and maintenance as the other Apostles
(1Co_9:3-14); and then from the fifteenth to the eighteenth verse he gives the true
reason for his foregoing his rightful claim; and in vv. 1Co_9:19-22 he reaffirms the
principle on which he uniformly acted, becoming all things to all men, suiting himself
to the innocent prejudices and weaknesses of all, that he might by all means save some.
Paul then had certain rights which he was resolved should be acknowledged, although he
waived them. He maintains that if he saw fit, he might require the Church to maintain
him, and to maintain him not merely in the bare way in which he was content to live, but
to furnish him with the ordinary comforts of life. He might, for example, he says, require

the Church to enable him to keep a wife and to pay not only his own, but her, travelling
expenses. The other Apostles apparently took their wives with them on their apostolic
journeys, and may have found them useful in gaining access for the Gospel to the
secluded women of Eastern and Greek cities. He might also, he says, forbear working;
might cease, that is to say. from his tent making and look to his converts for support. He
is indignant at the sordid, or malicious, or mistaken spirit which could deny him such
support.
This claim to support and privilege Paul rests on several grounds. 1. He is an apostle,
and the other Apostles enjoyed these privileges. Have we not power to take with us a
Christian woman as a wife, as well as other Apostles? Or I only and Barnabas, have not
we power to forbear working? His proof of his apostleship is summary: Have I not
seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord? No one could be an apostle
who had not seen Jesus Christ after His resurrection. The Apostles were to be witnesses
to the Resurrection, and were qualified to be so by seeing the Lord alive after death. But
it seems to have been commonly urged against Paul that he had not been among those to
whom Christ showed Himself after He rose from the dead. Paul therefore both in his
reported speeches and in his letters insists upon the fact that on the way to Damascus he
had seen the risen Lord.
But not everyone who had seen the Lord after His resurrection was an apostle, but those
only who by Him were commissioned to witness to it; and that Paul had been thus
commissioned he thinks the Corinthians may conclude from the results among
themselves of his preaching. The Church at Corinth was the seal of his apostleship. What
was the use of quibbling about the time and manner of his ordination, when the reality
and success of his apostolic work were so apparent? The Lord had acknowledged his
work. In presence of the finished structure that draws the world to gaze, it is too late to
ask if he who built it is an architect. Would that every minister could so prove the
validity of his orders!
2. Paul maintains his right to support on the principle of remuneration everywhere
observed in human affairs. The soldier does not go to war at his own expense, but
expects to be equipped and maintained in efficiency by those for whom he fights. The
vine dresser, the shepherd, every labourer, expects, and is certainly warranted in
expecting, that the toil he expends will at least have the result of keeping him
comfortably in life.
However difficult it is to lay down an absolute law of wages, this may at least be affirmed
as a natural principle: that labour of all kinds must be so paid as to maintain the
labourer in life and efficiency; and it may be added that there are certain inalienable
human rights, such as the right to bring up a family the members of which shall be
useful and not burdensome to society, the right to some reserve of leisure and of
strength which the labourer may use for his own enjoyment and advantage, which rights
will be admitted and provided for when out of the confused war of theories, and strikes,
and competition a just law of wages has been won. Happily no one now needs to be told
that one of the most striking results of our modern civilisation is that the nineteenth-century
labourer has less of the joy of life than the ancient slave, and that we have
forgotten the fundamental law that the husbandman that laboureth must be first
partaker of the fruits.
And lest anyone should sanctimoniously or ignorantly say, These secular principles
have no application to sacred things, Paul anticipates the objection, and dismisses it:
Say I these things as a man? or saith not the Law the same also? I am not introducing
into a sacred religion principles which rule only in secular matters. Does not the Law

say, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn? It must be allowed to live
by its labour. As it threshes out the wheat, it must be allowed to feed itself, mouthful, by
mouthful, as it goes on with its work. And this was not said in the Law because God had
any special care for oxen, but in order to give expression to the law which must regulate
the connection between all labourers and their work that he that plougheth may plough
in hope, may have a personal interest in his work, and may give himself ungrudgingly to
it, assured that he himself will be the first to benefit by it.
This law that a man shall live by his labour is a two-edged law. If a man produce what
the community needs, he should himself profit by the production; but, on the other
hand, if a man will not work, neither should he eat. Only the man who produces what
other men need, only the man who by his industry or capability contributes to the good
of the community, has any right to profits. Quick and easy manipulations of money,
shrewd and risky dexterities which yield no real benefit to the community, deserve no
remuneration. It is a blind, sordid, and contemptible spirit that hastes to be rich by one
or two successful transactions that profit no one. A man should be content to live on
what he is worth to the community. Here also our minds are often confused by the
complexities of business; but on that account it is all the more necessary that we firmly
adhere to the few essential canons, such as that trading ceases to be just when it ceases
to benefit both parties, or that a man’s wealth should truly represent his value to
society. Conscience enlightened by allegiance to the Spirit of Christ is a much more
satisfactory guide for the individual in trade, speculation, and investment than any trade
customs or economic theories.
3. A third ground on which Paul rests his claim to be supported by the Church is
ordinary gratitude: If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we
shall reap your carnal things? Some of the Churches founded by Paul spontaneously
acknowledged this claim, and wished to free him from the necessity of labouring for his
own support. They felt that the benefit they had derived from him could not be stated in
terms of money; but prompted by irrepressible gratitude, they could not but seek to
relieve him from manual labour and set him free for higher work. This method of
gauging the amount of spiritual benefit absorbed, by its overflow in material aid given to
the propagation of the Gospel would, I dare say, scarcely be relished by that monstrous
development the niggardly Christian.
4. Lastly, Paul argues from the Levitical usage to the Christian. Both in heathen
countries and among the Jews it was customary that they who ministered in holy things
should live by the offerings of the people to the Temple. Levites and priests alike had
been thus maintained among the Jews. Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which
preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. Were there no recorded command of the
Lord to this effect, we might suppose Paul merely argued that this was the Lord’s will;
but among the original instructions given to the seventy who were first sent to preach
the kingdom of heaven, we find this: Into whatsoever house ye enter, there remain,
eating and drinking such things as they give, for the labourer is worthy of his hire.
That evils may result from the existence of a paid ministry no one will be disposed to
deny. Some of the most disastrous abuses in the Church of Christ, as well as some of the
gravest political troubles, could never have arisen had there been no desirable benefices.
Lucrative ecclesiastical posts and offices have necessarily excited the avarice of unworthy
aspirants, and have weakened instead of strengthening the Church’s influence. Many
wealthy ecclesiastics have done nothing for the benefit of the people, whereas many
laymen by their unpaid devotedness have done much. In view of these and other evils, it
cannot surprise us to find that again and again it has occurred to good men to suppose

that on the whole Christianity might be more effectively propagated were there no
separate class of men set apart to this work as their sole occupation. But this idea is
reactionary and extreme, and is condemned both by common sense and by the express
declarations of our Lord and His Apostles. If the work of the ministry is to be thoroughly
done, men must give their whole time to it. Like every other professional work, it will
often be done inadequately; and I dare say there is much in our methods which is unwise
and susceptible of improvement: but the ministry keeps pace with the general
intelligence of the country, and may be trusted to adapt its methods, even though too
tardily for some ardent spirits, to the actual necessities. And if men give their whole time
to the work, they must be paid for it, a circumstance which is not likely to lead to much
evil in our own country so long as the great mass of ministers are paid as they presently
are. It is hardly the profession which is likely to be chosen by anyone who is anxious to
coin his life into money. If the laity consider that covetousness is more unseemly in a
Christian minister than in a Christian man, they have taken an effectual means of
barring out that vice.
Paul felt himself the more free to urge these claims because his custom was to forego
them all in his own case. I have used none of these things; neither have I written these
things, that it should be so done unto me; for it were better for me to die, than that any
man should make my glorying void. Here again we come upon the sound judgment and
honest heart that are never biased by his own personal circumstances or insist that what
is fit for him is fit for everyone. How apt are self-denying men to spoil their self-denial by
dropping a sneer at the weaker souls that cannot follow their heroic example. How ready
are men who can live on little and accomplish much to leave the less robust Christians to
justify on their own account their need of human comforts. Not so Paul. He first fights
the battle of the weak for them, and then disclaims all participation in the spoils. What a
nobility and sagacity in the man who himself would accept no remuneration for his
work, and who yet, so far from thinking slightingly of those who did or even being
indifferent to them, argues their case for them with an authoritative force they did not
themselves possess.
Nor does he consider that his self-denial is at all meritorious. He has no desire to
signalise himself as more disinterested than other men. On the contrary, he strives to
make it appear as if this course were compulsory and as if no choice were left to him. His
fear was that if he took remuneration, he should hinder the Gospel of Christ. Some of
the best incomes in Greece in Paul’s day were made by clever lecturers and talkers, who
attracted disciples, and initiated them into their doctrines and methods.
Paul was resolved he should never be mistaken for one of these. And no doubt his
success was partly due to the fact that men recognised that his teaching was a labour of
love, and that he was impelled by the truth and importance of his message. Every man
finds an audience who is inwardly impelled to speak; who speaks, not because he is paid
for doing so, but because there is that in him which must find utterance.
This, says Paul, was his case. Though I preach the Gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for
necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the Gospel! His call to the
ministry had been so exceptional, and had so distinctly and emphatically declared the
grace and purpose of Christ, that he felt bound by all that can constrain a man to the
devotedness of a lifetime. Paul felt what we now so clearly see: that on him lay the
gravest responsibilities. Had he declined to preach, had he complained of bad usage, and
stipulated for higher terms, and withdrawn from the active propagation of Christianity,
who would or could have taken up the task he laid down? But while Paul could not but
be conscious of his importance to the cause of Christ, he would arrogate to himself no

credit on account of his arduous toil, for from this, he says, he could not escape;
necessity was laid upon him. Whether he does his work willingly or unwillingly, still he
must do it. He dare not flinch. If he does it willingly, he has a reward; if he does it
unwillingly, still he is entrusted with a stewardship he dare not neglect. What then is the
reward he has, giving himself, as he certainly does, willingly to the work? His reward is
that when he preaches the Gospel he makes the Gospel of Christ without charge. The
deep satisfaction he felt in dissociating the Gospel of self-sacrifice from every thought of
money or remuneration and in offering it freely to the poorest as His Master’s fit
representative was sufficient reward for him and incalculably greater than any other he
ever got or could conceive.
In other words, Paul saw that however it might be with other men, with him there was
no alternative but to preach the Gospel; the only alternative was-was he to do it as a
slave entrusted with a stewardship, and who was compelled, however reluctant he might
be, to be faithful, or was he to do it as a free man, with his whole will and heart? The
reluctant slave could expect no reward; he was but fulfilling an obligatory, inevitable
duty. The free man might, however, expect a reward; and the reward Paul chose was that
he should have none-none in the ordinary sense, but really the deepest and most abiding
of all: the satisfaction of knowing that, having freely received, he had freely given, and
had lifted the Gospel into a region quite undimmed by the suspicion of self-seeking or
any mists of worldliness.
In declining pecuniary remuneration, Paul was acting on his general principle of making
himself the servant of all and of living entirely and exclusively for the good of others.
Though I be free from all men, yet have 1 made myself servant unto all, that I might
gain the more. It was from Paul that Luther derived his two propositions which he
uttered as the keynote of the resonant blast on Christian Liberty with which he stirred
all Europe into new life: A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to
none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to everyone. So
Paul’s independence of all men was assumed and maintained for the very purpose of
making himself the more effectually the servant of all. To the Jew and to those under the
Law he became as a Jew, observing the seventh day, circumcising Timothy, abstaining
from blood, accommodating himself to all their scruples. To those who were without the
Law, and who had been brought up in Greece, he also conformed himself, freely entering
into their innocent customs, calling no meats unclean, appealing, not to the law of
Moses, but to conscience, to common sense, to their own poets. I am made all things to
all men, that I might by all means save some-a course which none but a man of wide
sympathy and charity, clear intellect, and thorough integrity can adopt.
For Paul was no mere latitudinarian. While accommodating himself to the practice of
those around him in all matters of mere outward observance, and which did not touch
the essentials of morality and faith, he at the same time held very definite opinions on
the chief articles of the Christian creed. No amount of liberality of sentiment can ever
induce a thoughtful man to discourage the formation of opinion on all matters of
importance. On the contrary, the only escape from mere traditionalism or the tyranny of
authority in matters of religion is in individual inquiry, and ascertainment of the truth.
Free inquiry is the one instrument we possess for the discovery of truth; and by pursuing
such inquiry men may be expected to come to some agreement in religious belief, as in
other things. No doubt righteousness of life is better than soundness of creed. But is it
not possible to have both? It is better to live in the Spirit, to be meek, chaste, temperate,
just, loving, than to understand the relation of the Spirit to God and to ourselves; but the
human mind can never cease to seek satisfaction: and truth, the more clearly it is seen,

will the more effectually nourish righteousness.
Again, Paul had an end in view which preserved his liberality from degenerating. He
sought to recommend himself to men, not for his sake, but for theirs. He saw that
conscientious scruples were not to be confounded with malignant hatred of truth, and
that if we are to be helpful to others, we must begin by appreciating the good they
already possess. Hostile criticism or argument for the sake of victory produces no results
worth having. Vain exultation in the victors, obstinacy and bitterness in the vanquished-these
are worse than useless, the retrograde results of unsympathetic argument. In order
to remove a man’s difficulties, you must look at them from his point of view and feel the
pressure he feels. The greatest orator save one of antiquity has left it on record that he
always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not still greater, intensity than even
his own; and certainly those who have not entered into the point of view of those who
differ from them are not likely to have anything of importance to say to them. In order to
gain men, you must credit them with some desire to see the truth, and you must have
sympathy enough to see with their eyes. Parents sometimes weaken their influence with
their children by inability to look at things with the eyes of youth, and by an insistence
upon the outward expressions of religion which are distasteful to children and suitable
only for adults. Children have a high esteem for justice and courage, and can respond to
exhibitions of self-sacrifice and truth, and purity; that is to say, they have a capacity for
admiring and adopting the essentials of the Christian character, but if we insist upon
them exhibiting feelings which are alien to their nature and practices necessarily
distasteful and futile, we are more likely to drive them from religion than to attract them
to it. Let us beware of insisting on alterations in conduct where these are not absolutely
necessary. Let us beware of identifying religion in the minds of the young with a rigid
conformity in outward things, and not with an inward spirit of love and goodness. Are
you striving to gain some? Then let these words of the Apostle warn you not to seek for
the wrong thing, not to begin at the wrong end, not to measure the hold which truth has
over those you seek to win, by the exactness with which all your ideas are carried out and
all your customs observed. Human nature is an infinitely various thing, and often there
is the truest regard for what is holy and Divine disguised under a violent departure from
all ordinary ways of manifesting reverence and piety. Put yourself in the place of the
inquiring, perplexed, embittered soul, find out the good that is in it, patiently
accommodate yourself to its ways so far as you legitimately may, and you will be
rewarded by gaining some.
9. BI, Signs of apostleship
Why should Paul, departing from his usual custom, speak here of himself and his
claims? Undoubtedly because these were questioned. Now wishing to incite the
Corinthians to self-denial, Paul exemplified this virtue; but to make this effective it was
necessary that he should assert and vindicate his position and rights. If he had no special
commission from Christ, there was no virtue in renouncing privileges which never were
his. The signs of his apostleship were—
I. The vision of christ. Not that every one who saw Jesus became an apostle; but that
none became an apostle who had not seen and been commissioned by Him. No doubt he
had been contrasted with the twelve to his disadvantage in these respects. But Paul
would not submit to an imputation which must needs weaken his authority. He had seen
the Lord on the way to Damascus, had heard His voice, and been entrusted with a
special mission to the Gentiles. He had not been preaching the gospel at the instigation

of his own inclinations, but in obedience to the authority of Christ.
II. Success in apostolic labour. The craftsman proves his ability by the work he does; the
sailor by his navigation of the vessel; the soldier by his courage and skill. So the apostle
acknowledges the justice of the practical test.
1. Paul appealed to his work. Labour is misspent when no results ensue. But his
labour had not been in vain.
2. The workmanship of the apostle was also his seal, i.e., it bore the mark and
witness of his character, ability and office. A competent judge, looking to the
Churches Paul had founded, would admit them to be evidence of his apostleship.
3. The signs were manifest in the very community where his authority was
questioned. There is irony and force in the appeal made to the Corinthians. Whoever
raised a question they should not. (Prof. J. R. Thomson.)
The leading characteristics of a truly great gospel minister
The greater minister of Christ
I. The More Independent Of Ceremonial Restrictions. Paul was an apostle, and had
“seen Christ,” a qualification that distinguished him as a minister from all but eleven
others. Besides this, his natural and acquired endowments placed him in the first rank of
reasoners, scholars, and orators. He was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, c. But see
how he regarded the mere conventionalities of religious society. “Am I not an apostle?
Am I not free?”—referring to the eating of meat offered to idols, c. (1Co_8:13). The
greater the man, always the more independent he is of forms, fashions, customs.
Hezekiah called that which his countrymen worshipped “Nehushtan,” a piece of brass.
Cromwell called that glittering insignia of authority on the table of the House of
Commons a “bauble,” Thomas Carlyle called all the pageantry of office and the glitter of
wealth “shams.” Burns called the swaggering lordling a “coof.” A famous French
preacher began his funeral address over the coffin of his sovereign with “There is
nothing great but God.” What cared Elijah for kings? Nothing. Felix trembled before the
moral majesty of Paul, even in chains.
II. The higher the services he renders to society (1Co_9:1-2). “He that converteth a
sinner from the error of his ways, c. What work approaches this in grandeur and
importance? And the man who succeeds in accomplishing it demonstrates the divinity of
his ministry (1Co_9:3).
III. The more independent he is of the innocent enjoyments of life (1Co_9:4-5). Paul
claims the privilege to eat and drink as he pleased, and to marry or not.
IV. The more claim he has to the temporal support of those whom he spiritually serves
(1Co_9:6-14). The reasons are—
1. The general usage of mankind (1Co_9:7). He illustrates the equity of the principle
from the cases of the soldier, the agriculturist, and the shepherd.
2. The principle of the Jewish law (1Co_9:8-9). “Doth God take care for oxen?” Yes;
but is not man greater than the ox? And shall he work and be deprived of temporal
supplies?
3. The principles of common equity (1Co_9:11).

4. Other apostles and their wives were thus supported (1Co_9:6-12). Have we done
less? Is our authority inferior?
5. The support of the Jewish priesthood (1Co_9:13).
6. The ordination of Christ (1Co_9:14; cf. Mat_10:10). Looking at all that Paul says
on that question here, the conviction cannot be avoided that no man has a stronger
claim to a temporal recompense than a true gospel minister. Albeit no claims are so
universally ignored. Call the money you pay to your butcher, baker, lawyer, doctor,
“charity”; but in the name of all that is just, do not call that charity which you tender
to the man who consecrates his entire being and time to impart to you the elements
of eternal life.
V. The more ready to surrender his claims for the sake of usefulness. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
A true minister
We see in these verses—
I. What it is that constitutes a true minister.
1. Communion with Christ. “Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord?”
2. Souls won for Christ. “Are not ye my work in the Lord?”
II. The true minister ought to be recognised by his people.
1. Courtesy demands it.
2. His message demands it.
3. His work requires it.
4. Their consciousness declares it.
III. It is often better to answer foolish questions than to pass them by.
1. For the sake of individual character.
2. For the sake of the Christian Church.
3. For the sake of mankind. (A. F. Barfield.)
The claims of the Christian minister
I. Are founded—
1. Upon his character as—
(1) A messenger of Christ.
(2) A man.
(3) A Christian.
2. Upon his work.
II. Include—
1. The common rights of man.

2. The particular right to a just compensation for his labour.
III. Should be enforced—
1. With moderation.
2. With a due regard for the interests of the gospel.
IV. Ought to be relinquished rather than occasion reproach: still the right remains, and
will finally be established. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
Maintenance of the ministry
In the preceding chapter Paul has disposed of the question as to meats offered in
sacrifice to idols. He has inculcated the duty of accommodating ourselves to the
consciences of others, and is prepared to abridge his own Christian liberty. But keeping
pace, as he always does, with the thought of his readers, it at once occurs to him that his
opponents will declare that his apostleship stands on so insecure a basis that he has no
option in the matter, but must curry favour with all parties. The original apostles may
reasonably claim exemption from manual labour, and demand maintenance both for
themselves and their wives; but Paul has no such claim to maintenance, and is aware
that his apostleship is doubtful. He therefore—
I. Asserts his right to the same privileges and maintenance as the other apostles (1-14).
He rests his claim on—
1. His apostleship (1Co_9:1-6). No one could be an apostle who had not seen Christ
after His resurrection. Paul therefore, both in his speeches and in his letters, insists
that on the way to Damascus he had seen the risen Lord. But an apostle was also one
who was commissioned to bear witness to this fact; and that Paul had been thus
commissioned he thinks the Corinthians may conclude from the results among
themselves of his preaching. In presence of the finished structure that draws the
world to gaze, it is too late to ask if he who built it is an architect.
2. The principle of remuneration everywhere observed in human affairs (1Co_9:7).
However difficult it is to lay down an absolute law of wages, it may be affirmed as a
natural principle that labour must be so paid as to maintain the labourer in life and
efficiency; as to enable him to bring up a family which shall be useful and not
burdensome to society, and as to secure for him some reserve of leisure for his own
enjoyment and advantage. Paul anticipates the objection that these secular principles
have no application to sacred things (1Co_9:8-9). But this law is two-edged. If a man
produce what the community needs, he should himself profit by the production; but,
on the other hand, if a man will not work, neither should he eat.
3. Ordinary gratitude (1Co_9:11). And some of the Churches founded by Paul felt
that the benefit they had derived from him could not be stated in terms of money;
but prompted by irrepressible gratitude, they could not but seek to relieve him from
manual labour and set him free for higher work. The method of gauging the amount
of spiritual benefit absorbed, by its overflow in material aid given to the propagation
of the gospel would, I daresay, scarcely be relished by that monstrous development
the niggardly Christian.
4. The Levitical usage (1Co_9:13-14). That evils may result from the existence of a
paid ministry no one will be disposed to deny. But if the work of the ministry is to be
thoroughly done, men must give their whole time to it; and therefore must be paid

for it; a circumstance which is not likely to lead to much evil while the great mass of
ministers are paid as they are.
II. Gives the true season for foregoing his lawful claim. Paul felt the more free to urge
them because his custom was to forego them (1Co_9:15). How apt are self-denying men
to spoil their self-denial by dropping a sneer at the weaker souls that cannot follow their
heroic example. Not so Paul. He first fights the battle of the weak for them, and then
disclaims all participation in the spoils. Nor does he consider that his self-denial is at all
meritorious. On the contrary, he makes it appear as if no choice were left to him. His fear
was that if he took remuneration, he “should hinder the gospel of Christ.” Some of the
best incomes in Greece were made by clever lecturers; Paul was resolved he should never
be mistaken for one of these. And no doubt his success was partly due to the fact that
men recognised that his teaching was a labour of love, Every man finds an audience who
speaks, not because he is paid for doing so, but because there is that in him which must
find utterance. Paul felt that on him lay the gravest responsibilities. Had he complained
of bad usage, and stipulated for higher terms, and withdrawn, who could have taken up
the task he laid down? But while Paul could not but be conscious of his importance, he
would arrogate to himself no credit. Whether he does his work willingly or unwillingly,
still he must do it. If he does it willingly, he has a reward; if he does it unwillingly, still he
is entrusted with a stewardship he dare not neglect. What, then, is the reward? The
satisfaction of knowing that, having freely received, he had freely given (1Co_9:18).
III. Reaffirms the principle on which he has uniformly acted. It was from Paul (1Co_
9:19) that Luther derived the keynote of his blast “on Christian Liberty” with which he
stirred Europe into new life: “A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to
none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to every one.” But
Paul was no mere latitudinarian. While accommodating himself to the practice of those
around him in all matters (1Co_9:20-23) in all matters of mere outward observance, he
held very definite opinions on the chief articles of the Christian creed. No liberality can
ever induce a thoughtful man to discourage the formation of opinion on all matters of
importance. No doubt righteousness of life is better than soundness of creed. But is it
not possible to have both? Again, Paul had an end in view which preserved his liberality
from degenerating (1Co_9:22). In order to remove a man’s difficulties, you must look at
them from his point of view and feel the pressure he feels. In order to “gain” men, you
must credit them with some desire to see the truth, and you must have sympathy enough
to see with their eyes. Parents sometimes weaken their influence with their children by
inability to look at things with the eyes of youth. Put yourself in the place of the
inquiring, perplexed, embittered soul, find out the good that is in it, patiently
accommodate yourself to its ways so far as you legitimately may, and you will be
rewarded by “gaining some.” (M. Dods, D. D.)
Abstinence from rightful privileges
Verse 27 is commonly quoted in the Calvinistic Controversy, to prove the possibility of
the believer’s final fall. In reality, it has nothing whatever to do with it. The word
“castaway,” is literally “reprobate,” that which, being tested, fails. “Reprobate silver shall
men call them.” St. Paul says, “Lest when I have preached to others, I myself, when tried
by the same standard, should fail.” In chap. 8. Paul had laid down the principle that it
was good to respect the scruples of weaker brethren (1Co_8:13). But to this teaching an
objection might be raised. Does the apostle practise what he preaches? Or it is merely a
fine sentiment? Does he preach to others, himself being a castaway, i.e., one who being

tested is found wanting? The whole of the chapter is an assertion of his consistency.
Note:—
I. Paul’s right to certain privileges, viz., domestic solaces and ministerial maintenance.
This right he bases on four arguments:
1. By a principle universally recognised in human practice. A king warring on behalf
of a people, wars at their charge—a planter of a vineyard expects to eat of the fruit—a
shepherd is entitled to the milk of the flock. All who toil for the good of others derive
an equivalent from them. Gratuitous devotion of life is nowhere considered
obligatory.
2. By a principle implied in a Scriptural enactment (1Co_8:9). The ox was provided
for, not because it was an ex, but because it was a labourer.
3. By a principle of fairness and reciprocity. Great services establish a claim. If they
owed to the apostle their souls, his time had a claim on their gold.
4. By the law of the Temple Service. The whole institution of Levites and priests
implied the principle that there are two kinds of labour—of hand and of brain: and
that the toilers with the brain, though not producers, have a claim on the
community. They are essential to its well-being, and are not mere drones.
II. His valiant abstinence from these privileges (2Co_8:12; 2Co_8:15). Note—
1. His reasons.
(1) He was forced to preach the gospel, and for the preaching of it, therefore, no
thanks were due. But he turned his necessity to glorious gain. By forfeiting pay he
got reward: and in doing freely what he must do, he became free. When “I must”
is changed into “I will,” you are free.
(2) His object was to gain others (verse 19) His whole life was one great
illustration of this principle: free from all, he became the servant of all.
2. The general principles of our human life. You cannot run as you will; there are
conditions (verse 24). You cannot go on saying, I have a right to do this, therefore I
will do it. You must think how it will appear, not for the sake of mere respectability,
or to obtain a character for consistency, but for the sake of others. And its conditions
are as those of a wrestling march—you must be temperate in all things—i.e., abstain
from even lawful indulgences. Remember no man liveth to himself. The cry, “Am I
my brother’s keeper?” is met by St. Paul’s clear, steadfast answer, “You are.” (F. W.
Robertson, M. A.)
If I be not an apostle unto others … I am to you; for the seal of mine
apostleship are ye in the Lord.—
The successful minister
I. His happiness.
1. Success.
2. Divine attestation.
II. His claims upon—

1. The respect.
2. Affection.
3. Help.
4. Support of his charge. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The seal of apostleship
I. Consists in actual success—in the conviction and conversion of sinners.
II. Establishes the claim to apostleship—because it—
1. Indicates the Divine call and blessing.
2. Is of more value than human authorisation.
III. Entitles a minister to the special regard of those to whose spiritual benefit he has
contributed. If no claim on others—yet on you for sympathy, love, support. (J. Lyth, D.
D.)
Mine answer to those that do examine me is this.—
Ministerial independence
I. Attempts are often made to limit the free action of Christian ministers; as in apostolic
times, so now.
II. These attempts should be resisted with Christian dignity and in a Christian spirit—
Paul’s answer—he excludes all interference with—
1. His manner of life.
2. His personal and domestic associations. His mode of working. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
The right of the ministry to support
Observe—
I. The occasion of the apostle’s appeal.
1. Not selfish (1Co_8:12).
2. Some disputed his apostleship and its rights (1Co_8:3).
II. His assertion of his right—
1. To support for himself—for his wife if he thought proper to marry.
2. Sufficient to free him from the necessity of manual labour.
III. His defence of his right—is sustained by an appeal to—
1. Human justice.
2. The law.
3. The sense of gratitude.

4. Divine ordination under the law, under the gospel. (J. Lyth, D. D.)
2. Even though I may not be an apostle to others,
surely I am to you! For you are the seal of my
apostleship in the Lord.
1. BARES, If I be not an apostle unto others - “If I have not given evidence to
others of my apostolic mission; of my being sent by the Lord Jesus, yet I have to you.
Assuredly you, among whom I have labored so long and so successfully, should not
doubt that I am sent from the Lord. You have been well acquainted with me; you have
witnessed my endowments, you have seen my success, and you have had abundant
evidence that I have been sent on this great work. It is therefore strange in you to doubt
my apostolic commission; and it is unkind in you so to construe my declining to accept
your contributions and aid for my support, as if I were conscious that I was not entitled
to that.”
For the seal of mine apostleship. - Your conversion is the demonstration that I
am an apostle. Paul uses strong language. He does not mean to say that their conversion
furnished some evidence that he was an apostle; but that it was absolute proof, and
unbreakable demonstration, that he was an apostle. A “seal” is that which is affixed to a
deed, or other instrument, to make it firm, secure, and indisputable. It is the proof or
demonstration of the validity of the conveyance, or of the writing; see the notes at Joh_
3:33; Joh_6:27. The sense here is, therefore, that the conversion of the Corinthians was
a certain demonstration that he was an apostle, and should be so regarded by them, and
treated by them. It was such a proof:
(1) Because Paul claimed to be an apostle while among them, and God blessed and
owned this claim;
(2) Their conversion could not have been accomplished by man. It was the work of
God. It was the evidence then which God gave to Paul and to them, that he was
with him, and had sent him.
(3) They knew him, had seen him, heard him, were acquainted with his doctrines and
manner of life, and could bear testimony to what he was, and what he taught.
We may remark, that the conversion of sinners is the best evidence to a minister that
he is sent of God. The divine blessing on his labors should cheer his heart, and lead him
to believe that God has sent and that he approves him. And every minister should so live
and labor, should so deny himself, that he may be able to appeal to the people among
whom he labors that he is a minister of the Lord Jesus.

2. CLARKE, If I be not an apostle unto others - If there be other Churches
which have been founded by other apostles; yet it is not so with you.
The seal of mine apostleship are ye - Your conversion to Christianity is God’s
seal to my apostleship. Had not God sent me, I could not have profited your souls.
The σφραγις or seal, was a figure cut in a stone, and that set in a ring, by which letters
of credence and authority were stamped. The ancients, particularly the Greeks, excelled
in this kind of engraving. The cabinets of the curious give ample proof of this; and the
moderns contend in vain to rival the perfection of those ancient masters.
In the Lord - The apostle shows that it was by the grace and influence of God alone
that he was an apostle, and that they were converted to Christianity.
3. GILL, If I be not an apostle unto others,.... This is said by way of supposition,
not concession; for he was an apostle to many others; he was an apostle of the Gentiles
in general; as the apostleship of the circumcision belonged to Peter, that of the
uncircumcision fell to his share: but however, as if he should say, be that as it will,
yet doubtless I am to you; all the signs of apostleship were wrought among them; not
only the grace of God was implanted in them under his ministry, but the extraordinary
gifts of the Spirit were received by them through it; and many signs, wonders, and
mighty deeds, were done in the midst of them by him: see 2Co_12:12 which were
sufficient to put the matter quite out of doubt with them:
for the seal of mine apostleship, are ye in the Lord; alluding to the sealing of
deeds and writings, which render them authentic; or to the sealing of letters, confirming
the truth of what is therein expressed; and the sense is, that their being converted
persons, and so openly in the Lord, in union with him; or being made new creatures by
the power of his grace, through his preaching, was an authentic proof of his apostleship,
and served him instead of a letter testimonial and recommendatory; see 2Co_3:1. Some
copies read, the seal of my epistle, and so the Ethiopic version.
4. HERY, 2. He offers the success of his ministry among them, and the good he
had done to them, as a proof of his apostleship: “Are not you my work in the Lord?
Through the blessing of Christ on my labours, have not I raised a church among you?
The seal of my apostleship are you in the Lord. Your conversion by my means is a
confirmation from God of my mission.” Note, The ministers of Christ should not think it
strange to be put upon the proof of their ministry by some who have had experimental
evidence of the power of it and the presence of God with it. 3. He justly upbraids the
Corinthians with their disrespect: “Doubtless, if I am not an apostle to others, I am so to
you, 1Co_9:2. I have laboured so long, and with so much success, among you, that you,
above all others, should own and honour my character, and not call it in question.” Note,
It is no new thing for faithful ministers to meet with the worst treatment where they
might expect the best. This church at Corinth had as much reason to believe, and as little
reason to question, his apostolical mission, as any; they had as much reason, perhaps
more than any church, to pay him respect. He had been instrumental in bringing them
to the knowledge and faith of Christ; he laboured long among them, nearly two years,
and he laboured to good purpose, God having much people among them. See Act_18:10,

Act_18:11. It was aggravated ingratitude for this people to call in question his authority.
5. JAMISO, yet doubtless — yet at least I am such to you.
seal of mine apostleship — Your conversion by my preaching, accompanied with
miracles (“the signs of an apostle,” Rom_15:18, Rom_15:19; 2Co_12:12), and your gifts
conferred by me (1Co_1:7), vouch for the reality of my apostleship, just as a seal set to a
document attests its genuineness (Joh_3:33; Rom_4:11).
6. CALVI, 2.If I am not an Apostle to others The sum of this tends to the
establishing of his authority among the Corinthians, so as to place it beyond all
dispute. “If there are those,” says he, “who have doubts as to my Apostleship, to
you, at least, it ought to be beyond all doubt, for, as I planted your Church by my
ministry, you are either not believers, or you must necessarily recognize me as an
Apostle. And that he may not seem to rest in mere words, he states that the reality
itself was to be seen, (479) because God had sealed his Apostleship by the faith of the
Corinthians. Should any one, however, object, that this suits the false Apostles too,
who gather disciples to themselves, I answer, that pure doctrine is above all things
required, in order that any one may have a confirmation of his ministry in the sight
of God from its effect. There is nothing, therefore, here to furnish impostors with
matter of congratulation, if they have deceived any of the populace, nay, even
nations and kingdoms, by their falsehoods. Although in some cases persons are the
occasion of spreading the kingdom of Christ, who, nevertheless, do not preach the
gospel sincerely, as is said in Philippians 1:16, it is not without good reason that
Paul infers from the fruit of his labor, that he is divinely commissioned: for the
structure of the Corinthian Church was such, that the blessing of God could easily
be seen shining forth in it, which ought to have served as a confirmation of Paul’s
office.
3. This is my defense to those who sit in judgment
on me.
1. BARES, Mine answer - Greek μ!πολογία Hēemēapologia. My “apology;”
my defense. The same word occurs in Act_22:1; Act_25:16; 2Co_7:11; Phi_1:7, Phi_1:17;
2Ti_4:16; 1Pe_3:15; see the note at Act_22:1. Here it means his answer, or defense
against those who sat in judgment on his claims to be an apostle.
To them that do examine me. - To those who “inquire” of me; or who “censure”
and condemn me as not having any claims to the apostolic office. The word used here

νακρίνω anakrinō is properly a forensic term, and is usually applied to judges in courts;
to those who sit in judgment, and investigate and decide in litigated cases brought before
them; Luk_23:14; Act_4:9; Act_12:19; Act_24:8. The apostle here may possibly allude
to the arrogance and pride of those who presumed to sit as judges on his qualification for
the apostolic office. It is not meant that this answer had been given by Paul before this,
but that this was the defense which he had to offer.
Is this - This which follows; the statements which are made in the following verses. In
these statements (1Co_9:4-6, etc.) he seems to have designed to take up their objections
to his apostolic claims one by one, and to show that they were of no force.
2. CLARKE, Mine answer to them - εμηαπολογιατοιςεμεανακρινουσιν· This is
my defense against those who examine me. The words are forensic; and the apostle
considers himself as brought before a legal tribunal, and questioned so as to be obliged
to answer as upon oath. His defense therefore was this, that they were converted to God
by his means. This verse belongs to the two preceding verses.
3. GILL, Mine answer to them that do examine me is this. These words are
referred by some to the following, as if the apostle's answer lay in putting the questions
he does in the next verses; but they rather seem to belong to the preceding, and the
meaning to be this, that when any persons called in question his apostleship, and
examined him upon that head, what he thought fit to say in answer to them, and in
defence of himself, was by referring them to the famous church at Corinth, who were as
particular persons, and as a church, his work in the Lord, and everyone of them as so
many seals of his apostleship; he being the first preacher of the Gospel to them, the
founder of them as a church, and the instrument of their conversion.
4. HERY 3-6, Having asserted his apostolical authority, he proceeds to claim the
rights belonging to his office, especially that of being maintained by it.
I. These he states, 1Co_9:3-6. “My answer to those that do examine me (that is, enquire
into my authority, or the reasons of my conduct, if I am an apostle) is this: Have we not
power to eat and drink (1Co_9:4), or a right to maintenance? Have we not power to
lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and
Cephas; and, not only to be maintained ourselves, but have them maintained also?”
Though Paul was at that time single, he had a right to take a wife when he pleased, and
to lead her about with him, and expect a maintenance for her, as well as himself, from
the churches. Perhaps Barnabas had a wife, as the other apostles certainly had, and led
them about with them. For that a wife is here to be understood by the sister - woman -
adelphēngunaika, is plain from this, that it would have been utterly unfit for the apostles
to have carried about women with them unless they were wives. The word implies that
they had power over them, and could require their attendance on them, which none
could have over any but wives or servants. Now the apostles, who worked for their
bread, do not seem to have been in a capacity to buy or have servants to carry with them.
Not to observe that it would have raised suspicion to have carried about even women-servants,
and much more other women to whom they were not married, for which the
apostles would never give any occasion. The apostle therefore plainly asserts he had a
right to marry as well as other apostles, and claim a maintenance for his wife, nay, and
his children too, if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his own hands

to procure it. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to for bear working? 1Co_
9:6. In short, the apostle here claims a maintenance from the churches, both for him and
his. This was due from them, and what he might claim.
5. RWP, My defence (hēemēapologia). Original sense, not idea of apologizing as
we say. See note on Act_22:1; note on Act_25:16. Refers to what precedes and to what
follows as illustration of 1Co_8:13.
To them that examine me (toisemeanakrinousin). See note on 1Co_2:15; note on
1Co_4:3. The critics in Corinth were “investigating” Paul with sharp eyes to find faults.
How often the pastor is under the critic’s spy-glass.
6. BARCLAY, At first sight this chapter seems quite disconnected from what goes
before but in fact it is not. The whole point lies in this--the Corinthians who
considered themselves mature Christians have been claiming that they are in such a
privileged position that they are free to eat meat offered to idols if they like. Their
Christian freedom gives them--as they think--a special position in which they could
do things which might not be permissible to lesser men. Paul's way of answering
that argument is to set forth the many privileges which he himself had a perfect
right to claim, but which he did not claim in case they should turn out to be
stumbling-blocks to others and hindrances to the effectiveness of the gospel.
First, he claims to be an apostle, which immediately set him in a very special
position. He uses two arguments to prove the reality of his apostleship.
(i) He has seen the Lord. Over and over again the Book of Acts makes it clear that
the supreme test of an apostle is that he is a witness of the Resurrection. (Acts 1:22;
Acts 2:32; Acts 3:15; Acts 4:33). This is of intense importance. Faith, in the ew
Testament, is very seldom acquiescence in a creed; it is almost always trust in a
person. Paul does not say, I know what I have believed. He says, I know whom I
have believed. (2 Timothy 1:12). When Jesus called his disciples, he did not say to
them, I have a philosophy which I would like you to examine, or, I have an
ethical system which I would like you to consider, or, I offer you a statement of
belief which I would like you to discuss. He said, Follow me. All Christianity
begins with this personal relationship with Jesus Christ. To be a Christian is to
know him personally. As Carlyle once said when a minister was being chosen,
What this Church needs is someone who knows Christ other than at second-hand.
(ii) Paul's second claim is that his ministry has been effective. The Corinthians
themselves are the proof of that. He calls them his seal. In ancient days the seal was
extremely important. When a cargo of grain or dates or the like was being sent off,
the last thing done was that the containers were sealed with a seal to show that the
consignment was genuinely what it claimed to be. When a will was made it was
sealed with seven seals; and it was not legally valid unless it was produced with the
seven seals intact. The seal was the guarantee of genuineness. The very fact of the
Corinthian Church was the guarantee of Paul's apostleship. The final proof that a

man himself knows Christ is that he can bring others to him. It is said that once a
young soldier, lying in pain in a hospital, said to Florence ightingale as she bent
over to tend him, You are Christ to me. The reality of a man's Christianity is best
proved by the fact that he helps others to be Christian.
The privilege that Paul might have claimed was support from the Church. ot only
could he have claimed such support for himself but also for a wife. In fact the other
apostles did receive such support. The Greeks despised manual labour; no free
Greek would willingly work with his hands. Aristotle declared that all men were
divided into two classes--the cultured and the hewers of wood and drawers of water
who existed solely to perform the menial tasks for the others, and whom it was not
only mistaken but actually wrong to seek to raise and educate. The enemies of
Socrates and Plato had in fact taunted them because they took no money for
teaching, and had hinted that they did so because their teaching was worth nothing.
It is true that every Jewish Rabbi was supposed to teach for nothing and to have a
trade whereby he earned his daily bread; but these same Rabbis took very good care
to inculcate the teaching that there was no more meritorious deed than to support a
Rabbi. If a man wished a comfortable place in heaven he could not better assure
himself of it than by supplying all a Rabbi's needs. On every ground Paul could
have claimed the privilege of being supported by the Church.
He uses ordinary human analogies. o soldier has to provide his own rations. Why
should the soldier of Christ have to do so? The man who plants a vineyard shares in
the fruits. Why should the man who plants churches not do so? The shepherd of the
flock gets his food from the flock. Why should not the Christian pastor do likewise?
Even scripture says that the ox who works the threshing machine is not to be
muzzled but is to be allowed to eat of the grain (Deuteronomy 25:4). As any Rabbi
would, Paul allegorizes that instruction and makes it apply to the Christian teacher.
The priest who serves in the Temple receives his share of the offerings. In Greek
sacrifice the priest, as we have seen, received the ribs, the ham and the left side of
the face. But it is worth while looking at the perquisites of the priests in the Temple
at Jerusalem.
There were five main offerings. (i) The Burnt-offering. This alone was burnt entire
except the stomach, the entrails and the sinew of the thigh (compare Genesis 32:32).
But even in this the priests received the hides, and did a flourishing trade with them.
(ii) The Sin-offering. In this case only the fat was burned on the altar and the priests
received all the flesh. (iii) The Trespass-offering. Again the fat alone was burned
and the priests received all the flesh. (iv) The Meat-offering. This consisted of flour
and wine and oil. Only a token part was offered on the altar; by far the greater part
was the perquisite of the priests. (v) The Peace-offering. The fat and the entrails
were burned on the altar; the priest received the breast and the right shoulder; and
the rest was given back to the worshipper.
The priests enjoyed still further perquisites. (i) They received the first-fruits of the
seven kinds--wheat, barley, the vine, the fig-tree, the pomegranate, the olive and

honey. (ii) The Terumah (Hebrew #8641). This was the offering of the choicest fruits
of every growing thing. The priests had the right to an average of one fiftieth of any
crop. (iii) The Tithe. A tithe had to be given of everything which may be used as
food and is cultivated and grows out of the earth. This tithe belonged to the
Levites; but the priests received a tithe of the tithe that the Levites received. (iv) The
Challah (Hebrew #2471). This was the offering of kneaded dough. If dough was
made with wheat, barley, spelt, oats or rye, a private individual had to give to the
priests one twenty-fourth part, a public baker one forty-eighth part.
All this is at the back of Paul's refusal to accept even the basic supplies of life from
the Church. He refused for two reasons: (i) The priests were a byword. While the
ordinary Jewish family ate meat at the most once a week the priests suffered from
an occupational disease consequent on eating too much meat. Their privileges, the
luxury of their lives, their rapacity were notorious; Paul knew all about this. He
knew how they used religion as a means to grow fat; and he was determined that he
would go to the other extreme and take nothing. (ii) The second reason was his sheer
independence. It may well be that he carried it too far, because it seems that he hurt
the Corinthians by refusing all aid. But Paul was one of those independent souls
who would starve rather than be beholden to anyone.
In the last analysis one thing dominated his conduct. He would do nothing that
would bring discredit on the gospel or hinder it. Men judge a message by the life
and character of the man who brings it; and Paul was determined that his hands
would be clean. He would allow nothing in his life to contradict the message of his
lips. Someone once said to a preacher, I cannot hear what you say for listening to
what you are. o one could ever say that to Paul.
7. CALVI, 3.My defense. Apart from the principal matter that he has at present
in hand, it appears also to have been his intention to beat down, in passing, the
calumnies of those who clamored against his call, as if he had been one of the
ordinary class of ministers. “I am accustomed,” says he, “to put you forward as my
shield, in the event of any one detracting from the honor of my Apostleship.” Hence
it follows, that the Corinthians are injurious and inimical to themselves, if they do
not acknowledge him as such, for if their faith was a solemn attestation of Paul’s
Apostleship, and his defense, against slanderers, the one could not be invalidated
without the other falling along with it.
Where others read — those who interrogate me, I have rendered it — those that
examine me — for he refers to those who raised a dispute as to his Apostleship.
(480) Latin writers, I confess, speak of a criminal being interrogated (481) according
to the laws, but the meaning of the word ἀνακρίνειν which Paul makes use of,
seemed to me to be brought out better in this way.

4. Don't we have the right to food and drink?
1. BARES, Have we not power - (ξουσίαν exousian) Have we not the “right.”
The word “power” here is evidently used in the sense of “right” (compare Joh_1:12,
“margin”); and the apostle means to say that though they had not exercised this “right by
demanding” a maintenance, yet it was not because they were conscious that they had no
such right, but because they chose to forego it for wise and important purposes.
To eat and to drink - To be maintained at the expense of those among whom we
labor. Have we not a right to demand that they shall yield us a proper support? By the
interrogative form of the statement, Paul intends more strongly to affirm that they had
such a right. The interrogative mode is often adopted to express the strongest
affirmation. The objection here urged seems to have been this, “You, Paul and Barnabas,
labor with your own hands. Act_18:3. Other religious teachers lay claim to maintenance,
and are supported without personal labor. This is the case with pagan and Jewish
priests, and with Christian teachers among us. You must be conscious, therefore, that
you are not apostles, and that you have no claim or right to support.” To this the answer
of Paul is, “We admit that we labor with our own hands. But your inference does not
follow. It is not because we have not a right to such support, and it is not because we are
conscious that we have no such claim, but it is for a higher purpose. It is because it will
do good if we should not urge this right, and enforce this claim.” That they had such a
right, Paul proves at length in the subsequent part of the chapter.
2. CLARKE, Have we not power to eat and to drink? - Have we not authority,
or right, εξουσιαν, to expect sustenance, while we are labouring for your salvation? Meat
and drink, the necessaries, not the superfluities, of life, were what those primitive
messengers of Christ required; it was just that they who labored in the Gospel should
live by the Gospel; they did not wish to make a fortune, or accumulate wealth; a living
was all they desired. It was probably in reference to the same moderate and reasonable
desire that the provision made for the clergy in this country was called a living; and their
work for which they got this living was called the cure of souls. Whether we derive the
word cure from cura, care, as signifying that the care of all the souls in a particular
parish or place devolves on the minister, who is to instruct them in the things of
salvation, and lead them to heaven; or whether we consider the term as implying that
the souls in that district are in a state of spiritual disease, and the minister is a spiritual
physician, to whom the cure of these souls is intrusted; still we must consider that such a
laborer is worthy of his hire; and he that preaches the Gospel should live by the Gospel.
3. GILL, Have we not power to eat and to drink? Having proved his apostleship,
he proceeds to establish his right to a maintenance as a Gospel minister; which he
expresses by various phrases, and confirms by divers arguments: by a power to eat and
drink, he does not mean the common power and right of mankind to perform such
actions, which everyone has, provided he acts temperately, and to the glory of God; nor a

liberty of eating and drinking things indifferent, or which were prohibited under the
ceremonial law; but a comfortable livelihood at the public charge, or at the expense of
the persons to whom he ministered; and he seems to have in view the words of Christ,
Luk_10:7.
4. RWP, Have we no right? (Mēoukechomenexousia5). Literary plural here
though singular in 1Co_9:1. The mē in this double negative expects the answer “No”
while ouk goes with the verb echomen. “Do we fail to have the right?” Cf. Rom_10:18.
(Robertson, Grammar, p. 1173).
5. JAMISO, Have we not power — Greek, “right,” or lawful power, equivalent
to “liberty” claimed by the Corinthians (1Co_8:9). The “we” includes with himself his
colleagues in the apostleship. The Greek interrogative expresses, “You surely won’t say
(will you?) that we have not the power or right,” etc.
eat and drink — without laboring with our hands (1Co_9:11, 1Co_9:13, 1Co_9:14).
Paul’s not exercising this right was made a plea by his opponents for insinuating that he
was himself conscious he was no true apostle (2Co_12:13-16).
6. CALVI, 4.Have we not power ? He concludes from what has been already said,
that he had a right to receive food and clothing from them, (482) for Paul ate and
drank, but not at the expense of the Church. This, then, was one liberty that he
dispensed with. The other was, that he had not a wife — to be maintained, also, at
the public expense. Eusebius infers from these words that Paul was married, but
had left his wife somewhere, that she might not be a burden to the Churches, but
there is no foundation for this, for he might bring forward this, even though
unmarried. In honoring a Christian wife with the name of sister, he intimates, first
of all, by this, how firm and lovely ought to be the connection between a pious pair,
being held by a double tie. Farther he hints at the same time what modesty and
honorable conduct ought to subsist between them. Hence, too, we may infer, how
very far marriage is from being unsuitable to the ministers of the Church. I pass
over the fact, that the Apostles made use of it, as to whose example we shall have
occasion to speak ere long, but Paul here teaches, in general terms, what is allowable
for all.
5. Don't we have the right to take a believing wife
along with us, as do the other apostles and the
Lord's brothers and Cephas[a ]?

1. BARES, Have we not power? - Have we not a right? The objection here
seems to have been, that Paul and Barnabas were unmarried, or at least that they
traveled without wives. The objectors urged that others had wives, and that they took
them with them, and expected provision to be made for them as well as for themselves.
They therefore showed that they felt that they had a claim to support for their families,
and that they were conscious that they were sent of God. But Paul and Barnabas had no
families. And the objectors inferred that they were conscious that they had no claim to
the apostleship, and no right to support. To this Paul replies as before, that they had a
right to do as others did, but they chose not to do it for other reasons than that they were
conscious that they had no such right.
To lead about - To have in attendance with us; to conduct from place to place; and to
have them maintained at the expense of the churches amongst which we labor.
A sister, a wife - Margin, “or woman.” This phrase has much perplexed
commentators. But the simple meaning seems to be, A wife who should be a Christian,
and regarded as sustaining the relation of a Christian sister.” Probably Paul meant to
advert to the fact that the wives of the apostles were and should be Christians; and that it
was a matter of course, that if an apostle led about a wife she would be a Christian; or
that he would marry no other; compare 1Co_3:11.
As well as other apostles - It is evident from this that the apostles generally were
married. The phrase used here is ο6λοιπο7πόστολοι hoiloipoiapostoloi (“the remaining
apostles,” or the other apostles). And if they were married, it is right and proper for
ministers to marry now, whatever the papist may say to the contrary. It is safer to follow
the example of the apostles than the opinions of the papal church. The reasons why the
apostles had wives with them on their journeys may have been various. They may have
been either to give instruction and counsel to those of their own sex to whom the
apostles could not have access, or to minister to the needs of their husbands as they
traveled. It is to be remembered that they traveled among pagans; they had no
acquaintance and no friends there; they therefore took with them their female friends
and wives to minister to them, and sustain them in sickness, trial, etc. Paul says that he
and Barnabas had a right to do this; but they had not used this right because they chose
rather to make the gospel without charge 1Co_9:18, and that thus they judged they could
do more good. It follows from this:
(1) That it is right for ministers to marry, and that the papal doctrine of the celibacy of
the clergy is contrary to apostolic example.
(2) It is right for missionaries to marry, and to take their wives with them to pagan
lands. The apostles were missionaries, and spent their lives in pagan nations as
missionaries do now, and there may be as good reasons for missionaries marrying now
as there were then.
(3) Yet there are people, like Paul, who can do more good without being married.
There are circumstances, like his, where it is not advisable that they should marry, and
there can be no doubt that Paul regarded the unmarried state for a missionary as
preferable and advisable. Probably the same is to be said of most missionaries at the
present day, that they could do more good if unmarried, than they can if burdened with
the cares of families.
And as the brethren of the Lord - The brothers of the Lord Jesus, James and
Joses, and Simon and Judas, Mat_13:55. It seems from this, that although at first they
did not believe in him Joh_7:5, and had regarded him as disgraced Mar_3:21, yet that

they had subsequently become converted, and were employed as ministers and
evangelists. It is evident also from this statement that they were married, and were
attended with their wives in their travels.
And Cephas - Peter; see the note at Joh_1:42. This proves:
(1) As well as the declaration in Mat_8:14, that Peter had been married.
(2) That he had a wife after he became an apostle, and while engaged in the work of
the ministry.
(3) That his wife accompanied him in his travels.
(4) That it is right and proper for ministers and missionaries to be married now.
Is it not strange that the pretended successor of Peter, the pope of Rome, should
forbid marriage when Peter himself was married? Is it not a proof how little the papacy
regards the Bible, and the example and authority of those from whom it pretends to
derive its power? And is it not strange that this doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy,
which has been the source of abomination, impurity, and licentiousness everywhere,
should have been sustained and countenanced at all by the Christian world? And is it not
strange that this, with all the other corrupt doctrines of the papacy, should be attempted
to be imposed on the enlightened people of the United States, or of Great Britain, as a
part of the religion of Christ?
2. CLARKE, Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife - The word
εξουσιαν is to be understood here, as above in 1Co_9:4, as implying authority or right;
and authority, not merely derived from their office, but from Him who gave them that
office; from the constitution of nature; and from universal propriety or the fitness of
things.
When the apostle speaks of leading about a sister, a wife, he means first, that he and
all other apostles, and consequently all ministers of the Gospel, had a right to marry. For
it appears that our Lord’s brethren James and Jude were married; and we have infallible
evidence that Peter was a married man, not only from this verse, but from Mat_8:14,
where his mother-in-law is mentioned as being cured by our Lord of a fever.
And secondly, we find that their wives were persons of the same faith; for less can
never be implied in the word sister. This is a decisive proof against the papistical
celibacy of the clergy: and as to their attempts to evade the force of this text by saying
that the apostles had holy women who attended them, and ministered to them in their
peregrinations, there is no proof of it; nor could they have suffered either young women
or other men’s wives to have accompanied them in this way without giving the most
palpable occasion of scandal. And Clemens Alexandrinus has particularly remarked that
the apostles carried their wives about with them, “not as wives, but as sisters, that they
might minister to those who were mistresses of families; that so the doctrine of the Lord
might without reprehension or evil suspicion enter into the apartments of the women.”
And in giving his finished picture of his Gnostic, or perfect Christian, he says: εσθιει,και
πινει,καιγαμει - εικοναςεχειτουςΑποστολους, He eats, and drinks, and marries - having
the apostles for his example. Vid. Clem. Alex. Strom., lib. vii., c. 12.
On the propriety and excellence of marriage, and its superiority to celibacy, see the
notes on 1Co_7:1, etc.

3. GILL, Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife,.... The phrase a
sister, a wife, is an Hebraism, and answers to אחתיכלה , my sister, spouse, Son_4:9.
The Jews called their wives, sisters, not on account of religion, which also is not the
meaning here; but because of the common relation that men and women, all mankind,
stand in to one another, antecedent to any nearer relation, as that of man and wife. The
sense the Papists put on these words, to secure them from being a proof of the
lawfulness of the marriage of the ministers of the Gospel, can by no means be the true
one; which is, that they are to be understood of a rich woman, or women, the apostles
had a power to carry about with them, to minister of their substance to them, and
provide for them; for such a sense is directly contrary to the subject and argument the
apostle is upon; which is to show the right that he and others had, of casting themselves
entirely upon the churches for a maintenance; whereas this is contriving a way for
relieving the churches of such a charge; besides, the act of leading, or carrying about,
is expressive of such a power over them, as cannot be thought to agree with persons of
such substance; and whose voluntary act this must be, to go along with them and supply
them; add to this, that for the apostles to lead about with them wherever they went
women, whether rich or poor, that were not their wives, would be of no good report, and
must tend to hurt their character and reputation: moreover, though these words clearly
imply the lawfulness of a minister's marriage, and suppose it, yet they do not express the
act itself, or the lawfulness of entering into such a state, but rather what follows after it;
and the sense is this, that the apostle and others, supposing them to have wives, and it
may be added also, and children, they had a right to take these with them wherever they
went, and insist upon the maintenance of them, as well as of their own, at the public
expense:
as well as other apostles; who it seems did so, that had wives and families, as Philip
the Evangelist had four daughters, Act_21:8.
And as the brethren of the Lord: who it seems were married persons, and took such
a method; by whom are meant James, Joses, Judas, and Simon; who were the near
kinsmen of Christ, it being usual with the Jews to call such brethren:
and Cephas; that is, Peter, who it is certain had a wife; see Mat_8:14 and therefore it is
with a very ill grace that the pope, who pretends to be Peter's successor, should forbid
the marriage of ecclesiastical persons.
4. HERY, Having asserted his apostolical authority, he proceeds to claim the
rights belonging to his office, especially that of being maintained by it.
I. These he states, 1Co_9:3-6. “My answer to those that do examine me (that is,
enquire into my authority, or the reasons of my conduct, if I am an apostle) is this: Have
we not power to eat and drink (1Co_9:4), or a right to maintenance? Have we not
power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and the brethren of the
Lord, and Cephas; and, not only to be maintained ourselves, but have them maintained
also?” Though Paul was at that time single, he had a right to take a wife when he pleased,
and to lead her about with him, and expect a maintenance for her, as well as himself,
from the churches. Perhaps Barnabas had a wife, as the other apostles certainly had, and
led them about with them. For that a wife is here to be understood by the sister - woman
- adelphēngunaika, is plain from this, that it would have been utterly unfit for the
apostles to have carried about women with them unless they were wives. The word

implies that they had power over them, and could require their attendance on them,
which none could have over any but wives or servants. Now the apostles, who worked for
their bread, do not seem to have been in a capacity to buy or have servants to carry with
them. Not to observe that it would have raised suspicion to have carried about even
women-servants, and much more other women to whom they were not married, for
which the apostles would never give any occasion. The apostle therefore plainly asserts
he had a right to marry as well as other apostles, and claim a maintenance for his wife,
nay, and his children too, if he had any, from the churches, without labouring with his
own hands to procure it. Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to for bear
working? 1Co_9:6. In short, the apostle here claims a maintenance from the churches,
both for him and his. This was due from them, and what he might claim.
5. JAMISO, lead about a sister, a wife — that is, “a sister as a wife”; “a sister”
by faith, which makes all believers brethren and sisters in the one family of God: “a wife”
by marriage covenant. Paul implies he did not exercise his undoubted right to marry and
“lead about” a believer, for the sake of Christian expediency, as well to save the Church
the expense of maintaining her in his wide circuits, as also that he might give himself
more undistractedly to building up the Church of Christ (1Co_7:26, 1Co_7:32, 1Co_
7:35). Contrast the Corinthians’ want of self-sacrifice in the exercise of their “liberty” at
the cost of destroying, instead of edifying, the Church (1Co_8:9, Margin; 1Co_8:10-13).
as other apostles — implying that some of them had availed themselves of the
power which they all had, of marrying. We know from Mat_8:14, that Cephas (Peter)
was a married man. A confutation of Peter’s self-styled followers, the Romanists, who
exclude the clergy from marriage. Clement of Alexandria [Miscellanies, 7.63] records a
tradition that he encouraged his wife when being led to death by saying, “Remember, my
dear one, the Lord.” Compare Eusebius [Eccleiastical History, 3.30].
brethren of the Lord — held in especial esteem on account of their relationship to
Jesus (Act_1:14; Gal_1:9). James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. Probably cousins of Jesus:
as cousins were termed by the Jews “brethren.” Alford makes them literally brothers of
Jesus by Joseph and Mary.
Cephas — probably singled out as being a name carrying weight with one partisan
section at Corinth. “If your favorite leader does so, surely so may I” (1Co_1:12; 1Co_
3:22).
6. RWP, Have we no right? (Mēoukechomenexousia5). Same idiom.
To lead about a wife that is a believer? (adelphēngunaikaperiagei5). Old verb
periagō, intransitive in Act_13:11. Two substantives in apposition, a sister a wife, a
common Greek idiom. This is a plea for the support of the preacher’s wife and children.
Plainly Paul has no wife at this time.
And Cephas (kaiKēphās). Why is he singled out by name? Perhaps because of his
prominence and because of the use of his name in the divisions in Corinth (1Co_1:12). It
was well known that Peter was married (Mat_8:14). Paul mentions James by name in
Gal_1:19 as one of the Lord’s brothers. All the other apostles were either married or had
the right to be.

I corinthians 9 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to I corinthians 9 commentary

Similar to I corinthians 9 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

I corinthians 9 commentary